GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/11/07/the-dismal-state-of-the-united-states-senate/trackback/

  1. Well with 2 more democrats, if the media is honest they will start to acknowledge that Reid essentially is doing nothing.

    The GOP controlled house has passed budgets, jobs bills and other things to help the economy.

    Harry Reid sits on his hands and Obama writes executive orders.

    At some point the media needs to wake up and realize that they aren’t the propaganda arm of the DNC.

    The GOP is essentially powerless to do much obstruction. If Obama and the senate really wanted to get stuff done, they would make friendly overtures and be willing to actually compromise. Instead Mr. “I won” thinks he is the dictator in chief and Reid thinks his job is to well do nothing.

    My government at the moment sucks. It really sucks and I hope the House holds firm on the important stuff, but I also hope they will try to work with the senate and Obama if the Senate and Obama are truly willing to work with them, and aren’t just looking for a scapegoat when the economy goes to hell in a handbasket-well actually the economy is almost there, what’s worse than hell? Cause that’s the next stop on the handbasket trail.

    Comment by Just Me — November 7, 2012 @ 10:38 am - November 7, 2012

  2. America reaaaally blew it last night, no getting around it.

    Lefties will still be miffed, of course, because they are stuck with their Guantanamo-operating SCOAMF of a president. He remains a failure, in terms of leading America toward anything positive. Being re-elected doesn’t help, it makes it worse. He ‘inherits’ now the many problems now that He either created, or made worse. He is in way over His head today, same as yesterday.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2012 @ 10:45 am - November 7, 2012

  3. Obviously, I would have loved for the GOP to retake the Senate. But it’s absolutely awful that we couldn’t at least have had a net gain rather than a net loss. Dropping down to 45 senators won’t make much of a difference in the next two years, given that we would still have plenty to block cloture votes, especially given that two of the most likely to side with the Democrats, Brown and Snowe, are gone. (This is not to say I am glad they are; I’m not.) But it does make retaking the Senate in 2014 much more difficult (although not impossible given the number of vulnerable Dems and lack of Republicans up for reelection). Winning blue states is tough, but there’s no excuse for losing MT, ND, MO, and IN.

    Comment by chad — November 7, 2012 @ 11:00 am - November 7, 2012

  4. Don’t you worry your pretty heads, the House will get all the blame.

    Comment by Annie — November 7, 2012 @ 11:20 am - November 7, 2012

  5. Can we agree that the republican leadership, Bonehead and that idiot McConnell especially, need to be replaced? Can we agree that Carl Rove needs to go where no one can hear him ever again?

    Comment by Richard Bell — November 7, 2012 @ 11:37 am - November 7, 2012

  6. Good commentary at Powerline.

    Put bluntly, the takers outnumber the makers. The polls in this election cycle diverged in a number of ways, but in one respect they were remarkably consistent: every poll I saw, including those that forecast an Obama victory, found that most people believed Mitt Romney would do a better job than Barack Obama on the economy. So with the economy the dominant issue in the campaign, why did that consensus not assure a Romney victory? Because a great many people live outside the real, competitive economy. Over 100 million receive means tested benefits from the federal government, many more from the states. And, of course, a great many more are public employees. To many millions of Americans, the economy is mostly an abstraction.

    Then there is the fact that relatively few Americans actually pay for the government they consume. To a greater extent than any other developed nation, we rely on upper-income people to finance our federal government. When that is combined with the fact that around 40% of our federal spending isn’t paid for at all–it is borrowed–it is small wonder that many self-interested voters are happy to vote themselves more government. Mitt Romney proclaimed that Barack Obama was the candidate of “free stuff,” and voters took him at his word.

    The question is, can this vicious cycle ever be broken? Once we are governed by a majority that no longer believes in the America of the Founding, is there any path back to freedom and prosperity? The next four years will bring unprecedented levels of spending, borrowing and taxation. The national debt will rise to $20 trillion or more. When interest rates increase, as they inevitably must, interest costs will squeeze out other government spending. That might not be all bad, except that defense will go first. If Obama’s second term turns into a disaster, fiscal or otherwise, voter revulsion may return the Republicans to power. But that doesn’t mean that America will be saved.

    There’s more.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2012 @ 11:41 am - November 7, 2012

  7. Can we agree that [K]arl Rove needs to go where no one can hear him ever again?

    No, because he wasn’t the problem. The thing I just quoted, kinda nails it.

    - America has become a nation of takers, more than makers.
    - Therefore, the rules are changing. Per the polls, EVERYONE KNEW that Romney would be better on the economy. But now, for the first time, that didn’t matter (or not enough). Because more and more people think of “the economy” as something that magical productive gnomes make happen, while they collect benefits.

    You can’t blame a man for being one among many who did not see the new rules.

    Hinderaker’s larger point is that we need to face up to the fact that America is no longer a center-right country; socialist ideology has become dominant, and to win elections, NEW conservative (or at least pro-free enterprise) voters must be converted.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2012 @ 11:49 am - November 7, 2012

  8. Bonehead and that idiot McConnell especially, need to be replaced? Can we agree that Carl Rove needs to go where no one can hear him ever again?

    I will concur.

    I would rather see McConnell replaced out of the three, but I think it is time for some new blood-especially creative, risk takers in the various leadership positions.

    I also think the GOP should work to really groom and promote some of their young, articulate movers and shakers. I think the DNC will quickly do everything they can to assassinate their character, but I think the GOP overly relies on elder statesmen whose turn has come.

    I want the house to work with the idiots who control the senate only when their desire to work with the house is legitimate. My guess is the Reid faction of the idiots in the senate are going to try to ram through crap and then drop it in the GOP’s lap and blame them.

    Best for the house to tread carefully.

    Not sure what the GOP can do about the media. It is pretty clear that the MSM can’t be trusted to cover the democrats with any amount of honesty much less with a critical eye. What the GOP needs are a few mouthpieces who aren’t afraid of being eaten by the MSM to take the MSM on at every turn and drop their rooting for the democrats in their laps at all turns.

    Comment by Just Me — November 7, 2012 @ 11:53 am - November 7, 2012

  9. Oh, and I also think it would probably serve the democrats, the senate, the congress and the American people if the democrats replaced Reid as well.

    Comment by Just Me — November 7, 2012 @ 11:54 am - November 7, 2012

  10. From Ed Morrissey:

    In the final couple of weeks of the presidential campaign, we had a big debate over the nature of the American electorate, played out through polling criticism on both sides of the political divide… Many conservatives — myself among them, to be sure — operated on the assumption that the 2008 election had been the anomaly, driven by the fiscal crisis, and corrected in the 2010 midterm elections. The Left assumed that the fiscal crisis in 2008 had realigned the electorate toward greater government interventionism, and that the 2010 cycle was the anomaly…

    Clearly, conservatives lost that argument last night… The partisan split in the electorate was 38/32/29, nearly identical to 2008. We argued that Barack Obama and Democrats couldn’t win a base turnout election again, but they did, as evidenced by Mitt Romney’s five-point win among independents, 50/45. Romney even lowered the gender gap from an Obama +14 in 2008 to Obama +4 in 2012, but that clearly wasn’t enough…

    A nation of where takers are dominant. I think that’s the best explanation. It fits with what we’ve all seen and known is going on, these last few years. It explains why voters would know Romney, the job-creating success, to be better on the economy, and yet still vote for the economy-wrecking failure who buys them stuff.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2012 @ 12:03 pm - November 7, 2012

  11. P.S. Clearly, I was wrong to have predicted a D+2 election where Romney takes Independents by at least 8 points.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2012 @ 12:04 pm - November 7, 2012

  12. And the MFM have found a new way to destroy GOP candidates, ask them about abortion-rape.

    The answer to this question need not be difficult. A smart pro-life candidate could turn it around the interrogator: Do leftists believe a child who was conceived as a result of rape deserves to be hated, scorned, and abused by society? I am sure many do, but I think normal people don’t.

    Comment by V the K — November 7, 2012 @ 12:17 pm - November 7, 2012

  13. I am a Lesbian, Fiscal Conservative, middle of the road Independent voter. When will the Republican Party learn that you can not alienate a huge portion of the population simply for your moral beliefs.

    I would have gladly voted for Mitt, had it not been for all negative comments on marriage, abortion etc.

    It’s time to worry about the debt, jobs, healthcare, and not about who I sleep with.

    Comment by MEstrada — November 7, 2012 @ 1:00 pm - November 7, 2012

  14. My definition of a taker – someone worth tens of millions of dollars who cries and whines like a child at the prospect of his or her effective tax rate getting a little closer to the effective tax rates of the middle class.

    You know, demanding tax breaks and special rules for how your compensation is treated could be considered an entitlement, too.

    Comment by Levi — November 7, 2012 @ 1:13 pm - November 7, 2012

  15. I have given up trying to explain math to Levi.

    Comment by V the K — November 7, 2012 @ 1:17 pm - November 7, 2012

  16. Or expecting him to talk about any real person.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2012 @ 1:22 pm - November 7, 2012

  17. Also, economics. I still do not see how a vast and constantly expanding Government can be supported by a declining economic base.

    Comment by V the K — November 7, 2012 @ 1:23 pm - November 7, 2012

  18. It can’t and won’t. Obama inherits the coming collapse of the U.S. dollar (hastened, rather than prevented, by His policies of the last 4 years). Question is, will He still get away with blaming Bush?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2012 @ 1:28 pm - November 7, 2012

  19. I would have gladly voted for Mitt, had it not been for all negative comments on marriage, abortion etc.

    It’s time to worry about the debt, jobs, healthcare, and not about who I sleep with.

    Comment by MEstrada — November 7, 2012 @ 1:00 pm – November 7, 2012

    But you cast your vote based solely on who you sleep with, so who cares?

    Your portfolio and retirement account are collapsing? Too bad, you wanted gay-sex marriage instead.

    You lost your job? Too bad, you wanted gay-sex marriage instead.

    Your taxes are going up? Too bad, you wanted gay-sex marriage instead.

    Americans got killed in a terrorist attack? Too bad, you wanted gay-sex marriage instead.

    This is my answer to you and your ilk from this point forward. You voted based on your grievance group status, and if you want help, you can wave your gay-sex marriage certificate and beg your Obamamessiah for it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2012 @ 1:32 pm - November 7, 2012

  20. Winning blue states is tough, but there’s no excuse for losing MT, ND, MO, and IN.

    There is when the candidates have more issues than their platforms, and/or shoot themselves in the crotch.

    Montana–could have been an easy win, but there’s something about Denny Rehberg that makes my skin crawl just a bit, and I’m a Republican. Still, I don’t live there so I don’t get the full impact of having him represent me. Perhaps other voters saw the same quality and decided the same, even though the thought of Jon Tester massaging Barry’s backside for another four years was distasteful.

    North Dakota–always somewhat of a populist state which has had no problems electing Democrats at the Federal level before. Should have been an R win, though. But—throw in a candidate who was a lite version of Mitt Romney (both in life experience and net worth) who promises to bring the lucrative economy of Western ND to the rest of the state without realizing that that same economy has created a lot of problems that are visible to the nation as well as the rest of the state. Kind of like how the Keystone XL pipeline is great—until the proposed route goes through your back yard. Doesn’t help when your opponent can’t be easily portrayed as a Barry bootlicker and succeeds in distancing herself from the national ticket.

    Missiouri–at least one of the senatorial candidates showed the Show Me State more than a barely-passable combover. Yo, Representative Akin…you just get appointed to your seat in Congress? Been in a monastery for a couple decades? No? Then why on earth did you shoot yourself in the scrotum with stupid remarks about “legitimate rape” like you had never been on camera or in front of a microphone before?! And then have the audacity to whine when the rest of your party put the distance between St Louis and Santiago between them and your remarks. Do everyone (but especially yourself) a favor: go out to the toolshed, strip a 16-gauge extension cord to the bare wire, plug it in, and flagellate yourself with it until you have a heart attack. Idiot.

    Indiana–another self-righteous lover of buckshot in the ballsack. See Missouri. Richard, you were given a golden opportunity when you ousted a Senate barnacle (well-respected and decent though he may be) and correctly pointed out that his connections to Indiana were more historical than anything rooted in current reality. You even had Michelle Malkin as an early supporter, plus a boatload of conservative cash ready to flow into your campaign coffers. So what did you do? You took a lesson–the wrong one–from fellow Midwesterner Todd Akin and apparently decided that he was getting undue attention for dopey remarks and chose to expand on his theory of rape plus add a theological spin to it for your own campaign: rape is God’s divine plan. You then doubled down on your remark by adding to the theological spin and talking about God and biology in the same breath. You do realize you’re running for US Senate, not dean of your congregation’s Sunday School teachers, don’t you? Did you get too much coal dust or something in your previous life as a geologist? Take your next vacation and spend some time in a rape crisis center or something. Moron.

    So yeah, all those states should be easy Republican victories. But if you don’t have the right candidates, then even weak Dems will survive. Doesn’t do anyone any favors—especially the DC Dems who are counting on warm bodies with a backbone to carry forth the master plan.

    Comment by RSG — November 7, 2012 @ 1:40 pm - November 7, 2012

  21. My definition of a taker – someone worth tens of millions of dollars who cries and whines like a child at the prospect of his or her effective tax rate getting a little closer to the effective tax rates of the middle class.

    You know, demanding tax breaks and special rules for how your compensation is treated could be considered an entitlement, too.

    Comment by Levi — November 7, 2012 @ 1:13 pm – November 7, 2012

    But since you’re a tax cheat, Levi, who the hell cares?

    You and your party pushed and endorsed outright tax cheats. You are such a stinking hypocrite on this that it’s not even funny.

    Why should anyone pay their taxes when you won’t, worthless child?

    Why should anyone pay their taxes when Obama Party multimillionaires can dodge them at will?

    This is why the next frontier in conservative lawfare is very simple and very straightforward.

    First, you wanted higher taxes; we’re going to make damn sure you pay them.

    Second, let Obama’s tax increase that’s due in January go through and let the sequestration take place. You wanted it so badly; you can eat it. Republicans need to stand firm and watch as the Obama puppets like yourself who scream about “the rich” have your own taxes jacked to the roof.

    You won’t learn until you actually have to pay bills. And since we know every last one of you Obama shills is going to cheat based on your own Obama’s practices, we’re going to make sure you pay every last dime you owe on every single transaction you make.

    Furthermore, it’s time to erase any type of tax rate reductions. Everyone pays something. Make Barack Obama’s base actually start paying for their Obamaphones, food stamps, and rent subsidies.

    Republicans tried being nice and reducing the tax burden on people of lower income. They turned around and demanded more goodies for less contribution. In that case, they can have more goodies, but at a higher rate of contribution.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2012 @ 1:45 pm - November 7, 2012

  22. Sorry Mr North Dallas but you have me all wrong. I happen to be one of those whose income is above $200M so I will pay more in taxes….no problem. When I try to hire individuals for positions which have been open and unfilled for months, I get persons without the proper education, skills, experience. Maybe we need to do something about that too.
    I don’t give a damn about gay marriage. I don’t need a piece of paper to tell me that 28 years means something. I do however fight for the ability to have the same rights you and your wife have when it comes to pension benefits, SSI, estate planning, etc.
    Oh I forgot to mention that I’m also a veteran who feels we need to stop getting involved in conflicts we have no business being in. It’s time to bring home the troops and take care of our own.

    Comment by MEstrada — November 7, 2012 @ 2:08 pm - November 7, 2012

  23. MEstrada, you are right, this WAS the time to worry about the debt, jobs and healthcare. You, apparently, chose to fret about Mitt’s disagreeing with who you sleep with, even though there’s not a chance in a million he could affect homosexuals in general. Obama, on the other hand, newly discovers that gay marriage is fine–BUT he’s happy to leave that one thing to the states, so he’s not likely to help you in any way–though I’m sure it’s nice to know he likes you, he really, really likes you.

    My gay sister, 59 years old, along with 2 other women, was laid off last spring from her job of 25 years with a group of doctors, a cost-cutting measure, they said (thank you ObamaCare). Think Obama will work hard to find her a job? Or will I have to support her when her unemployment runs out (which I WILL do)? Or, best of all, will she be supported by Obama with cash from Obama’s “stash”? Because few will be starting or expanding businesses with Obama and the Dems in control–and I do mean CONTROL–of the economy, and there will be strong competition for what jobs currently exist.

    Comment by Polly — November 7, 2012 @ 2:18 pm - November 7, 2012

  24. Please list some of the bills the Republican House passed that would have “facilitate[d] job growth.”

    Comment by Another_Jeremy — November 7, 2012 @ 2:32 pm - November 7, 2012

  25. I have given up trying to explain math to Levi.

    When the private sector is in recession, these are the two options;

    1. Fill the void with government spending to maintain/generate momentum on the economy. The government spending should be mostly dedicated to providing necessities to newly unemployed/impoverished and infrastructure projects that will generate lasting economic opportunities for decades.

    2. Give the richest people in the country massive tax cuts and like, just kind of hope that they fill the void on their own.

    Option 2 is terrible for the fairly obvious reason that individuals aren’t all that keen on investing when the economy is collapsing. There’s also absolutely no guarantee that the tax cut is immediately re-invested in the American economy, completely negating its intention. Maybe it just sits in a bank somewhere, or maybe it’s a down payment on a mansion in Mexico. All you’re really doing is spraying rich people with money they don’t need and hoping that enough of them feel inexplicably motivated to reinvest their tax cuts in a crumbling economy that barely affects them. This is a plan? Maybe we can count on their patriotism to oh my god I can’t even finish that sentence it will never happen.

    Option 1, on the other hand, guarantees that the money stays in the country and goes towards something economically productive like a bridge or a power plant, and not an ornate water feature in some billionaire’s foyer. Yes, this contributes to the deficit, but not nearly as much as the recession does already, and it ensures that the tax base will expand and grow revenues so that debt can be paid off. And if you did it right, the direct and indirect economic benefits are paying dividends for years.

    One of the most common complaints I hear from you guys is that liberals don’t care about the deficit and just want government spending for the sake of government spending. That’s not true. We advocate for government spending now, as in, after a global economic catastrophe, because it’s the quickest and most efficient way for our economy to recover. This is a circumstance not unlike the Great Depression and World War II, and history is fairly conclusive on this point. We want to get out of this recession as quickly as we can, and the federal government is the only entity large enough to do it.

    By the way, private companies benefit every step of the way. It’s called government spending because the government spends money on things, and it’s the private sector that gets to sell. Government spending creates demand that is noticeably absent during recessions, and the private sector is encouraged to invest in the economy so they can service this demand. So what’s a better way to stimulate the economy? Going to a small business owner and telling them they can get a million dollar contract by selling some kind of product to the government for a public works project, or going to a small business owner and handing them a check for 1 million dollars?

    Comment by Levi — November 7, 2012 @ 2:32 pm - November 7, 2012

  26. So, MEstrada, I’m curious: are you going to be hiring more part-time employees than full-time employees now or in the future? And what is your relationship to the ACA, mandated-compliance, or exempt?

    Comment by RSG — November 7, 2012 @ 2:36 pm - November 7, 2012

  27. It’s time to worry about the debt, jobs, healthcare, and not about who I sleep with.

    Yet in the end that is how you voted. You were worried about who you slept with and voted that way to your own financial detriment and to the detriment of the fiscal health of our nation.

    Romney was actually making this election about the economy, but the democrats made it about who you slept with in order to scare all the gays into thinking Mitt was going to lynch them or something.

    The sad thing is the wealthy people will survive this coming economic disaster-they are already mostly insulated from the current conditions anyway.

    The people who will be hit hardest will the those in the lower middle income groups. Those who work for a living, but who will find they can[‘t afford any healthcare because what their employer provides is too much and the wonderful exchanges won’t be much better.

    They are going to find the price for food, energy, and other basics eating up too much of their income.

    They are going to be the ones who get told by their employers that they are cutting their work week to part time in order to avoid the costs of Obamacare.

    So in the end you did vote who you sleep with and your wallet. Paying a higher tax burden isn’t going to break the bank, and at 200k plus a year, you aren’t going to worry about paying for your gas, or what you are going to do when your transmission dies and there aren’t any affordable used cars on the market (thank you Obama for the dumbest program ever-Cash for Clunkers which effectively took affordable cars for the car out of the market).

    Comment by Just Me — November 7, 2012 @ 2:36 pm - November 7, 2012

  28. The current economic crisis was brought about by a massive private sector debt bubble.

    Levi’s solution: A massive public sector debt bubble. (Coupled with massive new regulations and taxes on industries that can easily relocate to countries with more amenable business climates)

    Like I said, it is futile to try and explain math to a narcissistic sociopath.

    Comment by V the K — November 7, 2012 @ 2:43 pm - November 7, 2012

  29. Nice to know our little fascist is predictable.

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 7, 2012 @ 2:47 pm - November 7, 2012

  30. Aside:

    Option 1, on the other hand, guarantees that the money stays in the country and goes towards something economically productive like a bridge or a power plant, and not an ornate water feature in some billionaire’s foyer.

    Hear that plumbers, designers, masons and other craftsmen? Fascists like Levi don’t care if you ply your trade, as long as he finds it “productive.”

    Rodan’s the Thinker? The works of the Bard? They mean nothing, since they’re not productive.

    The jobs and expansion companies like Paizo created? Not worth a damn to Levi.

    Now hush Levi, the productive adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 7, 2012 @ 2:51 pm - November 7, 2012

  31. When the private sector is in recession, these are the two options;

    1. Fill the void with government spending to maintain/generate momentum on the economy. The government spending should be mostly dedicated to providing necessities to newly unemployed/impoverished and infrastructure projects that will generate lasting economic opportunities for decades.

    2. Give the richest people in the country massive tax cuts and like, just kind of hope that they fill the void on their own.

    So let’s compare the two.

    Bush chose Option 2, and three years later, had a 5% unemployment rate, massive GDP growth, tax revenues rising, and annual budget deficits shrinking.

    Obama chose Option 1, missed every single one of his projections, and three years later has 8-plus percent unemployment, with GDP growth contracting, tax revenues falling, and annual budget deficits exploding.

    The choice is obvious. Option 2 is better. History proves it.

    Meanwhile, Levi, perhaps you didn’t notice it, but the Great Depression lasted for TEN YEARS, despite your Obama Party punishing the rich and doing everything in their power to get rid of those nasty businesses and business owners. Indeed, it lasted all the way through World War II, and the only reason we were able to escape it is because virtually every other country’s industrial base in the world had been bombed out of existence.

    Perhaps that’s your thought in the Obama Party with your arming Iran; they’ll nuke Europe first, and then Pakistan will nuke Europe, and happy days will be here again.

    The basic problem is, Levi, that you are not interested in economic growth; you are interested in theft. You see other people who have more than you do and you go screaming to Mommy to take it from them and give it to you.

    That is why you ascribe nothing but evil motives to “the rich” — aka anyone who has more money than you do. In your twisted and deluded world, every “rich” person is selfish, greedy, evil, and doesn’t deserve what they earned. You seek to demonize and destroy the rich so that you can take what they have.

    That’s really all there is to it. And that’s why your “stimulus” failed. We could have told you it would fail, for one simple reason; you were taking money from producers to give to the unproductive. Indeed, the Obama Party, as represented by Robert Reich, said that “stimulus” funds should be allocated based on skin color and gender instead of on performance.

    That’s what you don’t get, Levi. And we do. The poor are generally poor for a reason: they make worse choices. The rich are generally rich for the opposite reason: they make better choices. Give money to poor people, as we see with lottery winners, and they repeat the same bad choices. Give money to wealthy people, i.e. Mitt Romney, and they multiply it.

    That is blatantly obvious, and yet you refuse to recognize it. You pump trillions of dollars into supporting poor people every year, and yet the number of poor people increases, which means they are consuming and reducing wealth. Meanwhile you scream about “the rich getting richer”, which demonstrates that the wealthy are able to create and grow wealth.

    Like V the K says, you’re not worth the effort. The basic core belief of your Obama Party is that it is better for the economy to give $150k a year to a drunk and call it “stimulus” than it is to reduce the taxes of a business owner who employs hundreds of people the same amount.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2012 @ 3:03 pm - November 7, 2012

  32. The good news about Levis socialist utopia is that it is unsustainable.

    The bad news about Levis socialist utopia is that it is unsustainable.

    Even the Swedes have cut their corporate tax rate.

    Comment by V the K — November 7, 2012 @ 3:07 pm - November 7, 2012

  33. Looks like Levi set up a false choice, the usual tactic of the Left, missing option 0: Let the recession run its course – because a recession is inevitable, after a government-induced bubble like the housing bubble or the dot-com bubble, and the longer Obama postpones it with “stimulus”, the worse it must become – and meanwhile look for ways to get government out of the way of the nation’s job creators.

    The latter may or may not include tax cuts for the poor, the rich, the middle class, small businesses and/or corporations.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2012 @ 3:19 pm - November 7, 2012

  34. The bad news about Levis socialist utopia is that it is unsustainable.

    I don’t think the socialist utopianists have accepted this truth.

    They believe there is a magic money tree orchard growing in DC that can fund endless goodies.

    At some point there aren’t enough rich people to tax either.

    Comment by Just Me — November 7, 2012 @ 3:20 pm - November 7, 2012

  35. Looks like Levi set up a false choice, the usual tactic of the Left, missing option 0:

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 7, 2012 @ 3:19 pm – November 7, 2012

    The funny part is, ILC: even with the false choice, he still lost.

    Levi insists that Barack Obama, the Messiah, the Prince of All Awesomeness, spent every last drop of the “stimulus” on things that were all good and necessary without any waste whatsoever.

    And he still has 8 percent unemployment, collapsing GDP, declining tax revenues, and massive budget deficits and debt expansion.

    Meanwhile, evil Bush in 2001 and 2003 gave tax cuts only to the awful and wicked rich, who did nothing with it but stuff it in their mattresses and build mansions in Mexico.

    And ended up with unemployment under 5%, massive GDP growth, record tax revenues, and declining deficits.

    Again, Levi isn’t concerned about the economy. He’s concerned about getting money from the Obama stash for his weed and, in the process, punishing all those people who actually have jobs and earn more than he does.

    This is the unreality we are dealing with. And that is why I am advocating that Republicans let the Obama tax hikes happen, let sequestration happen, and start levying taxes on welfare benefits. Since Levi thinks the government knows better than him how to spend what money he “earns”, I say we let him put it into practice.

    Of course it will hurt. And it will be wasteful. But the people who will get hammered hardest are the Levis of this world and the Obama base. You, V the K, Bruce, and I are far more able to shield ourselves and work for a living than a pot-smoking worthless drunk like Levi.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2012 @ 3:46 pm - November 7, 2012

  36. v the k, on one aspect that everybody is talking about you are all wrong. It is not a problem of candidates. Democrats are basically people with no morals and would vote for any piece of scum that gets their dirty jobs done. It is even pointless to break scandals on democrats, their electorate (and independents leaning D anyway) won’t care. The gay candidate in Wisconsin used to go to costa rica to pay male prostitutes barely in their teens. I can bet everything I have that even if you had photos, flights tracked, witnesses etc democrats are not decent people enough to restrain from voting, they are fine with voting a sex tourist exploiting underage foreigners! On the other hand Republicans have high standards, moral and fiscal. Don’t know about you, but I’d rather have high standards, lose and being able to look at myself in the mirror rather than win with the scum democrats use.

    I truly believe that you can undig bones of dead babies in any democratic backyard, they will still get 49% of the vote.

    2) All the gay people here complaining that they feel marginalized because of what Romney thinks about gay marriage (what? where? I probably missed this famed press conference where he stated such), if the problem at the end of the day is winning, why a party should be concerned about what less than 1% of the population thinks (of the whole 3% of gays, only less than a third would vote GOP anyway). There is no way for a conservative to have 100% of the gay vote. At most you can hope for 33%. That translates into what? 50,000-100,000?

    I don’t see how this is a winning strategy.

    Comment by susan — November 7, 2012 @ 3:51 pm - November 7, 2012

  37. Looks like Levi set up a false choice, the usual tactic of the Left, missing option 0: Let the recession run its course – because a recession is inevitable, after a government-induced bubble like the housing bubble or the dot-com bubble, and the longer Obama postpones it with “stimulus”, the worse it must become – and meanwhile look for ways to get government out of the way of the nation’s job creators.

    The latter may or may not include tax cuts for the poor, the rich, the middle class, small businesses and/or corporations.

    You really are out of your mind. The government is supposed to sit on its hands and watch unemployment tick past 10, 13, 15%? All because ILC wants to experience the thrill of living in a pure free market. Please, go ahead and move to Somalia if you that’s what you’re looking for. The rest of us would prefer not to see civilization torn down because you want to test the extremes of your discredited economic theories.

    The worse it must become? Effective stimulus leaves behind valuable economic resources that anybody in the country can use for decades after the money is spent. This leads to growth in the private sector in dozens of unexpected ways long after the stimulus is deployed. And here I’ll use the example of the State Department’s GPS, which costs the government $2b a year and serves as the lifeblood of $60-$70 billion of economic activity every year. A long time ago, the government made lots of huge investments, studying space, developing rocketry, and miniaturizing computers (all with the compensated aid of an eager private sector, by the way). Those investments lead to the development of GPS, and 40 years after the space race started, the signal was opened up for private use. Catch that? Government investment in space exploration in 1960 directly lead to a huge technology market worth tens of billions a year nearly a half century later. And you want to come at me with this government-gets-in-the-way nonsense? It’s ridiculous. The government doesn’t just grow the economy, the government literally transforms the economy. It’s inconceivable how an exclusively private sector enterprise could develop and deliver a system like GPS.

    Comment by Levi — November 7, 2012 @ 4:08 pm - November 7, 2012

  38. Susan, I don’t think you missed the press conference Mitt had about gays. He was running on the economy–and didn’t even press on Benghazi, one of Obama’s worst feats.

    But Obama assured every voting group, from gays to blacks to HIspanics to women to the chronically poor, that Mitt would hurt them, and enjoy doing it (he’s very mean-spirited, you know). From a positive, uplifting (if meaningless) campaign in ’08, Obama switched to pure hate and demonization in ’12, and it didn’t hurt him. Guess what future Democrat campaigns will look like.

    Comment by Polly — November 7, 2012 @ 4:18 pm - November 7, 2012

  39. Levi, now the government’s “investing” in Big Union and failed “renewable energy” projects. How the heck are those valuable resources going to help anyone in the future?

    Comment by Polly — November 7, 2012 @ 4:21 pm - November 7, 2012

  40. You really are out of your mind. The government is supposed to sit on its hands and watch unemployment tick past 10, 13, 15%? All because ILC wants to experience the thrill of living in a pure free market. Please, go ahead and move to Somalia if you that’s what you’re looking for. The rest of us would prefer not to see civilization torn down because you want to test the extremes of your discredited economic theories.

    Why not, Levi?

    After all, your Obama Party and you insist that the most effective “stimulus” out there is giving money to the unemployed. Furthermore, you demonize and attack profitable businesses that actually employ people, which shows that you clearly DON’T want people to have jobs.

    Your incoherence in this regard is understandable; your goal is to get more welfare and punish the rich, and that’s really the only thing in which you’re interested. You don’t care about the economy; you just care about getting your checks and punishing the rich.

    And here I’ll use the example of the State Department’s GPS, which costs the government $2b a year and serves as the lifeblood of $60-$70 billion of economic activity every year…….It’s inconceivable how an exclusively private sector enterprise could develop and deliver a system like GPS.

    Comment by Levi — November 7, 2012 @ 4:08 pm – November 7, 2012

    Actually, it’s very easy.

    In fact, people are already doing it.

    Seriously, Levi? Do you have Sirius XM? Have you ever made a cross-continental call? Those are all private satellites.

    Furthermore, you want to blather about $60-$70bn in economic activity each year? That’s approximately how much your bloated and inefficient Medicare system LOSES annually on fraud and waste.

    This is what you won’t acknowledge, you stupid child. You refuse, adamantly REFUSE, to acknowledge ANY government waste. Stupid and ignorant boy Levi wants everything to be nationalized, everything to be government-controlled.

    Why? Because it makes it easier for stupid ignorant boy Levi to steal. That’s it. You do not care about anything other than getting your hands on other peoples’ money.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 7, 2012 @ 4:38 pm - November 7, 2012

  41. It is even pointless to break scandals on democrats, their electorate (and independents leaning D anyway) won’t care.

    This is so true.

    Jesse Jackson Jr. was reelected without campaigning while staying in a hospital recuperating and with an investigation looming over his head (although I suspect Holder and Obama will find a way to save him).

    Charlie Rangle could ave committed a murder and his congressional district would have kept voting for him.

    Ted Kennedy did commit a manslaughter (don’t care that he wasn’t charged, if a non Kennedy did that they would have been) and the great state of Mass sent him back to congress over and over again, and he is revered throughout the democratic party.

    Democrats have few moral standards they aren’t willing to overlook in their candidates. But let a GOP congressman get caught having an affair and the democrats are the first to shoot with both barrels.

    They love to call the GOP the hypocrites.

    Comment by Just Me — November 7, 2012 @ 5:10 pm - November 7, 2012

  42. I don’t know about the other Senate candidates but in Virginia I can tell you that putting George Allen up was a HUGE mistake. Like it or not the man isn’t well-loved by many Virginians. Instead of feckless candidates and tired old retreads, the Republicans need to do a much better job of recruiting people to run for office. Or not. Keep on keeping on like they have been and the GOP will continue losing.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — November 7, 2012 @ 6:26 pm - November 7, 2012

  43. It is amusing watching Levi.

    He honestly believes the Government *extending* the 10-15% unemployment is ‘improvement’.

    Imagine that, facts and Levi not getting along.

    Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 7, 2012 @ 8:22 pm - November 7, 2012

  44. Levi – no one here advocates anarchy. The problem is, to paraphrase Reagan, that we are now a government that happens to have a people. We are subjects.

    I do not exist for the benefit of the government, its employees and its dependents.

    The whole idea that government “lets” us keep some of our own labor is evil. We all have some number of days on this earth and the idea that some woman wanting another Obama phone or that some charlatan with sharp lobbyists on K street has an open-ended demand on my time and labor is BS. It’s one thing to fund essential government (as envisioned by the Founders; it’s another thing to fund a parasitic industry that is never satisfied and lays waste to all it touches).

    To add insult, the people with the open-ended claim to my life resent me; mock me; and call me names (bitter clinger, racist, greedy, hater… you name it). I hate women because I think a Georgetown law student should buy her own damn pills even though she will earn far more money than I ever will.

    If you’d remove your blinders, you’d see that much of the motivation behind the tea parties is disgust with a complex tax code gamed by the rich; bailouts for well-connected companies and unions; crony capitalism; and an over-compensated ruling class that has every motivation to ensure that no problem is ever solved (do you really think that, say, the bloated welfare sector wants poor people learn to be self-sufficient?).

    This election, coming after 2008, tells me that this is a center-left nation. And the sad truth is that leftist populations figure out, usually the hard way, that producers will figure out that there’s no point in producing. At that point, they burn it down.

    Is it too much to ask of a lefty to just try, for once, to understand my POV?

    Unlike Greece, Spain, and the rest of the EU, the US is big enough to fail… there is no one to bail us out.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — November 7, 2012 @ 8:27 pm - November 7, 2012

  45. Please list some of the bills the Republican House passed that would have “facilitate[d] job growth.”

    Here’s one http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/08/smallbusiness/House-startup-bill/index.htm

    Another http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/solutions/jobsthroughgrowth.htm

    Quote from this link: http://www.speaker.gov/general/keeping-pledge-america-how-republicans-have-fought-create-jobs-cut-spending-change-way#jobs

    The House has passed dozens of jobs bills, including several that the president has signed into law – and 38 that remain blocked by Senate Democrats. You can see the full list of House-passed jobs bills here.

    And a list of those 38 bills the senate is sitting on: http://majorityleader.gov/jobstracker/

    You really should stop listening to the MSM when it comes to what happens in congress. The reality is that the house is working to make the economy better while Reid does crap.

    Comment by Just Me — November 7, 2012 @ 8:28 pm - November 7, 2012

  46. Levi, now the government’s “investing” in Big Union and failed “renewable energy” projects. How the heck are those valuable resources going to help anyone in the future?

    Oh come on. Do you really need someone to explain to you why investing in renewable resources might have dividends in the future?

    Comment by Levi — November 7, 2012 @ 9:26 pm - November 7, 2012

  47. Levi – no one here advocates anarchy. The problem is, to paraphrase Reagan, that we are now a government that happens to have a people. We are subjects.

    ILC said that the government doing absolutely nothing during a recession is a viable option. During our most recent crisis, that would have lead to a depression and eventual anarchy.

    Reagan may as well be a Communist for how popular his policies would be among conservatives if he could run today.

    I do not exist for the benefit of the government, its employees and its dependents.

    ???

    Nobody says you do. Who do you think is telling you this?

    The whole idea that government “lets” us keep some of our own labor is evil. We all have some number of days on this earth and the idea that some woman wanting another Obama phone or that some charlatan with sharp lobbyists on K street has an open-ended demand on my time and labor is BS. It’s one thing to fund essential government (as envisioned by the Founders; it’s another thing to fund a parasitic industry that is never satisfied and lays waste to all it touches).

    To add insult, the people with the open-ended claim to my life resent me; mock me; and call me names (bitter clinger, racist, greedy, hater… you name it). I hate women because I think a Georgetown law student should buy her own damn pills even though she will earn far more money than I ever will.

    Sandra Fluke was making a legitimate argument about why birth control should be covered under university healthcare plans, citing the huge costs of certain forms of birth control as well as the fact that many women require birth control for medical reasons. Me? I completely agree with her. The female reproductive system is much more complicated than guys’, and obviously can cause quite a bit of discomfort, pain, stress, and fatigue. Various forms of birth control can provide relief and regularity, and the idea that this shouldn’t be covered under healthcare plans is very nearly misogynistic, in my view. And not only that, but the more access a population of women have to birth control, the more money they make and the more education they receive. These are good things.

    I’m on a tangent, but the point is that Sandra Fluke was a citizen expressing her point of view. In response to this, one of the most popular and enduring figures in conservative media spent hours on his radio show saying that Sandra Fluke was a slut and a prostitute and should post videos of herself having sex on the internet for him to watch. A year later, this radio show host still has is job, is still beloved. And everywhere you go in the country, if you whisper the name Sandra Fluke to a group of conservatives, you might be lucky to hear someone say she ‘should buy her own damn pills.’ More likely, you’ll be in for some Rush-style slut-shaming. This place is a great example of the latter.

    If you’d remove your blinders, you’d see that much of the motivation behind the tea parties is disgust with a complex tax code gamed by the rich; bailouts for well-connected companies and unions; crony capitalism; and an over-compensated ruling class that has every motivation to ensure that no problem is ever solved (do you really think that, say, the bloated welfare sector wants poor people learn to be self-sufficient?).

    Nope.

    The Tea Party was a childish reaction to Obama’s victory. That’s it. By the time the Tea Parties were in full swing, Obama had been in office for what, a few months? And all these people who are supposedly so disgusted with the tax code gamed by the rich, they just didn’t have anything to say about that during the Bush administration, huh? I guess it’s just a coincidence or something?

    Also, they rallied around Mitt Romney, who is the poster-child for well-connected companies, crony capitalism, an over-compensated ruling class, and definitely someone who games the tax code.

    You might like to think the Tea Party was credible and issues-oriented, but they weren’t doing much more than throwing a fit.

    This election, coming after 2008, tells me that this is a center-left nation. And the sad truth is that leftist populations figure out, usually the hard way, that producers will figure out that there’s no point in producing. At that point, they burn it down.

    Is it too much to ask of a lefty to just try, for once, to understand my POV?

    I’m here, aren’t I? You’re just not making any sense. The producers are going to burn it down, after they decide there’s no point in producing? What is that? It sounds to me like something a rich person would say to a poor person or a middle class worker to try to convince them (or scare them into thinking) that rich people deserve tax cuts. Reading about conservative economics is like reading a love letter that a rich person writes to themselves. “I’m doing all the work, I’m taking all the risk, I deserve special treatment, and if I don’t get it you’ll all be sorry!” Doesn’t it strike you as just a bit too convenient? I don’t understand how you can complain about crony capitalism but then only advocate for economic policies that favor your beloved ‘producers.’

    I see that many of you are settling on an explanation for the election that involves labeling all (or most) Obama voters as takers that don’t want to work and want free stuff. This has absolutely no basis in reality, and all of your prognosticating about how horrible it’s going to get in 4 years is overly dramatic and will only have the effect of making you look silly.

    Unlike Greece, Spain, and the rest of the EU, the US is big enough to fail… there is no one to bail us out.

    Yeah, see? Like this. I wonder why Obama’s got unemployment under 8%, while the Europeans’ austerity measures are having such a hard time getting things turned around over there? If Obama’s such a central-planning, wealth-confiscating socialist, why hasn’t he cratered the economy after 4 years? Why is our economy outperforming the rest of the West?

    Comment by Levi — November 7, 2012 @ 10:28 pm - November 7, 2012

  48. Also, they rallied around Mitt Romney, who is the poster-child for well-connected companies, crony capitalism, an over-compensated ruling class, and definitely someone who games the tax code.

    Little hypocrite says what?

    A new report just out from the Internal Revenue Service reveals that 36 of President Obama’s executive office staff owe the country $833,970 in back taxes. These people working for Mr. Fair Share apparently haven’t paid any share, let alone their fair share.

    Oh, but there’s more.

    Lots more.

    Now, back taxes have been a problem for the Obama-Biden administration. You may recall early on that Tom Daschle was the president’s top pick to run the Health and Human Services Department. But it turned out the former Democratic senator, who was un-elected from South Dakota in 2004, owed something like $120,000 to the IRS for things from his subsequent benefactor that he just forgot to pay taxes on. You know how that is. $120G’s here or there. So he dropped out.

    And then we learned this guy Timothy Geithner owed something like $42,000 in back taxes and penalties to the IRS, which is one of the agencies that he’d be in charge of as secretary of the Treasury. The fine fellow who’s supposed to know about handling everyone else’s money. In the end this was excused by Washington’s bipartisan CYA culture as one of those inadvertent accidental oversights that somehow never seem to happen on the side of paying too much taxes.

    Lots, LOTS more.

    This one’s truly, uh … rich: Billionaire Warren Buffett says folks like him should have to pay more taxes — but it turns out his firm, Berkshire Hathaway, hasn’t paid what it’s already owed for years.

    That’s right: As Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson notes, the company openly admits that it owes back taxes since as long ago as 2002.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2012 @ 2:57 am - November 8, 2012

  49. Also, they rallied around Mitt Romney, who is the poster-child for well-connected companies, crony capitalism, an over-compensated ruling class, and definitely someone who games the tax code.

    Oh, but don’t go away, Levi; we have prime examples of how you endorse and support actual tax cheats.

    Ohio Democratic U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown was more than four months delinquent in paying taxes on his Washington, D.C., apartment and had to pay a penalty and interest last week.

    This was not the first time, records show.

    Brown also was delinquent in 2006 and 2007 and paid penalties and interest, according to tax records from the District of Columbia.

    But of course, there’s more.

    Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill admitted Monday that she had failed to pay about $287,000 in back taxes and will sell a private plane that has created considerable controversy as she prepares to run for a second term in 2012…..

    The tax revelations are the only the latest problem for McCaskill involving the plane,however.

    In the wake of a Politico report that had billed the government for her travel on the aircraft, she quickly reimbursed taxpayers for the trips, hoping to avoid a protracted political problem.

    But, it was then revealed that she had billed taxpayers for a purely political trip — deepening her potential exposure on the issue.

    Much, MUCH more.

    Mr. Rangel promised last fall to amend his tax returns, pay what is due and correct the information on his annual financial disclosure form. But the deadline for the 2008 filing was May 15 and as of last week he still had not filed. His press spokesman declined to answer questions about anything related to his ethics problems.

    Besides not paying those pesky taxes, Mr. Rangel had other reasons for wanting to hide income. As the tenant of four rent-stabilized apartments in Harlem, the Congressman needed to keep his annual reported income below $175,000, lest he be ineligible as a hardship case for rent control. (He also used one of the apartments as an office in violation of rent-control rules, but that’s another story.)

    Mr. Rangel said last fall that “I never had any idea that I got any income’’ from the villa. Try using that one the next time the IRS comes after you. Equally interesting is his claim that he didn’t know that the developer of the Dominican Republic villa had converted his $52,000 mortgage to an interest-free loan in 1990. That would seem to violate House rules on gifts, which say Members may only accept loans on “terms that are generally available to the public.” Try getting an interest-free loan from your banker.

    The National Legal and Policy Center also says it has confirmed that Mr. Rangel owned a home in Washington from 1971-2000 and during that time claimed a “homestead” exemption that allowed him to save on his District of Columbia property taxes. However, the homestead exemption only applies to a principal residence, and the Washington home could not have qualified as such since Mr. Rangel’s rent-stabilized apartments in New York have the same requirement.

    So guess what, Levi? You’re a hypocrite and a liar, given how you endorse and support these PROVEN tax cheats and their crony capitalism.

    But we expect that. Lying malicious criminals like yourself constantly project. You steal and lie on your taxes, so you assume everyone else does.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2012 @ 3:03 am - November 8, 2012

  50. Oh come on. Do you really need someone to explain to you why investing in renewable resources might have dividends in the future?

    From the Presidential debates [paraphrased]:

    BO: “In any enterprise, there will be winners and losers.”

    Mitt Romney: “So why is it that your administration seems to have a knack for picking only losers?”

    That’s the problem with investing in [read, of course, as spending taxpayer money on] immature technologies based on hope and promise. Especially when it’s not done so via the traditional research route—and done so through measures such as loan guarantees.

    In the real world, companies like Solyndra would have to get someone like Bain Capital to finance their endeavor. The wonks at BC would evlauate their business plan and technology and see if they have a winner, or potential one. They may take a risk and give them the financing, or they may take a pass. A private investor is concerned with getting their principal back, at the very least, and with making a return on investment.

    With government, banks automatically loan such enterprises money they would never loan on their own if it wasn’t backed with a guarantee. Minimal evaluation often takes place before the loan guarantee is granted. Further, there is an inherent bias towards a politician’s idea of what “renewable energy” actually means. How many solar and wind endeavors were approved in relation to the amount of plant-based fuel options? I’m guessing the ratio is probably on the order of double-digits to single-digits, simply because there’s a bias in the tree-hugger environmental world towards anything that is burned to create energy.

    Currently the wind energy industry is on hold, waiting to see if the huge tax credits they have received over the past decade and more are renewed. This is another boondoggle which should be ended ASAP, as it is entirely profitable solely due to the government tax credits. On its own, it cannot currently and may never stand up as a viable industry. Further, the myth of jobs that it creates, post-manufacture of equipment, is also a mere fantasy. So much so that a Democratic legislative candidate in my neighboring county ran with exposing that myth as part of his platform.

    So, it’s not really the investing that is wrong, it basically boils down to what it is invested in and who does the “investing”.

    Comment by RSG — November 8, 2012 @ 3:24 am - November 8, 2012

  51. So, it’s not really the investing that is wrong, it basically boils down to what it is invested in and who does the “investing”.

    Well, obviously. And I think green/renewable energy is well worth investing in given the many geopolitical, economic, and environmental problems that we are confronting in the world right now. I also think it’s completely legitimate for the government to be one of the entities investing in this problem, given their ability to marshal a huge amount of resources and their proven track record on things like World War II and the Space Race. (Once again, the private sector benefits tremendously whenever the government spends money because they get a huge customer with deep pockets.) Government investment only saved the free world from fascism twice and ushered in a golden age of technology… so why should we be putting them in the penalty box during a threat as existential as energy? Because a half billion dollar loan to Solyndra got wasted? That sucks, but that amount of money is a pittance in the grand scheme and occasional failure does not justify completely abandoning an objective. I mean, if everything worked out the way it was supposed to 100% of the time, we wouldn’t have anything to argue about. You have to be more realistic than that.

    Comment by Levi — November 8, 2012 @ 3:10 pm - November 8, 2012

  52. Because a half billion dollar loan to Solyndra got wasted? That sucks, but that amount of money is a pittance in the grand scheme

    Comment by Levi — November 8, 2012 @ 3:10 pm – November 8, 2012

    What. The. Fucking. Hell.

    You think a half BILLION dollars is a “pittance”?

    If you make the US median income of $50k annually, that represents TEN THOUSAND YEARS worth of labor.

    If you presume that those people making $50k are paying 20% of their income in taxes, you burned up the total taxes paid of FIFTY THOUSAND TAXPAYERS.

    And for what?

    An empty factory with singing showers and paid-off Obama donors, with executives who made donations to Obama and then received bonuses as the firm slid into taxpayer-funded bankruptcy.

    By the way, Levi, do you know just how rich George Kaiser is?

    Suffice to say if he were a Republican, you would be sh*tting yourself that he and his firm don’t deserve loan guarantees and “corporate welfare”.

    But since he donates to Obama, it’s perfectly OK for him and his fellow millionaires to receive rich payouts at taxpayer expense for their failed businesses, while you force middle-class taxpayers to pay more money for “green energy”.

    You are such a malicious and mendacious little hypocrite. You literally will support anything, ANYTHING, if Obama does it — and then turn around and scream at conservatives.

    Lies work on you because you are a brainwashed idiot, Levi. Obama told you to do green energy, and you blindly repeat the chant, over and over again, even as he steals you blind.

    You really aren’t intelligent, are you, Levi? Obama breaks every rule that you lay down and you blabber and spin that it’s exactly what he should be doing.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2012 @ 4:41 pm - November 8, 2012

  53. Because a half billion dollar loan to Solyndra got wasted? That sucks, but that amount of money is a pittance in the grand scheme

    Comment by Levi — November 8, 2012 @ 3:10 pm – November 8, 2012

    What. The. F’ing. Hell.

    You think a half BILLION dollars is a “pittance”?

    If you make the US median income of $50k annually, that represents TEN THOUSAND YEARS worth of labor.

    If you presume that those people making $50k are paying 20% of their income in taxes, you burned up the total taxes paid of FIFTY THOUSAND TAXPAYERS.

    And for what?

    An empty factory with singing showers and paid-off Obama donors, with executives who made donations to Obama and then received bonuses as the firm slid into taxpayer-funded bankruptcy.

    By the way, Levi, do you know just how rich George Kaiser is?

    Suffice to say if he were a Republican, you would be sh*tting yourself that he and his firm don’t deserve loan guarantees and “corporate welfare”.

    But since he donates to Obama, it’s perfectly OK for him and his fellow millionaires to receive rich payouts at taxpayer expense for their failed businesses, while you force middle-class taxpayers to pay more money for “green energy”.

    You are such a malicious and mendacious little hypocrite. You literally will support anything, ANYTHING, if Obama does it — and then turn around and scream at conservatives.

    Lies work on you because you are a brainwashed idiot, Levi. Obama told you to do green energy, and you blindly repeat the chant, over and over again, even as he steals you blind.

    You really aren’t intelligent, are you, Levi? Obama breaks every rule that you lay down and you blabber and spin that it’s exactly what he should be doing.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 8, 2012 @ 4:41 pm - November 8, 2012

  54. Levi – thanks but no thanks. Aside from my grammatical error (the “burn it down” folks would be the dependent class – think Greece – not the producer class) I don’t think you get my point.

    For instance, the tea parties were as much a reaction to Bush and the profligate GOP Congress as they were to BHO (the auto bailouts and TARP started under Bush… Republican != conservative) yet you accuse productive citizens who protest peacefully and with good cheer of a tantrum while OWS protests, violent in some cases, for more giveaways and ???

    I try to be civil and avoid ad hominem attacks – and that won’t change. And I appreciate your efforts to engage on a somewhat hostile blog (and it’s difficult to make a case in a little comment box) but I don’t see the point in arguing a “don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” mentality. Cheers.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — November 8, 2012 @ 6:30 pm - November 8, 2012

  55. SoCalRobert,

    I don’t know if you were posting back when the tea parties made headlines.

    Levi insisted that they were a racist response to Obama and that we had never criticized President Bush for his spending. He was then presented evidence from this site that he was wrong.

    He first backpedaled and demanding evidence from before the site existed. Then he pretended that despite the evidence, nothing was said.

    This is his usual MO. He is as impervious to facts as he is tact.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 8, 2012 @ 7:58 pm - November 8, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

1.372 Powered by Wordpress