published Thursday, July 28th, 2011

Redecorating

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

155
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
moonpie said...

Clay,

This cartoon is the fervent wish of BRP and Francis Santaquilani! You are the hero for a day!!

July 28, 2011 at 1:05 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

Corporate America poured millions of dollars into the 2010 election to help republicans gain control of Congress. Why? Because in 2008 Barac Obama was elected President and Democrats gained control of both Houses of Congress. They were determined to prevent another Wall Street collapse from ever happening again.

In July 2010, Congress passed and the President signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Obviously the big money boys were nervous. While many believed deregulation had made it too easy for investors to take unnecessary risks, there was fear of new government oversight and interference. These guys had been operating in a financial world of high risks, record profit, and public liability. When they lost their shirts taxpayers bought them a new wardrobe.

But they could reverse the new regulations, block future reforms and go back to business as usual if republicans regained control of Congress in 2010. But there was a slight hiccup. In the GOP primaries, the ultra conservatives, nicknamed the Tea Party, ambushed many traditional and mainstream republicans.

The big money guys, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and many Wall Street firms, were a little nervous about backing candidates who seemed to take their political theology a little too seriously. But they crossed their fingers and wrote the checks anyway. It was hoped that when it came down to crunch time, the tea baggers would realize pragmatism was politically more expedient than principle.

Now Corporate America is about to reap the whirlwind and the whole world is being swept up in this man-made financial crisis. The new House republicans are refusing to vote to increase the debt ceiling under any circumstances. Representative Paul Broun (R-Mars) went on TV and actually announced that he was in favor of LOWERING the debt ceiling. Seriously, what flavor Kool-Aid are they drinking? Blood of Christ? Do they really believe they are fighting for the Lord?

The U.S. AAA credit rating is sure to be downgraded and with Default looming on the horizon, some Wall Street Investors are now urging clients to get out of the market, get some liquidity, and get a defensive strategy in place. Trouble is, once upon a time that meant buying U.S. Treasury’s or putting money into bank accounts. The former is soon to be toxic and the latter is not much better. The banking system has about $1.7 trillion guaranteed in one way or another by the government, but banks have no way of protecting themselves if there is a downgrade.

Look for the sell off on Wall Street to pick up steam, while republicans do their best to find a way to again, blame it all on Obama.

July 28, 2011 at 1:32 a.m.
woody said...

Well, just off the top of my head..if I am a current or former U.S. Marine..I am mad as hell. That aside, if the conservatives (whoever they may be) continue to take this stance, then all I can say is..wait for it..stick a fork in it..you're done.

Shaking my head..Woody

July 28, 2011 at 6:24 a.m.
EaTn said...

The flag is a symbol of early American independence. For a country that's turned it's prime farmland into ethanol feedstock and subdivisions, sent its essential manufacturing overseas and in debt up to the neck to foreign investors, we might want to rethink flying this flag.

July 28, 2011 at 7:13 a.m.
fairmon said...

Some facts neither party talks about:

o In 1986 the top 5% of tax payers paid 43% of collected taxes, today they pay 59%. Q, should it be more?

o In 1986 18.5% paid zero taxes, now that number is 51%. Q. should it be higher?

o Housing prices lower the assets or wealth of the middle class and lower incomes more than it affects the wealthiest.

o Income disparity results from the loss of millions of lower skill jobs for those without college educations or specialized skills. Q. What is either party doing to address the problem?

o The impact of immigrants, legal and illegal, on construction and crafts and the 20% unemployment rate in the construction trades.

BW48 you may want to review contributions to both parties and members of congress and the administration before concluding either party is favored by special interest and businesses. Both are highly compromised.

Current revenue is sufficient to avoid defaulting however downgrading of our rating will double the interest paid on the debt from 200 billion per year to around 400 billion. Increasing the debt without significant increases in revenue could eventually take significantly more of revenue to pay interest on the debt.

July 28, 2011 at 7:48 a.m.
dude_abides said...

The flag was probably made in El Salvador.

July 28, 2011 at 8:26 a.m.

Don't tread on the Capitol Hill snakes just yet. Unsightly though they be, they help control the rodent problem.

July 28, 2011 at 8:36 a.m.
hambone said...

**TAXES BAD!

SNAKE BITE GOOD!**

July 28, 2011 at 8:39 a.m.

The American liberal mindset hasn't changed since early colonial loyalists fell in line with the British ruling class. It's no different today. Whatever Pelosi, Reid, and Obama say is blindly followed by the working class Democrats without questioning or refute.

More pudding, Mr. Bennett?

But it's okay. The Patriots will defend your liberties, your freedoms, once again.

July 28, 2011 at 8:47 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Blackwater48 said: “Corporate America poured millions of dollars into the 2010 election to help republicans gain control of Congress.

Believe we’ve been rear-ended on purpose, Blackwater48. And I thinking we the people should sue them and ask for punitive damages. We could start with the Koch Brothers, Inc. Their intent to cause harm to this Nation and we the people should be easy to prove.

July 28, 2011 at 8:50 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

harp, how much do your tax numbers reflect the shift in wealth distribution to a smaller percentage of the wealthiest Americans, rather than increased tax percentages on the wealthiest Americans?

July 28, 2011 at 8:51 a.m.
MickeyRat said...

DON’T TREAD ON ME – Plleeeze.

I’d say we got teabagged for the most of the last decade. Now we get to say it to all you loud-mouthed, empty headed neo-cons – WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA SO MUCH? You all are so vacuous, you’re proud to associate with the sodomy inspired teabaggers, and wouldn’t know the different meanings if a set slapped you across the face.

Teabaggers would rather see us turned into a Somalia, so they could ride in and pretend to rescue us by turning America into another Iran! The Ayatola Koch brothers are truly concerned about your interests.

IDIOTS…

July 28, 2011 at 9:23 a.m.
OllieH said...

The Gadsden flag had a proud history. Unfortunately, the flag and its symbolism has been tarnished ever since it was commandeered by the Tea Party.

Once a symbol of selfless revolutionaries fighting against a tyrannical monarchy, the Gadsden flag has now, unfortunately, become a symbol of selfish radicals fighting FOR a tyrannical plutocracy.

This cartoon illustrates well, the interests that the Republicans in Congress now serve. It is no longer a party that puts country first, but instead fights to appease a small (but feared) minority within their own ranks.

July 28, 2011 at 9:38 a.m.
tderng said...

what a surprise...George Soros trying to circumvent the rules with his Hedge fund company.Dirty rotten billionaire,cheat.Whats good for the rest should apply to him.He even pushed for this reform and now doesn't want to play by the rules.

July 28, 2011 at 9:44 a.m.
acerigger said...

The 14th Amendment to the U.S.Constitution says the debt(s) of the U.S. "shall not be questioned".it MUST be paid! these vermin who are calling for the U.S. to default are traitors who have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.they are violating their oath of office. I'll vote to impeach them all.

July 28, 2011 at 9:47 a.m.
mymy said...

Obama has done a lot of bad decorating alright. This must be his new motto since he thinks he is God: Don't Tread On Me! The snake is just right since he is nothing more than a Snake Oil Salesman! It is obvious his sheep fell hook, like and sinker by the comments made here. Anything the Republicans do is "Dead in the Water" when it gets to the Senate because Harry Reid will not let it be debated, etc. So, who is really the party of "NO"? I remind the Dems: elections have consequences. That was the line when Dems had it all and refused to include Repubs in anything saying "NO" then also.

I am ready to say let this country get a downgrade and default on Obama’s time. Some need a serious lesson and the rest of us will have to suffer through it. I’m sick of threats and intimidation from our Liar in Chief! Again, I reference the Democratic Playbook 101: “1. Never concede a victory to Republicans, even if the nation suffers greatly as a result. If Republicans win an election, claim corruption and contest the outcome. Remember, no one has the right to be in power but Democrats. If all else fails, find an activist judge to overturn any Republican policy. Thwart the will of the people and the democratic process in any way necessary to get your way. Never forget………rules and civility are for wuss’s and not meant for you. Always campaign against every Republican bill in Congress or any Republican idea, no matter what the benefit to America may be. Never agree with a Republican in public. Solidarity trumps truth and righteousness.

  1. Always remember to use the deception that has brought us to power. For example, if you author a bill to raise taxes, name it “The Tax Reduction Bill.” If we need to confiscate more freedom, call the effort “The Increased Freedom Initiative.” That’s the way to get things done. By the time the “little people” figure it out, you will have stirred enough hatred against Republicans that they will still support you.”
July 28, 2011 at 9:55 a.m.
limric said...

To rational minds, allowing the United States to default on its debts and suffer the financial calamity of such an act is unthinkable. Nevertheless, to House Republicans, that is not as unthinkable as ideological compromise.

Like conservatives of past decades, today’s reactionaries (the Tea Party) have scared themselves silly by demonizing their opponents: every liberal hates America, every Democrat is a socialist, every moderate is a dupe and every compromise is a pact with Satan. What is new is that this mindset now dominates the majority caucus in the House of Representatives. And because of that, there very well could be no deal to raise the debt ceiling, unless the president and the Senate choose to grant the militants everything they want.

“I will never bend or waver to socialists,” my neighbor pointedly told me. There are plenty in congress who share that same spirit. But to confuse the centrist economic policies of Barack Obama with socialism is as absurd as calling Rush Limbaugh a RINO – Republican In Name Only. As clean cut, moral and upstanding as my fellow citizens on the right may be, I have to say they have become unhinged from economic and political reality and, in their delusion, they are about to take us all over a cliff.

Senator Tom Coburn, a guy I disagree with about most things, summed it up frighteningly well: “We’ve never been in this territory before. I mean, if we handle this wrong, we’re near the end of our republic as we know it.”

OllieH said, “Once a symbol of selfless revolutionaries fighting against a tyrannical monarchy, the Gadsden flag has now, unfortunately, become a symbol of selfish radicals fighting FOR a tyrannical plutocracy.” No truer words have ever been spoken. I tip my hat to you.

May I quote you in the future OllieH ?

July 28, 2011 at 10 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Clay Bennett once again demonstrates that he is an advocate for Socialism and Really, Really Big Government. Those that subscribe to this philosophy refuse to recognize that it is doomed to failure. They use examples of problems in the US resulting from encroaching Socialism and crony capitalism as an argument for MORE Socialism, MORE Big Government and do not realize that those goals will massively increase crony capitalism, the thing they claim to dislike so much. They also refuse to believe that Big Government will eventually take away the social freedom they claim to cherish, even though history has shown otherwise, even though the current President is engaged in the same activity they claimed was dangerous under the former.

Clay Bennett is embarrassing. The majority of Chattanoogans do not share his distorted view of the world.

July 28, 2011 at 10:06 a.m.
mymy said...

Limric said: "But to confuse the centrist economic policies of Barack Obama with socialism is as absurd as calling Rush Limbaugh a RINO – Republican In Name Only. As clean cut, moral and upstanding as my fellow citizens on the right may be, I have to say they have become unhinged from economic and political reality and, in their delusion, they are about to take us all over a cliff."

You have got to be kidding or is this just a sarcastic joke? Obama "centrist economic policies" and who is taking us over a cliff?

Your hopeless. All you loons have a good day with yourself.

July 28, 2011 at 10:19 a.m.
alprova said...

Acerigger wrote: " I'll vote to impeach them all."

Unfortunately, that's a vote that you will never be able to cast.

July 28, 2011 at 10:20 a.m.
alprova said...

MyMy wrote: " If all else fails, find an activist judge to overturn any Republican policy."

Well let's face it, the Democrats took that straight out of the Republican playbook. Al Gore won the election in November 2000. A Judge's declaration stopped the recount that would have proven it.

July 28, 2011 at 10:25 a.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "Clay Bennett is embarrassing. The majority of Chattanoogans do not share his distorted view of the world."

How can you presume to opine on the behalf of any majority of Chattanoogans? You're lost in your own little world of insanity and have made Clay the object of your affection.

You share nothing in common with most people, period, much less do you have any knowledge as to the state of minds by those who have something to think with upstairs.

July 28, 2011 at 10:34 a.m.
potcat said...

Well "big" mouth that says a lot about Chattanoogans. Its not true, but you keep at it, you have a few followers on here that has breakdowns if Clay takes a few days off..LOOSERS...

I do believe you have become unhinged from economic and politicai reality over your grand emotional delusional Love affair with Clay.

Jealous Little big boy..Get a Life!!

July 28, 2011 at 10:42 a.m.
mymy said...

ALPOOOOO: Wrong, many have gone in and counted. Bush Won. Get over it!

July 28, 2011 at 10:43 a.m.
limric said...

Ohhh mymy,

The first sentence of your 9:55 a.m. post references Obama using the flag as bad decorating.

Look sweetheart, the building depicted in the cartoon – that would be The Capital. NOT the White House. The flag raised - that would be the Gadsden flag - raised by the Tea Party congressional members…on the Capital Building. NOT hoisted by Obama… on the White House roof.

Your post is a textbook illustration of my earlier observation, “I have to say they have become unhinged from economic and political reality and, in their delusion, they are about to take us all over a cliff.”

A Fairy Tale, By Mymy

Once upon a time there was a happy prosperous little country who was at peace with the world and the sun always shined, until one day a Democrat was elected President, and the country went all to $h_t.

The End.

SLAP……..

July 28, 2011 at 11:12 a.m.
potcat said...

MyMy .. Who would those people be, name them.

Just think how much better this Country would be in,if the True winner "Al Gore" was President, instead of the manufactured Cowboy,appointed by a partisan Supreme Court.

For sure, they wound be a hell of a lot less suffering and murdering of innocent people over "THE BIG LIE".

Hell,the WAR MACHINE made the big boys a lot of MONEY, so the Famil;y Values crowd are overjoyed,and GOD would be so proud.

If i hear one more ignorant ass say if America wasn't over there, they would be here, or here's a good one,our military is over there fighting for our Freedom, niether is true.

July 28, 2011 at 11:21 a.m.
mymy said...

Never said anything re WH. O is redecorating this country, period. He is a snake and thinks he is God. So, the flag applies very well to him-The One-who continues to have his little tantrums and on TV to boot. What a looser. Your living in a fairy tale. The country is going to $S-T with Obama and Company. The End----is near! I don’t say this without acknowledging there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides over decades. O has just speeded it up. If it wasn’t for the Tea Party we would not be having this debate which is long overdue. We cannot continue to spend, spend, spend.

July 28, 2011 at 11:31 a.m.
JoeHill said...

Don't tread on the Koch brothers, BP, Exxon Mobil, Wal-Mart, Haliburton, Bechtel, Conagra, Monsanto, Goldman Sachs and the corporate sponsors of ALEC.

Just tread on hardworking, ordinary people like you and me.

July 28, 2011 at 11:33 a.m.
limric said...

Potcat, Sounds like you hate America. Umm...And are emboldening the terrorists.

To Be a Good Republican: 1. You have to believe that yesterdays prosperity was due to the work of George Bush, but today's gasoline prices are all Obama's fault. 2. You have to believe that those privileged from birth achieved success all on their own. 3. You have to be against all government programs, but expect your Social Security checks on time. :Ann Richards

July 28, 2011 at 11:41 a.m.
acerigger said...

MyMy sez" I am ready to say let this country get a downgrade and default on Obama’s time. Some need a serious lesson and the rest of us will have to suffer through it." Oh yes,SPANK me daddy,SPANK us, we've all been bad! Maybe you could check with Marcus Bachman, if his clinic can "pray away the gay",they may also be able to pray away the stupid.

July 28, 2011 at 11:44 a.m.
limric said...

Mymy,

Nice try on the White House flag. Your full of it. You are also very very confused.

Does your Jr, High have civics class after lunch today? Oh wait - they don't teach that where you live do they? They've substituted Jebus studies haven't they.

July 28, 2011 at 11:49 a.m.
limric said...

acerigger,

Boris Yeltsin + Richard Simmonds = Marcus Bachmann

Wheeee........

July 28, 2011 at 11:51 a.m.
nurseforjustice said...

BRP says, "The majority of Chattanoogans do not share his distorted view of the world."

I think he is saying this because the majority of Chattanooga voted Conservative in the last election and most elections before. So therefore it is a logical conclusion.

Anyone who thinks this is all Boehner's fault (or Republicans) is just plain stupid and short sighted. Anyone who thinks this is all Obama's fault (or democrats) is just plain stupid and short sighted. Neither party or individuals in control seem to want to play very nicely with each other. But iBama IS such a cry baby as witnessed Monday night. He does not help this situation, or any that I have seen so far. Except the Osama assasination maybe, which he took way too much credit for.

July 28, 2011 at 12:17 p.m.
hambone said...

I have always laughed at a politician who says " I'm a successful businessman and I want to take my great experience to DC and straghten them out"

I automatically know here is a liar!

If he's a successful businessman he would stick to what he knows and retire in comfort. What we end up with is a near failure who has somehow managed to go thru life without getting a glaring criminal record. If a successful business was to somehow have a lapse in good judgement and end up as a congressman he would seek out finacially experienced people and take their advice. Not go along with the MOB that is the TEA PARTY!

July 28, 2011 at 12:31 p.m.
potcat said...

Limric.. pray tell what did i say that would make you think i am unAmerican and am emboldening the terrorist...

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic..he he or really mean it.

You can't possiby think these Wars were waged out of necessity.

Then again, you might be one of those War Profiteers that America needed sooo bad for our National Security.

Have you read the book,Charlie Wilsons War?

July 28, 2011 at 12:31 p.m.
limric said...

Potcat,

I was just being my usual sarcastic wise ass self. Just kidding. Next time I'll end with a smiley icon. Thusly - ;-)

July 28, 2011 at 12:44 p.m.
limric said...

Hambone,

A perfect example of "I'm a successful businessman and I want to take my great experience to (insert entity here) and straghten them out" is Floriduhs Gov. Rick [flashbulb] Scott.

July 28, 2011 at 12:47 p.m.
hambone said...

I was thinking of our Tennessee 3rd district congressman. The small business owner (lawyer) who knows how to create jobs (one for his wife).

July 28, 2011 at 1:17 p.m.
hambone said...

Oh yes Rick Scott, in the center of the largest Medicare fraud case in history!

July 28, 2011 at 1:19 p.m.
potcat said...

I figured as much, i'm pretty damn sarcastic myself.You are,"The Limric",and have us all beat on that front.

I have been trying for a month to perfect the frying of the green Tomato, and i think i just did it. Pick a tomato thats is just turning red-thick slices- cast iron skillet/canola oil red hot-dip in egg- combine cornmeal and flour in papper bag with salt,pepper and garlic powder and coat them- lay gently into hot oil,cook about two min.and flip.Eat hot.

I got to go eat my tomatoes and i just got my NEW YORKER Mag.and i'm chilling.

I planted three cantolope plants and i have enough to supply 20 people, bumper crop on every thing planted this year.

July 28, 2011 at 1:30 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

You have my admiration, potcat. I have a black thumb. In a situation of anarchy when our national food system fails, I'll be the first to starve. (after I kill and eat all the rats, that is)

July 28, 2011 at 1:42 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

If Obama and Reid get their way, and Boehner and company wither under the pressure, your situation of anarchy may be closer at hand than you think.

It would almost be fun watching the parasites trying to cope with the situation they created. When the dust settles, the resourceful will still be there, only with fewer indigents to take care of. Not really, it will be heart breaking, but it is hard not to fall into the trap of wishing for just rewards when you see people so feverishly pursing, and defending their right to steal, the fruits of other people’s labors.

Unfortunately, it looks like the House Republicans have already caved and they will soon be looking at an unrecognizable bill coming back from the Senate that will leave them wondering, “what have we done”? The end result will do virtually nothing to curb the deficit problem and the Democrats will have “won”.

For now.

July 28, 2011 at 3:41 p.m.
Selah said...

nurseforjustice...the voter turnout in Hamilton Co. is poor.
If the christian right, middle-class, working poor and the poor WAKE UP and realize the power of the vote and the Republicans failure to stand against the moral issues they hold up as trophy pieces (and failed to combat b/c of their GREED sin problem) then Tennessee will no longer be a Republican state. Hopefully, this time it may be different.

July 28, 2011 at 4:57 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

I WOULD SETTLE FOR A LIFE PRESERVER

BRP, after wading through your hyperbole I think I found your argument: You think more money should go to the job creators, i.e., corporations, to get people back to work. Unemployment is a big problem, right? I think Boehner framed it that way. Republicans don't want the rich paying more taxes. 'We want more people paying taxes,' I think is how he put it. Cogent argument, but I have a problem with that.

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, was asked last year at an economic conference why banks aren't lending more money. Mr. Dimon said, in affect, We have the money. We'd like to loan it because that's our business. But American corporations are sitting on about $2 Trillion in cash. They really don't need it.

So if Dimon is right, and why would he be lying, and American business is floating on sea of cash, why don't they throw a few employment life boats out to the millions of Americans who are busy treading water? And why would they need even more money if they aren't hiring workers with the trillions they already have?

I've never gotten a straight answer from my republican friends.

Maybe you know.

July 28, 2011 at 5:06 p.m.
acerigger said...

BRP sez,It would almost be fun watching the parasites trying to cope with the situation they created. When the dust settles, the resourceful will still be there, only with fewer indigents to take care of." Sounds like a typical "bunkered-up"teabagger,I've got mine,to hell with everyone else. I'd hate to live in your fearful state of mind.

July 28, 2011 at 5:36 p.m.
tderng said...

blackwater48...It might be that the corporations are holding onto those trillions because they fear that the Obama admin. plans to tax the crap out of them.All you hear from the left is about how those evil big corporations don't pay their fair share.If I was in charge of a corporation I would certainly consider holding my cash reserves until I found out what the future might hold for businesses in America.

July 28, 2011 at 5:45 p.m.
Selah said...

tderng...the fat cat execs and CEO walk away with million dollar packages even when they FAIL. Why are they worth so much? I can't think of one good reason someone should make 4.4million for managing a business. Why isn't a cap placed on their salaries? A 2 million cap unless profits rise with their tenure? Why is one group expected to be compensated in luxury and another group only worth minimum wage? Sickening Greed

July 28, 2011 at 6:08 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

GOOD ANSWER, WRONG QUESTION

TD, that's the kind of gibberish I get from my republican friends. That's why we usually stick to baseball or football or lawn mowers, anything to not talk politics. When they don't have the answer, or can't apply a republican cliche, they get really ticked.

American corporations are sitting on $2 trillion in cash. Where are the jobs? And why should we provide even more corporate welfare in the hope they might start hiring again someday?

Just wondering.

July 28, 2011 at 6:11 p.m.
Clara said...

If Obama is forced to use the 14th Amendment, you might be interested in an annotated copy of the document. It gives several examples of how it was tried to slip through the cracks in the past.

July 28, 2011 at 6:22 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

AMERICAN BUSINESS 101

Selah brought up a good point: fat cat execs and CEO walk away with million dollar packages even when they FAIL.

Sometimes a Board will hire a 'top notch executive' to help turn around a company. Part or all of his compensation is in company stock. So, a cut throat guy will layoff workers which will reduce overhead driving up the price of stock. Then he'll sell off a few less profitable divisions to get 'lean and mean' driving up the price of stock. Then he might circulate a rumor through business media outlets that a big corporation is thinking about buying the company he's running. Further driving up stock. Then he lays off more people, stock still rising, then sells a few profitable divisions, and just before anyone figures out that he screwed the Board, screwed the stockholders, not to mention the thousands of employees that were laid off, he dumps his stock when it's really high and ducks out of town.

Sad thing in, he can go to the next corporation and show how he managed to increase the stock value at the last company, blame office politics and divisional in fighting for the company's collapse, and he's back in business.

You wonder where all the jobs went? That's part of the answer.

And these are the guys republicans are trying to so hard to protect.

July 28, 2011 at 6:28 p.m.
tderng said...

selah..I have the same question when it comes to grown men playing a kids game and being paid untold millions.Perhaps we should also cap their salaries.Maybe to $250,000 per year?

blackwater48...Once again,I don't know why you think I am ticked off.I simply offered a possible reason for their reticence to let go of their money.Attacking the messenger is the tactic of my democratic friends when they hear something they don't like but can't refute.

July 28, 2011 at 6:31 p.m.
hambone said...

From the last few post folks want me to beleive that businesses have not created jobs because they are confused about future taxes or the effect of Obama Care.

So, they are not signing all those new contracts they have or are not filling all those new orders for goods and services because of all this worry?

THE PROBLEM DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH DEMAND ?

July 28, 2011 at 6:40 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

FREE MARKET RULES

TD, if you were trying to make a point try stating it more clearly.

Anyway, concerning the salary professional athletes are paid, you wrote, Perhaps we should also cap their salaries.Maybe to $250,000 per year?

That's what's wrong with you republican big government knows best fascists. Keep your noses out of the free market. You think owners are going to pay more than they can afford? Someone got a gun to their head?

Oh wait. You just want the rich guys to get even richer. Sorry. I forgot you're a millionaire groupie. How is that working out for you?

July 28, 2011 at 7:35 p.m.
tderng said...

bw48...you are obviously a moron,Did you even read your post before you sent it in?Companies don't have a gun to their heads either.Do you think they pay their execs. more than the company can afford?

Oh wait.You just want all people to be paid the same regardless of what they do or contribute to society.I Forgot you were a mindless leftist robot.Hows that working out for you?

July 28, 2011 at 7:44 p.m.
tderng said...

hambone...You certainly have a good point there(perhaps you should wear a hat):).That is of course a great contributor.No jobs means no demand.

July 28, 2011 at 7:49 p.m.
fairmon said...

BW48, Do you have a name to go with that ridiculous CEO scenario or are you talking about a corporate raider like Soros and Icahn? I am registered independent not a republican or democrat attempting to explain why they aren't spending the billions or hiring with the cash some have. Are you concerned about those that are on the brink of bankruptcy? I am a stock investor/trader primarily in corporations with international business interest that pay decent dividends.

1-Over 2 trillion of their cash is held in foreign countries and currencies. They don't repatriot it to the U.S. because they will have to pay a 35% tax on it. Democrats have rejected a proposal to establish a window in which they can return it at a lower rate.

2-The cash reserves some have in the U.S. add up to several hundred billion. With few exceptions there is no demand that indicates they need to invest and expand production in the U.S.

3-Intel wanted to build a plant in the U.S. but it would have cost them one billion more than it cost to build it in Viet Nam. The reasons were regulations, fees and taxes. Their CEO did say the difference in wages had no impact on the decision and they preferred being in the U.S. with U.S. workers but couldn't justify the investment difference.

I and many stock holders would sell the stock of any company that hired when not necessary or expanded in a way that reduced profits and dividends. Americans don't buy American made goods and in some cases they buy foreign services.

Look at a corporations quarterly report and you will see their profits are often not from their U.S. businesses but from their international holdings. Those few needing to increase U.S. capacity do so. Some have moved their headquarters to other countries for tax reasons. Google, one of the most profitable moved their headquarters to Ireland as have several others.

The truth is most in the administration and in congress don't have the sense God gave a goose about business and what is needed to increase U.S. employment. End 3 wars and reduce unemployment to 5% or less and the debt crisis diminishes significantly.

July 28, 2011 at 8:31 p.m.
hambone said...

How will cutting federal programs like SS or medicare create jobs?

July 28, 2011 at 8:45 p.m.
fairmon said...

BW48, Several CEOs of reputable and responsible companies have suggested closing business tax loop holes where they spend millions on accountants to use and to comply with the complex U.S. tax codes. They suggest a no exceptions business tax rate of 20% on all profits which would actually increase tax revenue. The published corporate tax rate is 35% but the average actually paid is around 17% with the Government favored financial sector paying essentially zero while the manufacturing sector pays much more if they are profitable.

A corporation in a city like Chattanooga has to deal with and complete reports to the federal EPA, TEPA (state environmental), CEPA (city environmental). There are other examples. Keep in mind consumers actually pay for this when they buy from that company.

They also suggest the duplication of regulations by governments be eliminated and those not protecting people be reviewed for necessity. That sounds logical and reasonable but politicians are too busy politicking to work on things that make sense.

July 28, 2011 at 8:50 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Hambone said: "I was thinking of our Tennessee 3rd district congressman. The small business owner (lawyer) who knows how to create jobs (one for his wife)."

I see Hambone has funny bone. Thanks. I needed a good giggle.

July 28, 2011 at 9:59 p.m.
fairmon said...

hambone said.... How will cutting federal programs like SS or medicare create jobs?

Social security and medical taxes withheld from peoples earnings are dollars not spent to increase demand. That probably doesn't matter since Americans buy so many imports. Allowing people to keep and spend it may improve China's and other importing countries economy, not ours. Motorola was the last U.S. company making TVs and they were excellent quality but people kept buying imports and they finally threw in the towel. I don't know where anyone could now buy a U.S. made TV. The same is true of the fluorescent bulbs congress is requiring in the future, none are made in the U.S.

The social security ponzi scheme works just fine for at least 20 more years and can be extended by raising the cap on which taxes are paid and matched plus adjusting the eligibility for future recipients consistent with average longevity. These two actions would make social security secure for many years past the 20 it is projected to be OK.

Medicare is a wreck, a catastrophe, a boondoggle of major proportions. Bush made it worse with the prescription coverage. Current medicare revenue pays a little more than half the claims, the rest is borrowed money. Medicare taxes and premiums need to be increased to have revenue be sufficient to pay all the claims. Both parties are afraid to fix it since it will get them unelected.

July 28, 2011 at 10:11 p.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "I am a stock investor/trader primarily in corporations with international business interest that pay decent dividends."

What you do and what you are seems to be changing by the week.

"Over 2 trillion of their cash is held in foreign countries and currencies. They don't repatriot it to the U.S. because they will have to pay a 35% tax on it. Democrats have rejected a proposal to establish a window in which they can return it at a lower rate."

Sounds like some companies that have left the country want their cake and to eat it too. Let them spend their money in those foreign countries. It has no right being imported back to the United States for spending in this country, untaxed.

"Intel wanted to build a plant in the U.S. but it would have cost them one billion more than it cost to build it in Viet Nam. The reasons were regulations, fees and taxes. Their CEO did say the difference in wages had no impact on the decision and they preferred being in the U.S. with U.S. workers but couldn't justify the investment difference."

You just love repeating falsehoods, don't you? You factor in the cost of 400 workers to build the factory, and then years of working 4,000 men and women in Vietnam @ $7.38 per day, versus the average pay rate in the United States @ approximately $184.00 per day and it's not hard to figure out what motivated Intel to build a new Factory in Vietnam in 2010.

"The published corporate tax rate is 35% but the average actually paid is around 17% with the Government favored financial sector paying essentially zero while the manufacturing sector pays much more if they are profitable."

The corporate tax rates are not set at 35%. Just as it is with individual tax rates, the amount of profit determines what tax rates apply to corporations.

We've been over these expressed falsehoods of yours several times now.

Why do you keep posting them over and over again?

July 28, 2011 at 10:11 p.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "The social security ponzi scheme works just fine for at least 20 more years and can be extended by raising the cap on which taxes are paid and matched plus adjusting the eligibility for future recipients consistent with average longevity. These two actions would make social security secure for many years past the 20 it is projected to be OK."

"Medicare is a wreck, a catastrophe, a boondoggle of major proportions. Bush made it worse with the prescription coverage. Current medicare revenue pays a little more than half the claims, the rest is borrowed money. Medicare taxes and premiums need to be increased to have revenue be sufficient to pay all the claims. Both parties are afraid to fix it since it will get them unelected."

Now on most of the above, I am in full agreement with you. There should be no income cap on SS taxes and Medicare taxes have been artificially low since it's inception.

Raising eligibility is not something that I happen to agree with however. All that is, is a bet that most people would not live long enough to collect their benefits. Now, I could see it if there was something along the lines of survivor benefits paid to spouses and/or children, rather than all funds disappearing in a puff of smoke if someone happens to die before they are eligible to draw their benefits.

July 28, 2011 at 10:22 p.m.
Selah said...

tderng said... "selah..I have the same question when it comes to grown men playing a kids game and being paid untold millions.Perhaps we should also cap their salaries.Maybe to $250,000 per year?"

Tderng...I can say the same about movie stars, golf players, baseball players, fighters etc. I just stopped going to the high priced movies, pro games and stopped buying their merchandise. I refuse to pay $200 for a pair of shoes for me or my children just b/c of the nametag.

Also, I am voting Democrat now and speaking out against the failure of the Republican party to live up to their campaign promises. How about you?

The sad part of all of this...we refuse to recognize how much power the middle-class and working poor have with changing the political scene and the "grown man playing a kids games"

July 28, 2011 at 10:26 p.m.
fairmon said...

Alprova, Your disagreement doesn't make it false. I refuse to debate with an idiot. I happen to believe the Intel CEO and consider him more credible and knowledgeable regarding his decision than you.

Alprova said... Sounds like some companies that have left the country want their cake and to eat it too. Let them spend their money in those foreign countries. It has no right being imported back to the United States for spending in this country, untaxed.

How brilliant you are, you should be in congress. The suggestion was to pay a set 20% on returned foreign profits. Spending it here or giving stock holders larger dividends to spend here would both be better than your childish reaction of do it my way or I won't play.

What you do and what you are seems to be changing by the week.

I have to say what you are and what you do never varies, unfortunately. What are you talking about? I have never said I supported either party which seems to burn your ass up but I detest both of them and in my opinion Obama is a two faced idiot. I wish a competent independent could run and be elected. I work part time and follow the stock market real close which is consistent with what I have said before.

Please don't say anything else to me, your condescending elitist attitude irritates the heck out of me.

July 28, 2011 at 10:51 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

I wonder where the odd up to the minute updates on Naser Abdo are.

Oh yes, he is Muslum, nothing of interest here, move along...

July 28, 2011 at 11:23 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

If anarchy does ensue be very hopeful that you have not burned your bridges with prepared Teabaggers. Come with an offer to work for food and you might just get a meal that day. Try to take what is not yours... Hopefully that will not be a difficult habit for you to break.

July 28, 2011 at 11:30 p.m.
dude_abides said...

prepared teabaggers...what a joke. Would that be you, BRP? We'll all be sorry one day, right? Then we'll come hat in hand to your doorstep begging and you'll benevolently dole out food to the ones you deem worthy? You will, however, be a wrathful god when provoked, I take it. What kind of work would you have, BRP, building a temple to yourself?

July 29, 2011 at 12:07 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

THE PHANTOM CEO

Harp wrote, Do you have a name to go with that ridiculous CEO scenario... No, Selah asked how a company can fail and yet the CEO walks away with millions. I gave him a hypothetical based on numerous stories I came across while I was the editor of a regional business publication. Heck, I worked for a guy once who actually did some of that stuff, but the company survived. The guy was an amoral psychotic who could act like the most charming guy in the room.

My original question was this: Why do republicans believe that giving corporations more money will translate into more jobs? 'Don't punish the job creators. We don't want corporations paying more taxes, we want more workers paying taxes.' That's pretty close to that old GOP talking point.

You wrote, The cash reserves some have in the U.S. add up to several hundred billion. With few exceptions there is no demand that indicates they need to invest and expand production in the U.S. Later you added, ...I and many stock holders would sell the stock of any company that hired when not necessary or expanded in a way that reduced profits and dividends.

Thank you for making my point. Giving corporations a buck or billion will not affect their hiring practices one iota. They will hire more workers when their current work force cannot meet consumer demands and not one minute sooner. People getting jobs is the key to our economic recovery. Consumer spending will grease the wheels and get the economy rolling again.

As far as your Intel/Viet Nam manufacturing plant story is concerned, there are usually dozens of decisions that have to be made before any plant is built anywhere. Intel was first into China in 1998 or 99. China will soon be the largest market for personal computers on the planet and having a huge plant on the same continent makes sense, regardless of initial construction costs.

July 29, 2011 at 12:47 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

REPUBLICAN DAY OF WRECKONING

I just heard that Boehner couldn't twist enough arms in the House to pass his Bill. The conservative republican revolt continues. 'Don't Tread on Me' indeed.

Again, great cartoon Clay!

How could Boehner go on national TV Monday, announce that the House - controlled by republicans - would pass a Bill to cut spending and raise the debt ceiling if he didn't already have the votes? This is not the first time that he's done this. Good grief.

I am actually embarrassed for the man. I guess it's all up to McConnell now.

July 29, 2011 at 12:57 a.m.
alprova said...

"Alprova, Your disagreement doesn't make it false. I refuse to debate with an idiot. I happen to believe the Intel CEO and consider him more credible and knowledgeable regarding his decision than you."

That's your answer every time I challenge you on that. You may consider me an idiot, but to date, you have never once backed up your side of things with proof.

I can point you to any number of resources that more than prove that the cost of building a plant falls dead last on the list of costs considered when deciding where to build. Labor ranks right up there with the cost of raw materials purchased. Those costs are constant and always a factor in the price of any good manufactured. Building costs are a factor one time in the grand scheme of things.

"How brilliant you are, you should be in congress. The suggestion was to pay a set 20% on returned foreign profits. Spending it here or giving stock holders larger dividends to spend here would both be better than your childish reaction of do it my way or I won't play."

Hey, they made the decision to relocate out of the country and to take those jobs with them. Rewarding them for their decisions by allowing them any tax breaks on the money that they make and now want to import for their own use seems a little like a slap in the face to the rest of America.

"I have to say what you are and what you do never varies, unfortunately. What are you talking about? I have never said I supported either party which seems to burn your ass up but I detest both of them and in my opinion Obama is a two faced idiot. I wish a competent independent could run and be elected. I work part time and follow the stock market real close which is consistent with what I have said before."

Oh...okay. You "follow" the stock market real close. You left the impression a while ago that you were some kind of savvy investor in American companies that relocate overseas.

"Please don't say anything else to me, your condescending elitist attitude irritates the heck out of me."

Gee, I'm sorry if I irritate you, but you don't get to make the invitation list around here or determine who gets to comment on what. Your misplaced and often ignorant foo foo attitude kinda grates on my nerves too.

July 29, 2011 at 2:35 a.m.
moonpie said...

Harp,

Exactly what fees and regulations was the Intel CEO referring to?

Your position on this seems unusually naive for you.

Perhaps there is data you are not sharing. If not, what makes the Intel CEO so credible on this issue?

On the surface, his reasoning seems PR related. It's more acceptable to say they were regulated out of the US rather than they didn't want to pay US wages. This is purely my opinion.

Even if he is right, which issues pushed them to Vietnam? OSHA? EPA? What?

I'm not exactly taking a side, but your argument thusfar is more philosophical and insinuation. That is not your custom. (that's more like my arguments).

July 29, 2011 at 7:18 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Democrats continue to think the key to saving the economy is to borrow our way to prosperity.

Idiots!

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/dem-lawmaker-we-don-t-have-deficit-probl

July 29, 2011 at 8:25 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Despite out of control Democrat government spending to prop up the economy Q2 growth is 0.5% below expectations at 1.3%.

How's that hopy changy thing workin' for you?

July 29, 2011 at 8:34 a.m.
potcat said...

The truth is that the United States doesn't need, and shouldn't have, a debt ceiling. Every other democractic country, with the exception of Denmark, does fine without one. There's no debt limit in the Constitution. And, if Congress really wants to hold down goverment debt, it already has a way to do so that doesn't risk economic chaos - namely, the annual budgeting process. The only reason we need to lift the debt ceiling, after all, is to pay for spending that Congress has already authorized.

The debt limit is both too weak and too strong. Its too weak because Congress can simply vote to lift it, as it has done more than seventy times in the past fifty years. For the U.S. to default now, when investors are happily lending it money at exceedingly reasonable rates, would be akin to shooting yourself in the head for failing to follow your diet.

In fact, by turning dealmaking into a game of chicken, the debt ceiling favors fanaticism. The Republicans priorities are spending cuts and no tax increases, because the Republicans seen to be more willing than the Democrats to let the country default - when some Tea Partiers said that they wouldn't vote to raise the ceiling under any circumstances, they became irrelevant to the conversation.

Instead of figuring out ways to raise the debt ceiling, we should simply go ahead and abolish it. The U.S. economy has plenty of real problems to deal with.We shouldn't have to wrestle with ones we've created ourselves.

July 29, 2011 at 8:37 a.m.
nurseforjustice said...

Potcat, I disagree. I know with my personal finances, I try to keep the debt to income ratio under control so that is is not so far out of wack that I can not pay it back. I heard a very smart financial guy on the radio saying that this is how we can relate the financial crisis. "If you made $50K a year and spent $80K a year, it is proportional to what we as a nation are doing today. So we are piling on $30K a year on to a credit card that we already owe $250K on. This is scenario is not viable for much longer. Therefore we MUST have a debt ceiling and MUST cut spending to get it under control".

Disclaimer:::: I have not personally crunched any numbers to see if what I heard is true but I have no reason to doubt the person I heard.

July 29, 2011 at 9:34 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Only another idiot would think that you can borrow unrestrained, without limits.

There seems to be no shortage of them here.

Something tells me there was an article in the New Yorker that claimed there is no deficit problem, only a debt ceiling problem.

July 29, 2011 at 9:35 a.m.
nurseforjustice said...

Does anyone really know how much a trillion dollars is? It is one million million. So if we could pay $1 million dollars a day on the debt, we could only reduce it by $1 trillion dollars after 2,500+ yrs. WOW!!!

July 29, 2011 at 9:36 a.m.

I agree there is no need for a debt limit... but it's there, isn't it? However, there does need to be a balanced budget amendment or at least something akin to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act which produced balanced budgets in the 90s.

Congress and the POTUS are unwilling (Republican) or incapable (Democrat) to be responsible with the peoples money.

July 29, 2011 at 9:42 a.m.
hambone said...

Congress doesn't have a spending problem, it doesn't have a taxing problem.

It has a borrowing problem.

It has created programs and started wars that it refuses to pay for.

Now congress wants to cut other programs that have always been well funded, to pay for what it wouldn't pay for to start with.

July 29, 2011 at 10:16 a.m.
mtngrl said...

The problem with the debt limit is it does not actually stop congress from passing bills and budgets that go beyond that limit. If it did we would have to raise it before it is spent instead of after like we are now. That is why potcat is correct. Removing the debt limit will not allow unlimited spending. Congress has to allow any spending regardless of what the limit is, so this whole mess they are fighting over is their own creation.

That is also why every time someone mentions the President having a "blank check" they are an outright liar. Congress would have to pass a bill giving him a blank check - they hold the purse strings.

July 29, 2011 at 10:45 a.m.
potcat said...

Unrestrained, without limits, Yeah big, and that would be none other than you (Republican Thieves)that gave America the most inept money spending debt hog in history- Manufactured cowboy Bush, who spent the U.S. in this mess.

They are neither a debt or deficit problem that can't be managed.Its no different than 20 yrs. ago. The reputards wants to make every one think its a problem,its not.

Plenty of ways to fix the spending problem, do the opposite of every Repubtards proposed plans and get a President that has a backbone..

July 29, 2011 at 10:45 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

potcat,

I agree that the Republican's spent irresponsibly and without restraint when they controlled both houses and the presidency.

Why would you characterize the Republicans as "thieves" and, I think, give the Democrats a blank check?

July 29, 2011 at 11:13 a.m.
nurseforjustice said...

potcat and mtngirl, that is very irresponsible. As irresponsible as the repubs spending spree with Bush.

July 29, 2011 at 11:22 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Hambone said: “Congress doesn't have a spending problem. . . It has a borrowing problem. It has created programs and started wars that it refuses to pay for. Now congress wants to cut other programs that have always been well funded, to pay for what it wouldn't pay for to start with.”

You're right, Hambone. And have you noticed that most of those irresponsible big time spenders of yesterday are the very ones lecturing the rest of us today? House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Minority Leader McConnell all voted eagerly for those very things that led the way to where we are today:

"The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which lowered tax rates on income, dividends and capital gains, increased the federal budget deficit by $1.7 trillion over a decade, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a non-partisan left-of- center group in Washington that studies fiscal policy. . . .

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost almost $1.3 trillion since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, according to a March 29 analysis by the Congressional Research Service.

Operations in Iraq have cost $806 billion, and in Afghanistan $444 billion. The analysis shows the government has spent an additional $29 billion for enhanced security on militia bases and $6 billion remains unallocated."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-26/republican-leaders-voted-for-drivers-of-u-s-debt-they-now-blame-on-obama.html

July 29, 2011 at 11:39 a.m.
potcat said...

It is what it is, if the shoe fits, well to damn bad.

Have you a comprehension problem, i don't give the Democrats a pass, i have cut ties with the Democratic party, even though they are all i can support right now, the less of two evils, repubs are a bunch of lunitics and i would NEVER vote for one.

Nurse..irresponsiable, how so? I don't believe in fairy tales, i deal in FACTS.

July 29, 2011 at 11:43 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Hmmmm. . . .

“If corporations and households taking in $1 million or more in income each year were now paying taxes at the same annual rates as they did back in 1961, the IPS researchers found, the federal treasury would be collecting an additional $716 billion a year. In other words, if the federal government started taxing the wealthy and their corporations at the same rates in effect a half-century ago, the federal debt to investors would almost totally vanish over the next decade.”

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/25/277857/corporations-rich-taxes-debt-disappear/

July 29, 2011 at 11:46 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

potcat,

If you have cut ties with the Democrat' Party why does it appear that you are focusing your vitriol towards the Republican Party?

Do you believe that both parties have been acting irresponsibly then?

(Please forgive me if I cannot remember everything, or have not read everything you have posted in the past)

July 29, 2011 at 12:03 p.m.
mtngrl said...

Nurse, if you think what I wrote is irresponsible then talk to your congressmen. It's not my opinion, that's just the way it is.

The whole notion that the debt limit controls spending is a fallacy.

July 29, 2011 at 12:06 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

I think Chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry, should just come out and say it – the Republicans in Congress are stark raving mad:

“The Chinese are laughing all the way to the bank,” said the former Democratic presidential nominee, because a downgrading of U.S. Treasury securities will mean enormous and completely unnecessary increases in our interest payments to the nation’s largest creditor—and our most important competitor in the international arena.

“If we suffer a downgrade of our (U.S. Treasury) debt simply because of the brief time before we have to go through this exercise again,” said Kerry, referring to the House Republican insistence on a debt-limit increase that will expire before next Christmas, “it would mean billions of additional dollars that would have to be paid to the Chinese.”

Those costs would come on top of the extra interest expense that all Americans would see on their home loans, car loans, student loans and credit cards, further weakening the slow recovery from the recession. Moreover, that loss would cut into government’s capacity to pay for important functions, sending many billions of additional dollars abroad instead of rebuilding our infrastructure, bolstering Social Security and Medicare, educating our children and maintaining national security. . .

Why would a group of conservative Republicans in Congress—who rarely stop braying about their great patriotism—create such a grave risk to American power and prosperity? . . . “Some of them don’t get it, some don’t care, and for some it is a combination of both,” Kerry lamented. . . By the time our congressional clowns realize what their intransigence has inflicted on this country, if ever, the harm will be done—and very hard to undo.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_china_is_laughing_all_the_way_to_the_bank_20110729/

July 29, 2011 at 12:21 p.m.
potcat said...

Jesus fricking christ, did i not just spell it out to you in the last post!

I will not respond to you again.

July 29, 2011 at 12:23 p.m.
hambone said...

I have always felt that the Founding Fathers created a document that was near perfect and foolproof in creating the Constitution.

However, I see now that we have perfection.

We have the perfect number of fools in the house !

July 29, 2011 at 12:26 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

potcat said... "Jesus fricking christ"

Where did you get that mouth potcat!

I rephrase questions because you appear to contradict yourself and I am trying to understand your position. It seems like every time a person starts asking about the apparent contradictions the lefties here start cussing and calling names.

One is left to wonder if they are not prepared to deal with the obvious conflicts in their philosophy and as a result resort to name calling. I see the Democrat' leadership doing the same thing. I guess none of the leftists are prepared to face their own lack of a consistent message.

July 29, 2011 at 1:14 p.m.
Clara said...

Cantor claims the Bill that Obama presented to congress will give Obama a blank check to do with the money what he wants.

The Truth Meter at Politifact used by the Richomond Times Dispatch calls him a liar!

Obama has to pay all past debts and will not be able to create new ones with the money. See Article 14 of the Constitution!

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/jul/29/eric-cantor/cantor-says-reid-debt-proposal-gives-blank-check-o/

July 29, 2011 at 1:25 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mountainlaurel said... "I think ... John Kerry, should just come out and say it – the Republicans in Congress are stark raving mad:"

And from where I am sitting, Obama, Reid and Kerry are all stark raving mad. Now what has the name calling accomplished again?

I have had a hard time catching ANYONE from the Tea Party on the news today. I'm not saying they are not getting any airtime, but it seems as though the MSM (including Fox) has shut them out of the discourse and are allowing Harry Reid and (the likes of) John McCain to characterize the Tea Party side of the debate as "extreme" and "mad".

I also notice that many people posting here use the same language, to the letter, that is being projected by those featured in the MSM. If you go back through this thread and look at the posts from this perspective it is entertaining to identify the parrots and the free thinkers.

July 29, 2011 at 1:34 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Clara said... "Cantor claims the Bill that Obama presented to congress"

Obama presented a bill to Congress? What bill is that? I thought Obama only kibitzes from the sidelines and calls people names.

July 29, 2011 at 1:38 p.m.
alprova said...

No. That would be you, creep.

July 29, 2011 at 1:48 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

mtngrl, you mean if you and I were married and I told you that we could only spend $200 this week on groceries, that would mean nothing to you? A ceiling is the same thing as a budget. It says this is as far as we can go. But no one pays attn to that. Each category in our budget has a ceiling but the government pays no attention to the budget at all. That is why we are in this mess and something has to be done to reign it in.

July 29, 2011 at 1:51 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova said... "No. That would be you, creep"

That's pretty funny! alprova said, "creep". Is he trying to prove me right, that the leftists have been reduced to name calling and have nothing left in their arsenal?

July 29, 2011 at 1:58 p.m.
mtngrl said...

mtngrl, you mean if you and I were married and I told you that we could only spend $200 this week on groceries, that would mean nothing to you?

That is not what I said at all. All I am saying the the debt limit does not hold congress accountable when they actually make the spending decisions. It only comes into play when it is time to pay those bills.

The example you give is more like a credit limit. The terms credit and debt are not synonymous.

If a ceiling is the same thing as a budget then why do we have to have a vote on a budget bill and a separate vote on the debt ceiling?

This debt limit vote is simply authorization to go into further debt in order to pay bills congress already voted on and approved.

If you and I were married and you told me we could only spend $200 this week, then that would be a limit placed on us up front, before we went to the grocery store and tried to put $500 on the credit card. The debt limit does not do this. All it does is when its time to pay the credit card bill, it says there is no money in the bank to make the payment without getting another loan - but by then the card is already run up and its too late to take back the groceries.

My point is, since the debt limit is not checked when the bills are passed, and the 14th amendment states "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." - what is the point of having a debt limit at all?

I will agree that we need something more like a credit limit, but that's not what this is.

July 29, 2011 at 2:15 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

The Democrat' seems to think that all of the spending that the Federal government has planned is already spent and cannot be changed. It is a done deal.

In the real world, people know that spending is subject to the will of the spender. If a couple has been in the habit of spending 300 dollars on groceries it does not bind them to spending 300 dollars on groceries this week or next! If you have less income you make adjustments. If, heaven forbid, you max out your credit cards you will simply have to eat ramen instead of rib eye.

It is not a crisis. This crisis has been manufactured by those who won't accept eating ramen, even if it means they have to steal the money for the rib eye.

July 29, 2011 at 2:28 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

The Democrat' wants the spending to be a permanent commitment. They are fighting for the socialist gains they made while they controlled both houses and the presidency. The same "gains" that caused them to lose control of the House of Representatives and nearly cost them the Senate. Reality is, everything is on the table. Sorry to break the news!

July 29, 2011 at 2:32 p.m.
mtngrl said...

The decision to eat ramen instead of rib eye next week is a budget decision. If the credit card bill is due today, we still have to come up with the money today.

Many tea partiers out there seem to think that actually defaulting is OK, when it is factually unconstitutional not to mention idiotic.

July 29, 2011 at 2:42 p.m.
potcat said...

Advocates of the ceiling like the way it turns the national debt into front-page news, focussing the MINDS of voters and politicians; they think it fosters accountability, straight talk, transparency.In reality, debt-ceiling votes merely perpetuate the illusion that balancing the budget is easy. That's why politicians like the debt ceiling: it allows them to rail against borrowing more money ( which voters hate) without having to vote to cut any specific programs or raise taxes (which voters also hate).

You might think that there are benefits to putting negotiators under the gun. But psychologist has shown, time pressure tends to close minds, not open them.Under time pressure, negotiators tend to rely more on stereotypes and cognitive shortcuts. They don't consider as wide a range of alternatives, and are more likely to jump to conclusions based on scanty evidence. Time pressure also reduces the chances that an agreement will be what psychologists call "integrative" - taking everyone's interest and values into account.

July 29, 2011 at 2:58 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mtngrl,

The credit limit forces the budget decisions. You cannot so conveniently declare them separate issues so it protects the Democrats from coming to the table on spending.

It is the progressives that call it defaulting. The Tea Party does not want us to default on the debt. The Tea Party wants to cut, cap and balance.

This is why it is interesting to me that the Tea Party representatives seem to be cut out of the dialogue today, for the last several days. It allows these kind of silly tangents to dominate the discussion. The only Tea Party person I saw on the news was one that joined Boehner, Allan West. It is stunning how the MSM chooses to cherry pick the sound bites to suite its ends.

I suspect that if Michelle Bachmann or Rand Paul were given more face time the public would be getting a different impression. When they speak, most people find them to be reasonable, common sense kind of people, not the "extreme" radicals the opposition would like them to be seen as.

As far as your credit card bill argument goes, we have plenty of money to make the minimum payment. I am not saying this is ideal, but it is not the crisis that Obama and the rest of his Democrat’ friends would have us believe.

If we take the Democrat’ approach, and do nothing but raise the debt limit and throw in some token savings, the US will still be on a path to insolvency and nothing will have been done to avoid the real crisis which is related to… THE SPENDING!

July 29, 2011 at 3:21 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

potcat,

The negotiators put themselves under the gun. They have known they had a spending fight ahead for months now and they have procrastinated to the last minute to create the crisis and facilitate yet another round of crisis management, behind-closed-door meetings and agreements to ram another crappy bill through.

When you do not impose a schedule on tasks that are not fun you will see procrastination almost every time. This idea that we can let the politicians deal with this rationally, at their own pace, does not hold water.

The Democrats could not even pass a budget when they had control of both houses and the presidency! Look what happens when no one puts pressure on!

July 29, 2011 at 3:27 p.m.
mtngrl said...

"The credit limit forces the budget decisions"

First, do you understand the difference between the words credit and debt?

Explain what this "credit limit" you mention is and exactly how does it force budget decisions?

The current vote is on the debt limit. Cut, cap and balance is a budgeting rider the tea partiers are trying to add, but is not associated with the current debt.

And did you consider that maybe the tea partiers are out of sight because Boehner is busy trying to beat em up side the head today??

And as for your highly partisan spending rants:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/26/7170139-charts-seriously-its-the-bush-tax-cuts

And even if you don't like the source, try disputing the actual charts which came from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities...

July 29, 2011 at 3:39 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

potcat said... "Time pressure also reduces the chances that an agreement will be what psychologists call "integrative" - taking everyone's interest and values into account"

This is interesting and, I suspect, a foundation of progressive theory. A Conservative (liberal in the classical sense, another word that has been distorted by Progressives) realizes that you can never make everyone happy. Your best bet is to let them make their own decisions. When a central power tries to please everyone they please no one. Misery prevails. That is the world we live in today. I argue with you because you advocate for government involvement that takes away my right to choose how I want to live my life. If you would grant me the option to opt out I would have no issue with your plans.

July 29, 2011 at 3:45 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

potcat,

Another thought, back to the pressure on politicians thing.

Look what happened when the Republicans had control of everything. Spending went out of control in a fashion very similar to what happened recently when the Democrats were in total control. It seems clear that pressure is required to keep politicians pointed in the right direction.

July 29, 2011 at 4:07 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BigRidgePatriot said: “MSM (including Fox) has shut them out of the discourse and are allowing Harry Reid and (the likes of) John McCain to characterize the Tea Party side of the debate as "extreme" and "mad".

Since I haven’t watched any television today, I don’t know if MSM (including Fox) has or has not shut the Republican Tea Partiers out of the discourse, BigRidgePatriot. But I certainly understand why people are characterizing these people as “extreme” and “mad” – It’s because they are “extreme” and are stark raving “mad.”

What you do not seem to grasp, BigRidgePatriot, is that Congress has already incurred certain debts, which means the U.S. is responsible for paying these debts. The Republican House of Representatives are essentially attempting to default on the debts that Congress has already incurred, which is something that the U.S. Constitution forbids us to do.

July 29, 2011 at 4:14 p.m.
mystyre said...

'Corporate America poured millions of dollars into the 2010 election to help republicans gain control of Congress' 'The debt limit is both too weak and too strong. Its too weak because Congress can simply vote to lift it, as it has done more than seventy times in the past fifty years.' 'Congress doesn't have a spending problem, it doesn't have a taxing problem. It has a borrowing problem' 'Congress has to allow any spending regardless of what the limit is, so this whole mess they are fighting over is their own creation.' 'Congress has already incurred certain debts, which means the U.S. is responsible for paying these debts'

I THINK I'M SEEING A PATTERN....

July 29, 2011 at 4:19 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

I think I might get what you are trying to say.

Are you including current payment obligations in your use of the word debt?

Like, if I hire a landscape guy to mow my lawn for $100 a week and then decide I cannot afford it I am obligated to keep that landscape guy and cannot mow my own lawn. Or, if I do, I still have to pay the guy.

Or, are you using it like a "debt" to society?

Payment to charity or payment for services not yet rendered is not debt mtngrl. I do not have to give my money to the thief that just tried to rob me, nor is there anything stopping me from cancelling services and holding future payment for said services not received.

This whole thing is getting excruciatingly silly and boring. Can we stop now?

July 29, 2011 at 4:26 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Well, economist Brad DeLong knows what he would do about the debt ceiling:

"The Treasury's lawyers should simply announce at 9 am Monday morning that (a) since the Constitution prohibits questioning the validity of the national debt, and (b) since the continuing resolution that mandates spending through September 30 was passed later in time than the restriction on borrowing, that (c) the debt ceiling is a dead letter. This is so by the oldest of the principles of black-letter law: a law inconsistent with a previous law is deemed to repeal the previous law even if it does not do so explicitly. . . .

The structure of Tim Geithner's testimony to Congress defending his additional borrowing is:

The Constitution forbids me from even thinking about default.

You ordered me to spend.

A previous Congress told me not to borrow, but no Congress can bind its successors, and those of you who are in this Congress here now ordered me to spend.

I'm just doing what you told me to do--and what the Constitution directly and explicitly tells me to do.

And then we should move on to the people's business. This episode of kabuki theatre has done nobody any credit. If I had previously had any respect for or confidence in Republicans, this would have shredded it. And each day it continues it further shreds my respect for and confidence in the executive branch."

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/07/what-to-do-about-the-debt-ceiling.html

July 29, 2011 at 4:42 p.m.
mtngrl said...

This has nothing to do with "my" definition of debt or yours....

This has everything to do with the current vote which is on our debt limit. All I have been saying is this is not a "credit limit" like you and the other tea partiers seem to believe. Have you figured out the difference?

You said earlier "The credit limit forces the budget decisions" but you never tried to explain how that happens, even if you substitute debt for credit in that statement.

Are you advocating default?

This may be boring but the affect on the economy is not silly, and if it all goes downhill again due to not passing this thing, the tea partiers will get the vast majority of the blame in the next election. Just ask Newt

July 29, 2011 at 4:44 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

potcat said (@July 29, 2011 at 8:37 a.m)...

“The debt limit is both too weak and too strong. Its too weak because Congress can simply vote to lift it, as it has done more than seventy times in the past fifty years”

mystyre said (@July 29, 2011 at 4:19 p.m)...

“The debt limit is both too weak and too strong. Its too weak because Congress can simply vote to lift it, as it has done more than seventy times in the past fifty years.”

I THINK I'M SEEING A PATTERN....

Where do you guys get this stuff? Even the misspelling is the same.

July 29, 2011 at 4:45 p.m.
mtngrl said...

BRP, if you actually read mystyre's entire post they are copying many statements including potcat's in order to show the pattern...

your reading comprehension seems to need a little work. I don't know how much clearer the posts today could be but you just don't seem to get it yet keep coming back.

You asked "Can we stop now?". Well, you don't need anyone's permission for that - just stop if you want.

July 29, 2011 at 4:57 p.m.
fairmon said...

Increasing revnue would probably be a better option than raising the debt limit. Perhaps a no exceptions "war tax" on every retail purchase whicn means anyone spending money will know and help with the cost of three stupid oil wars. It is too easy to bury everything in the general budget and allow everyone to raise hell when their favorite or sacred cow is threatened.

July 29, 2011 at 5:27 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mtngrl,

I don't think you are being honest with yourself. The President recently changed his lingo, abandoning talk of “defaulting on the debt” to “defaulting on obligations”. You know I am talking about his original usage and you are trying to use his new usage.

Like the president, you are using word games to try to confuse the issue. The President talks about the dangers of defaulting on the debt and then he seamlessly switches his usage in a way that includes government programs that you can choose to call obligations or not. The second usage is dependent on your leftist paradigm that assumes these programs are good and necessary so you want to use the term default which has negative connotations. I do not see many of those programs and expenditures as necessary or even good and as such have a problem applying the negative term to their reduction or elimination.

Please do not confuse your apparent definition of default with default on real debt, where you take one party's money promising to pay it back and then fail to repay said money as promised. That is theft in my mind and deserves the negative connotation that comes with the word default.

You have to accept the idea that all of the expected future cash flow is some kind of sacred debt to society or something in order for your position to make sense. Only in the mind of a leftist.

Yes, you are right and I am bored out of my mind with this so you go ahead and have fun with your word crafting. Maybe someday you will get around to actually debating the issue instead of playing silly word games.

July 29, 2011 at 5:29 p.m.
mtngrl said...

Just because you do not comprehend what someone is saying does not mean they are using "word games" any more than you are. I am using my own words and no one else's.

I am not concerned with you trying to dodge the issue. The outcome of this issue has a direct affect on our economy, and has already affected wall street. Our credit rating does affect the interest rate we have to pay to China. Without the tea party this would have been passed already and the downgrading of the economy would not be happening now. You have been drinking way too much tea..

July 29, 2011 at 5:37 p.m.
potcat said...

Mystyre said..

Corporate America poured millions into the 2010 election to help Republicans gain control of congress.

The Chamber of Commerce spent $250,000 on ads in Florida blasting the Democractic incumbent,Represenative Alan Grayson. The Chamber spent $250,000 to elect Republican Daniel Webster, he won, if it was any thing like the Ads the Chamber ran in TN. against Harold Ford, they had to be some below the belt lying trash filth.

In New Mexico the Chamber spent over $400,000 to elect Republican Steve Pearce.

In May the Chamber gave $2,000 to Representative Patrick Meehan, a Pennsylvania Republican already building up a war chest for the 2012 campaign.

The Chamber opposes legislation on Health Care and Financial regulation and their advocacy in support of Free trade agreements with South Korea, Columbia and Panama.

I don't want one penny of my taxes going to the Republcan Chamber of Commerce.

July 29, 2011 at 6:14 p.m.
fairmon said...

There will be no default on the debt. Monthly tax revenue is sufficient to pay interest on the debt, meet social security and medicare obligations, cover military cost plus a few billion left. Failure to raise the limit or reduce spending would cause some departments to close. Some should be closed permanently and others reduced. Many departments are services and their operation and programs are monthly expenses but not debts. Some are critical and needed.

We are in trouble. Key economic indicators are signaling a further softening of the economy. Boehner, Reid, Geitner and Obama, are we in good hands? Do you get a warm confident feeling when you watch and listen to them? Can you imagine what the last minute compromise will be? It has to be something where they can both claim victory and place blame and that their parrots can repeat.

July 29, 2011 at 6:31 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

MAKE EVERYONE HURT

I just heard a wonderful solution to the current manufactured crisis:

Have both houses of Congress vote up or down right now on "Bowles/ Simpson." Yes or no, there is something in there for everyone to hate, but it addresses seriously, and without all the soap opera drama, a way out of the mess we're in.

Forget that a bi-partisan commission was originally a republican idea. Forget that republicans became staunch opponents as soon as Obama said he liked the idea. Forget that they needed 14 votes for committee approval but only got 11. Forget that Obama stepped back from the commission findings. Just forget all of it. It's old news, the horse has been dead for days. We can stop whaling away at the carcass now.

A vote on that would show where everyone stands. It would go a long way to rebuilding our reputation around the world.

A boy can dream.

July 29, 2011 at 6:46 p.m.
fairmon said...

BRP... Did you give up? Mntl has locked in so trying to explain that ongoing expenses are not debts may be futile. A way to think about it may be:

o Credit card balance=debt

o House payment=debt

o Car payment=debt

o Personal loans or other purchased goods on credit=debt

o Food=expense

o Clothing=expense

o Gas=expense

o Auto service or repairs=expense

o Insurance premiums=expense

o Utilities=expense

o Security system=expense

o Hobbies and recreation=expense

You have to meet debt obligations but may have to make some hard choices on expenses. To get another loan or credit card you have to show you can pay it back and the other debts you already owe. Congress has only so much to spend. Debts can be met but expenses are not covered and need to be trimmed and show they can pay the new loan and current debt before getting another loan.

July 29, 2011 at 7:01 p.m.
fairmon said...

bw48

I like that. Simpson/Bowles did address the problem without being concerned about being elected again or showing favor. One thing that made it good is both parties quit talking about it and backed away from the Simpson/Bowles work with their tails between their legs..

July 29, 2011 at 7:06 p.m.
hambone said...

What If ! Just what If !

Clinton handed Bush a surplus and a big projected surplus over 10 years.

Bush handed Obama a larger deficit and a hugh projected deficit over 10 years!

These are facts BRP, a democrat left a sound economy to a republican and the same republican left the economy in shambles

July 29, 2011 at 7:18 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

harp,

I think you are hitting the nail on the head. Mtngrl confuses debt with expenses. She thinks everything the government does is part of some sacred obligation that is on par with repayment of debt and as such the moneys to fulfill those obligations are a debt in her mind, a debt to society I suppose.

You have to spend quite a bit of time in indoctrination to get your head that screwed up. Leftist continuously try to tamper with word meanings to confuse and justify. Communist becomes Progressive becomes Liberal becomes Progressive over time. In the end they are all roughly synonymous with Marxism or Socialism but for Christ sake do not call them a Marxist or a Socialist! They cannot stand the light of day. That reminds me of the Obama Vampire avatar I was using for a while. I should dig that one out again. Not that Clay is any less of a loser these days but I sure do get tired of seeing his ugly mug sitting just to the left as I type!

July 29, 2011 at 7:23 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

potcat said... "The Chamber of Commerce spent $250,000 on ads in Florida blasting the Democractic incumbent,Represenative Alan Grayson."

Are you not happy someone helped get rid of Grayson? I know you have cut all ties with the Democrats but you still like to cheerlead for them. Was it hard to root for your team when you had someone as objectionable as that guy making strange noises all the time?

July 29, 2011 at 7:33 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Blackwater48 said: Have both houses of Congress vote up or down right now on "Bowles/ Simpson." Yes or no,

I don't believe the Simpson-Bowles Commission ever issued a report, Blackwater48. As I recall, the commission's co-chairs took it upon themselves to issue a report to their fellow commissioners, but their report was not supported by a majority of the commissioners.

July 29, 2011 at 8:06 p.m.
potcat said...

I said i have cut ties with the Democractic"PARTY" for many reasons, i am not an ideologue and they are many Democrats i will support and some i want,Obama i will not. I voted for him because he said the right things and then he turned Republican,enough said.

Hillary was my choice anyway and the "PARTY" threw her under the bus and said to Democrats, you don't count, we the PARTY WANT OBAMA and by god thats who its going to be.

big,you are a agitator, all smoke and mirrors and add nothing to the discussion. So Desperate for attention, i really feel sorry for you.

July 29, 2011 at 9:51 p.m.
fairmon said...

hambone,

Do you think it is Bush and Obama or congress? A president can't spend anything without congress approving. Clinton worked with a republican congress (Newt I think was who Clinton dealt with) and Bush worked with a democrat congress. It seems congress and Bush were in collusion to break the bank. They passed a terribly under funded prescription drug plan and gave BIPARTISAN (they use that word so much it makes me sick) support to two wars. Then along comes Obama with that same democratic controlled congress and it got worse until 11/10. No no telling what the heck is going to happen now. Eliminating all tax loop holes, incentives, grants etc. makes a lot of sense to me. There seems to be something wrong with 51% paying zero and a few million using the earned income credit to get tax refunds of several thousand more than paid in taxes. That is camouflaged welfare. If it is appropriate and needed call it something else and label it welfare.

July 29, 2011 at 11:04 p.m.
fairmon said...

Reporters today said Boehner's bill increases spending over 1 trillion dollars over time. One logical suggestion not being considered was to hold spending at no more than current levels. And, based on projected revenues the budget would be balanced in 4-5 years. Combined with appropriate tax code revisions the time could be even less.

July 29, 2011 at 11:14 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

LE GRAND CHARADE

Mtgrl wrote, I don't believe the Simpson-Bowles Commission ever issued a report, Blackwater48. As I recall, the commission's co-chairs took it upon themselves to issue a report to their fellow commissioners, but their report was not supported by a majority of the commissioners.

Right you are, Fille de Montagne. I mentioned that only 11 commissioners voted for it and they needed 14. But that's one way legislation was enacted once upon a time. People with political courage tried as best they could to move the country forward and leave the next generation a little better off.

Today it's all political theater. Cable TV is an insatiable beast that never sleeps. If you're a politician who loves to both make a speech and make an ass out of yourself you're in luck. There is way too much political posturing. It's like the babies are running the Day Care while the inmates running the asylum.

Take that piece of crap Bill that came out of the House tonight. Not the bipartisan Bill that Boehner promised. Just more pointless drivel that won't be passed in the Senate. And they knew that. But they went ahead and made a political statement when they should have been legislating.

Which brings me to some late breaking news:

McConnell plans to filibuster any compromise Bill that Harry Reid tries to bring to the Senate floor for a vote.

Really? That's all you got Mitch? Another freaking NO? Another freaking filibuster?

Every time I think we've reached the bottom of the political barrel some republican finds a new low.

July 29, 2011 at 11:47 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

HEAR THE WRATH OF THE O'REILLY...

Oh really? No, O'Reilly. (old joke... sorry)

Republicans must being doing something really stupid AND crazy to draw the wrath of O'Reilly.

Cut and pasted from the internets but you should go check it out for yourself. I've been called a communists on this site by people whose opinions I hold in the highest contempt:

"Bill O'Reilly took some Republicans to task on his Thursday show, saying that they needed to stop their "craziness," tone down their "hateful rhetoric" and pass a debt ceiling increase. Speaking to guest host Laura Ingraham from Los Angeles, O'Reilly said he had taken a "moderate" stance on the debt crisis, and he warned Republicans who have so far been unwilling to pass a debt ceiling increase would only be helping President Obama, who he said had taken an "enormous hit" from the debate. "The only thing that can save Barack Obama at this point is craziness on the right," he said. "...It's not only going to hurt the Republican party, which has already been hurt, but it's going to save President Obama who they hate." "Exactly," Ingraham said. "The irony is, the people who dislike President Obama the most...are helping him the most," O'Reilly said. "You've got to stop this hateful rhetoric. Some of the rhetoric is so hateful...it'd spin your head around. You have to say, listen, we're at a point in the history when we have to save the country."

You think the nut jobs in the House are listening? Hello? Is this thing on? Hello?

July 29, 2011 at 11:56 p.m.
hambone said...

Harp, Bush campaigned on "it your money why should the government have it" What else coulg he do, say everything is going good I want change it? After he was elected I beleive his handlers knew better but they were stuck with tax cuts. Tax cuts are easy to get thru congress. Everyone compares the fed budget to their household budget, all I know is when I got everything psid off was the best feeling I ever had.

We will never be in any closer to paying off the national debt than we were in 2000!

July 29, 2011 at 11:57 p.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "That's pretty funny! alprova said, "creep". Is he trying to prove me right, that the leftists have been reduced to name calling and have nothing left in their arsenal?"

I had the fleeting thought that you would come back with something like that. But I am not calling you a name. I am describing your demeanor to a "T".

And the funny thing, if there ever was one, is that everyone knows you are a Clay Bennett stalking creep, but yourself.

July 30, 2011 at 12:44 a.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "I suspect that if Michelle Bachmann or Rand Paul were given more face time the public would be getting a different impression. When they speak, most people find them to be reasonable, common sense kind of people, not the "extreme" radicals the opposition would like them to be seen as."

The people who find Rand Paul and Michelle Bachmann reasonable, are among the same kooks who hang on every word they say. That in no manner makes them reasonable to "most people." I'm still scratching my head to understand how Rand Paul actually pulled off being elected in his home district.

I'm betting he will be a one-term-wonder, especially if he does get some more camera time. There's no way that man is going national any faster than his father is.

July 30, 2011 at 12:50 a.m.
alprova said...

Harp23339 wrote: "Bush worked with a democrat congress."

Your memory is faulty. The Republicans dominated both the House and Senate from 2000 to 2008.

"It seems congress and Bush were in collusion to break the bank. They passed a terribly under funded prescription drug plan and gave BIPARTISAN (they use that word so much it makes me sick) support to two wars."

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act was hardly passed as a bi-partisan effort. 210 Republicans voted for the bill, and 193 Democrats voted against it on November 22, 2003 in the House. The Senate passed it with 54 Republicans voting for it and 44 Democrats voting against it on November 25, 2003

The tallies for the votes to go to war in Afghanistan were:

On September 14, 2001 bill House Joint Resolution 64 passed in the House. The totals in the House of Representatives were: 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting.

Senate On September 14, 2001 Senate Joint Resolution 23 passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays.

Clearly, emotion from the attack of 9/11 ruled the day on that day.

The vote to invade Iraq showed that there were some cooler heads prevailing at the time.

HOUSE
Republicans - 215 yeas, 6 nays, 2 no-votes

Democrats - 82 yeas, 126 nays, 1 no-votes

Independent - 0 yeas, 1 nays

SENATE

Republicans - 48 yeas, 1 nay

Democrats - 29 yeas, 21 nays

Independent - 0 yeas, 1 nay

"Then along comes Obama with that same democratic controlled congress and it got worse until 11/10."

You're like all the other idiots out there putting everything on the back of Obama.

What has improved since the Republicans have taken the House? Nothing at all. They have done nothing they promised to do but to continue to obstruct any progress at all in the House of any meaningful legislation, and of course to grandstand at every opportunity to blame the President for anything and everything.

It worked for a little while, but the tide is turning and the Republicans are now being seen for what many of us have known for years, that they only care about.

July 30, 2011 at 1:37 a.m.
inthemiddle said...

Why does everyone believe Clinton had some kind of surplus that was passed on?

Although it is noted that the public debt was indeed paid down in meager amounts, where did that money come from? It came from the governments ability to fund itself. They loaned themselves their own money. It appears that the Clinton Admin. did what all the others before him did and used some shady accounting tactics to make it appear that he had eliminated the debt. It was simply taking surplus money (Social Security) and using that to purchase T-bills and other forms of government securities to pay the other bills. Regardless of where that money showed up either in the domain of public debt or national debt, it is by its very nature still a debt. There comes a time when Social Security would need to pay its own bills and to fund that they would need to sell those notes which the government owns. The national debt if you will do a minor amount of research increased in proportion to the decrease of the public debt. The national debt never decreased in fact it increased.

July 30, 2011 at 4:02 p.m.
Rufus_T_Firefly said...

How True.

July 31, 2011 at 5:56 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.