published Wednesday, September 19th, 2012

The Alternative

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 ...

169
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.
Jack_Dennis said...

Hope? Change?

September 19, 2012 at 12:03 a.m.
Salsa said...

I'm hoping for a change.

September 19, 2012 at 12:13 a.m.
miraweb said...

The Reagan-worship that accompanies every election is an interesting phenomenon. The real Reagan was positive, hopeful, cheerful, and never one to take himself too seriously. He ran on the phrase " morning in America ."

And he won.

The current campaign of gloom and despair is not one Reagan would have put up with.

Mind, I didn't care for a lot of what Reagan did. But it was obvious why " the great communicator " won two terms.

September 19, 2012 at 12:28 a.m.
Lanierlaw said...

Theft and Tyranny

Vs.

Freedom and Prosperity

September 19, 2012 at 1:46 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

I have often wondered why anyone not in the upper 1-2 percent continues to vote Republican. Today's GOP has become so radicalized and so unabashedly pro-big business and pro-wealth that the average person in middle or poor America is practically invisible to them. And in Romney's eyes, even less than invisible - they/we are scum..."moochers"..."takers." In light of the latest indisputable evidence of how Romney really feels about the lower and middle class, any average Joe or Jane who still votes Republican is either a masochist and relishes the thought of bending over and having a president who'll stick it to them where the sun don't shine, or they clearly don't know their a##hole from a hole in the ground.

September 19, 2012 at 1:57 a.m.
Lanierlaw said...

Socialism, the redistribution of earnings, and its other variants does not work over the long term because it assumes people will act contrary to the laws of human nature. I will work harder for me and my family than I will to support someone whom I do not know, have never met and who has made life choices that lead to poverty. What is truly unfair, morally wrong and tyrannical is to use the power of the State to take what one person has earned to buy the votes of another all in the name of "compassion". Compassion comes from a willing heart, not a decree of government. The latter is tyranny which free people will not long suffer.

September 19, 2012 at 2:38 a.m.
fairmon said...

rickaroo said....

they clearly don't know their a##hole from a hole in the ground.

truer words were never spoken about those we don't agree with. I put democrats and republicans both in that category. There is not enough members of congress (perhaps one) or POTUS that ask the question regarding any proposed legislation; Is it constitutional? Is it legal? Can we afford it? A no to any question is no to the legislation. Or, if the only no is we can't afford it the next question is how much would each tax rate have to be increased to pay for it?

What would people be willing to give up if the current tax rates were increased sufficient to balance the budget and reduce the debt by 1% per year? If not now when? If not you who? Greed and selfishness is not unique to any category of wealth, it is evident at all levels and in both parties.

September 19, 2012 at 2:40 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Lanierlaw,

You have a 3rd grade view of Socialism.

Altruism is part of human nature.

You aren't supporting anyone other than yourself or your family.

The majority of poor people did not make conscious decisions to end up in poverty. Luck plays the biggest part.

No one is taking what you have earned to buy the votes of another.

We have a "safety net" in this country because people/business fail. People lose jobs, breadwinners die, businesses go belly up. I support the "safety net" because I could end up needing it one day. I haven't taken any government assistance to date but I don't know what the future holds. Poor people deserve help, not because they're entitled to it, but because they are human beings. Everyone deserves a helping hand when they are in need. The "safety net" provides that help.

September 19, 2012 at 2:51 a.m.

The majority of poor people did not make conscious decisions to end up in poverty. Luck plays the biggest part.

There are other, more intelligent explanations for poverty than either luck or self-destruction.

We have a "safety net" in this country because people/business fail. People lose jobs, breadwinners die, businesses go belly up. I support the "safety net" because I could end up needing it one day. I haven't taken any government assistance to date but I don't know what the future holds … The "safety net" provides that help.

Your safety net is a noose. It destroys families, productivity, and self-respect. Most liberal politicians sacrifice nothing personally to help the poor. It is liberal politicians who make conscious decisions to lock other people into poverty.

Poor people deserve help, not because they're entitled to it, but because they are human beings. Everyone deserves a helping hand when they are in need.

True enough. Which is exactly why bribing poor voters with fairy tales of political prince charmings is cynical and de-humanizing. It’s never as easy as 1-2-3.

September 19, 2012 at 5:48 a.m.
Reardon said...

Easy123, is there a difference between charity and welfare?

Thanks Bennett for another leftist-hack cartoon.

September 19, 2012 at 5:49 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

We hoped the deficit would be cut in half...it's gotten bigger.

We hoped unemployment would go down...it's gone up.

We hoped Muslims would be nicer...seems some of them are nastier.

Time for a change?

Jesus is rather libertarian...and Personally very generous, as opposed to giving away other people's money.

September 19, 2012 at 5:56 a.m.
Yossarian25 said...

It's so sickening that republicans will destroy their own country if they don't get their own way, and then call others traitors. Just yelling repetitious slogans and pretending you know what socialism means, don't seem to be working for y'all! Maybe Ryan can make up some new truths and then you can call Obama some more offensive names. But don't kid yourselves that you are part of the solution! And if you don't appreciate Clay's views, he ain't forcing you to read them! There's plenty of right-wing propaganda you could be inciting hatred with. Just like your counter-parts in the Islamic world, exploiting the situation for their own gain, just like Romney!!

September 19, 2012 at 6:10 a.m.
EaTn said...

Romney has an enigma projection that makes it difficult for folks to follow and trust. As the father of the first universal health care in this country, he projected the caring figure who many on the left and middle admired. Now with the secret tape and the embassy burning, he projects to those values on the far right. Then there's his secret investments and tax returns. Voters will find it hard to vote for someone they can't relate to.

September 19, 2012 at 6:27 a.m.
alprova said...

Esay123 wrote: "The majority of poor people did not make conscious decisions to end up in poverty. Luck plays the biggest part."

Some people are lucky, others are not, but there are decisions one can make to overcome poverty.

Starting in grade school, children can apply themselves to achieve good grades, maintain good attendance records, etc. to open a world of opportunity that comes to those who are poor through the offering of scholarships that earn them a higher education, which we all know is a very good ticket to a higher paying career. Parents who urge and work with their children to excell in school help break the cycle of poverty.

Even in cases where higher education is not possible, amassing a good work record, starting with one's first menial job, allows people to advance into opportunities or onto better paying jobs, not offered to those who are problem employees.

There are indeed those who are lazy, those who utilize our public assistance programs because they know they are there, who are not interested in doing what it takes to be self-supporting.

There are many women, who as young adults make choices that cause them to wind up pregnant, who go on to have a baby without the benefit of marriage being part of the equation, who are then saddled with less opportunities open to them, because they have this child to look after and are ill prepared to provide for it. They find themselves trapped with very few options open to them.

Finally, there are those who are pre-judged, and unlucky victims of pure and unadulterated racism, who are not given a ladder to climb up, who fall through the cracks, who give up, who give in to resigning themselves to remain in poverty after repeated efforts to rise above it.

A fundamental truth is that the darker a person's skin is in this country, the more likely that they will wind up impoverished.

People can and do rise above poverty, but many have to work twice, five, even ten times harder than some others to do it.

Mitt Romney, while totally incorrect in his assessment of the 47% in his speech, was only orating what many people in this country believe to be absolutely true. What each and every one of these people are forgetting, as Republicans, is that everyone is an individual and they deserve to be considered on that level at all times.

It seems that there are far too many Republicans who dismiss and discard people by throwing them into a box, writing them off as of no use to themselves. And every time they treat people that way, they throw away at the same time, golden opportunities to make a difference in this country.

Pre-judging people by their current circumstance in life is no indication that they have the desire to be there or will remain there permanently.

For sure, there are some who will remain there, but why is it so plausible to some people for them to assume that everyone in that 47% class, is there by personal choice?

September 19, 2012 at 7:10 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Lanierlaw said..."Theft and Tyranny

Vs.

Freedom and Prosperity"

Correct, except that you have them in reverse order. Tyranny in this country is the handwork of the powerful multi-national corporations, not the "47%".

September 19, 2012 at 7:12 a.m.
MTJohn said...

AndrewLohr said..."We hoped the deficit would be cut in half...it's gotten bigger.

We hoped unemployment would go down...it's gone up.

We hoped Muslims would be nicer...seems some of them are nastier.

Time for a change?

Jesus is rather libertarian...and Personally very generous, as opposed to giving away other people's money."

And, I keep hoping that those who insist on interjecting Christianity into politics would insist that government function on the principle of "loving your neighbor as yourself".

September 19, 2012 at 7:15 a.m.
alprova said...

WWWTW wrote: "Most liberal politicians sacrifice nothing personally to help the poor."

Help me understand your statement.

What exactly makes a Liberal any different than a Republican who helps the poor? Liberal or Democratic politicians pay taxes too, that are used in the same manner that taxes taken from Republican politicians are spent.

And according to the rumors floating about, there are more Democrats who are millionaires than there are Republicans.

Could it be that they sacrifice more in the form of taxes because they are more wealthy than their counterparts, or do you believe that only Republican politicians pay taxes in this nation?

September 19, 2012 at 7:23 a.m.
degage said...

Watch if you dare.

Http//youtube.com/watch popupV=tCHA=MSWSzY=28

September 19, 2012 at 7:36 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

AndrewLohr said: "Jesus is rather libertarian...and personally very generous, as opposed to giving away other people's money.

Interesting how your Libertarian/Republican Jesus is opposed to giving away “other people’s money” when it comes to things like feeding hungry families, investing in America’s youth, and providing healthcare services for our citizens. . . YET so supportive when it comes to giving away "“other peoples money”" for things such as aircraft carriers, drones, torpedoes, diesel subs and military invasions of other peoples' countries.

September 19, 2012 at 7:37 a.m.
alprova said...

Reardon wrote: "Thanks Bennett for another leftist-hack cartoon."

I will never understand why it is that some people insist on beating their heads against the wall so consistently, after coming to this particular page on this site, expecting the theme of any cartoon at the top to reflect their points of view if they happen to cheer for the Republicans/Conservatives.

If you ever pick up a copy of the print edition of the Times Free Press, and open it to the section of the paper in which Clay Bennett's cartoons appear, you will notice that they always appear on the left page of that section. The opinions expressed on that side of the paper are left leaning as well.

If you will look on the right hand page, you will find syndicated cartoons more in line with your taste of political fodder. You will likely read opinions that you find yourself agreeing with much more often on that page too.

Now I don't know for sure, and far be for me to surmise on his behalf, but from all appearances, Mr. Bennett tends to side with the Democratic/Liberal point of view on most things political.

It is not any cartoonists job to be fair, impartial, or to switch hit to satisfy the whims or desires of a soul. Does such a cartoonist exist? I've never seen one.

Some of you people are like those little mice, who repeatedly take a wrong turn in a maze, expecting a different result when you pop in to see one of Mr. Bennett's works of art which may or may not contain a punch line.

If you want to see cartoons that reflect your values, beliefs, or points of view, there are many places across the web where you can see them and participate in forums with like-minded people all day long.

September 19, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.
mymy said...

47 Days to Go!

It is still the economy/jobs/foreign policy/direction of country and National Security here and abroad.

Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock

He believes in government "redistribution"

September 19, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.
alprova said...

degage wrote: "Watch if you dare."

I'm sure we would all love to watch whatever it was you were trying to post, but your link is no good, and despite several attempts to fix it, it went nowhere.

September 19, 2012 at 7:55 a.m.
mymy said...

Hope this is not true, but would not shock me if it is:

The US State Department is actively negotiating with Egyptian President Morsi's government about transferring Omar Abdel-Rahman from US custody to Egyptian custody.

Rahman, also known as "the Blind Sheikh," is currently serving a life sentence in the US for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. But Egypt is pushing for his release for "humanitarian and health" reasons.

The Department of Justice says the possibility of release is ruled out by the fact that Rahman is serving a life sentence. But an unnamed official within the Obama administration has said the custody exchange is being considered regardless.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy believes the deal to release Rahman has already been reached by the administration, and they are just waiting until after the election to announce it. McCarthy believes this is why the DOJ so strongly ruled out Rahman's "release" but said nothing against his "transfer."

McCarthy was lead prosecutor in Rahman's case.

September 19, 2012 at 8:01 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

EaTn said: “Romney has an enigma projection that makes it difficult for folks to follow and trust.”

All things considered, I think it’s become rather clear that Mitt Romney is a smug cynical Republican plutocrat who has simply dropped “political correctness” – the kind that neo-con/libertarian Charles Murray urges on:

“Charles Murray asked right-wing plutocrats (he dismissed left-wing plutocrats as disloyal to their class and to capitalism) to drop what he derided as "political correctness" and denounce Americans who received governmental support as immoral failures.

Murray is a vigorous supporter and flatterer of Mitt Romney, claiming that the fact that he became wealthy at Bain should make him a "slam dunk" for the presidency.

Murray's reasoning is so crude that he announces a new doctrine -- the divine right of CEOs to govern America.

"Who better to be president of the greatest of all capitalist nations than a man who got rich by being a brilliant capitalist?"

No need to hold elections; simply make whoever tops the Forbes list of wealthiest people the president. Think of the competitive incentives that rule would create.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/romney-47-percent_b_1892995.html

September 19, 2012 at 8:30 a.m.
mymy said...

A Mother you cannot Trust:

Mother Jones, the left-wing magazine that released a controversial video of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's remarks to a fundraiser in May, now admits that it has no full tape of what Romney said, and that its video is missing "one to two minutes" at the most important moment.

The Legal Insurrection blog's William Jacobson and The Blaze both raised questions on Tuesday about whether Mother Jones had, as promised, revealed the full video, given an apparent jump cut in the critical section of Romney's remarks.

"Something is missing. Romney’s 47% answer was cut off before completed, and is not picked up on the Part 2 audio video," Jacobson noted.

Late Tuesday evening, Jacobson obtained the following comment from David Corn of Mother Jones:

According to the source, the recording device inadvertently turned off. The source noticed this quickly and turned it back one [sic]. The source estimates that one to two minutes, maybe less, of recording was missed.

Corn was forced to update his original post, which promised the "full" video, to reflect the fact that a key portion of the video is, in fact, missing.

There is no way to know, without the missing footage, exactly what Romney said. On Monday evening, Romney called for a complete video of his remarks to be released.

That now turns out to be impossible, either because Romney's remarks were never recorded in full (as Mother Jones now claims), or because some of his remarks--perhaps mitigating some of the controversial effect of his statements--were selectively edited out of the tape by Mother Jones or its chain of sources (including former President Jimmy Carter's grandson).

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/09/19/Mother-Jones-Admits-Romney-Tape-Missing-One-or-Two-Minutes

Once again, the media has it's nasty head up Obama's backside! WHY do they insist on having such a dangerous idiot in the White House??? What do they hope to gain??? They have already lost the respect of real Americans!!!

September 19, 2012 at 8:44 a.m.
alprova said...

mymy, you're jumping on a rather silly bandwagon by posting that ancient recording.

Notwithstanding the fact that his words were spoken 14 years ago, as a man who was at that time working fervently on behalf of among the poorest people of this nation, his beliefs back then may or may not be reflective of those that he holds today as President.

But then, what if his views regarding income redistribution have not changed at all? Does that make him evil? Do you fear that he will come after your money? Do you think he, as President, has the power to seize anyone's private stash of cash?

Back 14 years ago, I was as delusional as you are today and thought that Bill and Hillary Clinton were a threat to this great nation. I fell hook, line, and sinker for Newt Gingrich's Contract with America and thought he was the greatest Speaker of the House that ever existed.

It sure is funny how their reputations have reversed over the years, at least with most people that is. Bill Clinton is a shining star, and Newt is very dim bulb.

I too believe that income distribution is very much needed, for the vast majority of this nation's wealth to be concentrated in so few hands, is a threat that will eventually derail our entire economy, if it is not corrected.

I don't know for sure, but you don't strike me as a person with a silver spoon in your mouth. You do after all, spend most of your day watching Fox News and sitting in front of your computer, copying and pasting right-wing trash about the President.

Now it could be that you do this because you hate to spend a dime and are sitting on vast amounts of cash that you are loathe to spend. It could be that you are like many elderly, who live from month to month on a fixed income. Your television and your computer may be your only contacts with the outside world.

Whatever the case, I find it very difficult to understand why it is that you do not support a man who has had your interests on his mind each and every day since he has been in office.

You're great at throwing out darts towards those you disagree with, and counting down the days until the 2012 Presidential election, but what I have never seen from you, is any evidence that you have ever taken the time to weigh both sides of any issue, especially when it comes to the current President.

I have a close elderly relative who sits in front of her television and computer, glued to the Fox News Channel day after pitiful day, lapping up what they spew like she was a thirsty kitten in front of a bowl of milk.

I get phone calls from her twice, sometimes three times a day, that consist of the latest outrage that she has witnessed on Fox News, mostly in regard to the President. My email inbox is filled every day with forwarded trash she finds on the web. If it's on the web, it has to be true, and there is no way of convincing her otherwise. I gave up a long time ago. It's just best to shine her on.

Sigh...

September 19, 2012 at 8:45 a.m.
mymy said...

Al: LOL funny BS! You are a first class fool! Did you forget those words being used during the 2008 campaign with the Joe the Plummer moment!

September 19, 2012 at 8:53 a.m.
whatsnottaken said...

We all see what Hope and Change has got us. $16 trillion deficit, horrible economy. Things have changed all right in four l-o-n-g years. Only thing missing now is hope.

September 19, 2012 at 8:55 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy123: Whats_wrong_with_the_world_ @ 5:48am, handed you your ass.

September 19, 2012 at 9:01 a.m.
fairmon said...

mountainlaurel responded with....

Interesting how your Libertarian/Republican Jesus is opposed to giving away “other people’s money” when it comes to things like feeding hungry families, investing in America’s youth, and providing health care services for our citizens. . . YET so supportive when it comes to giving away "“other peoples money”" for things such as aircraft carriers, drones, torpedoes, diesel subs and military invasions of other peoples' countries.

I am not republican or libertarian but opposed to all of the above by the federal government except a strong defense prepared and capable of swift and deadly response to any attacker without regard for collateral damage. Afghanistan should have been a near zero population country once it was known as the source of the 9/11 attack. The federal government is an enabler like someone enabling an addiction.

September 19, 2012 at 9:02 a.m.
degage said...

Al, try http//youtube.com/watch popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28 If you can't see it from this it has been taken down because the adminstration has already stopped it from airing on TV.

September 19, 2012 at 9:03 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Wwwtw,

"There are other, more intelligent explanations for poverty than either luck or self-destruction."

I wasn't giving in-depth explanations for poverty.

"Your safety net is a noose. It destroys families, productivity, and self-respect. Most liberal politicians sacrifice nothing personally to help the poor. It is liberal politicians who make conscious decisions to lock other people into poverty."

The safety net isn't a noose. It doesn't destroy families, productivity, or self-respect. Liberal politicians sacrifice more than Republican politicians simply by supporting the poor with programs and legislation. No liberal politician has ever made a conscious effort decision to lock anyone into poverty.

Your hyperbole and Wingnut rhetoric isn't based on facts.

"Which is exactly why bribing poor voters with fairy tales of political prince charmings is cynical and de-humanizing."

No one is bribing poor voters with "fairytale prince charmings". The only fairytale is the Wingnut idea that everyone can be rich like Mitt Romney if you just put your mind to it... and vote Republican.

September 19, 2012 at 9:09 a.m.
Easy123 said...

JackTroll,

"Easy123: Whats_wrong_with_the_world_ @ 5:48am, handed you your ass."

Not quite but I can understand why an ignorant Wingnut such as yourself would think that. But your opinion has been duly noted.

Thanks for playing, old timer. :-)

September 19, 2012 at 9:14 a.m.
alprova said...

mymy wrote: "Al: LOL funny BS! You are a first class fool! Did you forget those words being used during the 2008 campaign with the Joe the Plummer moment!"

Huh?

September 19, 2012 at 9:15 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

MTJohn said: "I keep hoping that those who insist on interjecting Christianity into politics would insist that government function on the principle of "loving your neighbor as yourself"."

I believe the Republicans have changed this principle to read "Love Your Fellow Billionaire as Yourself," MtJohn . . . and it also appears the Republicans aren't as demanding of their fellow billionaires when it comes “families values.” If you’re a Republican billionaire, anything goes:

“According to Mother Jones’ David Corn, the footage was shot during a fundraiser at the home of Marc Leder, a hedge fund manager dubbed the “private equity party boy” and known for throwing pretty lascivious affairs in the Hamptons, N.Y.

We’re talking parties that involve sex, but not the kind intended for the purpose of planting a zygote in the womb, thereby going against a core conservative value and basically everything Republicans stand for.

The New York Post described one such event as follows:

At the Bridgehampton home that Leder rented for a whopping $500,000 a month, guests cavorted nude in a pool and performed sex acts, while scantily clad Russian women danced on platforms. Dancers at the party also twirled flaming torches to booming beats.

Of course, there were no sex acts on record the night that Romney held a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser at Leder’s Boca Raton, Fla., estate. No, there were reportedly just insults leveled by Romney at nearly half of Americans, those whom he appeared to describe as “moochers” . . .

In addition to lending Romney the use of his home, Leder has given roughly $300,000 to the Republican presidential nominee and other GOP candidates this election cycle. Who’s mooching off whom now?"

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/secret_romney_video_ties_him_sex_party-loving_hedge_fund_manager_20120917/

September 19, 2012 at 9:22 a.m.
fairmon said...

Luck goes around in a disguise called hard work. A degree or paper validating someone attended an institution of education unfortunately does not also validate intelligence, reliability and capability. We have a huge sector of the population with no more skills than it takes to be a trinket maker but we have politicians and other people that insist Americans should only do the high tech jobs. Is it better to have people be dependent on government or allow them the prestige of being more self sufficient by doing work they are capable of?

September 19, 2012 at 9:23 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy123troll: Truly, he eviscerated you. Face up to it, wanker.

September 19, 2012 at 9:28 a.m.
alprova said...

degage wrote: "Al, try http//youtube.com/watch popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28 If you can't see it from this it has been taken down because the adminstration has already stopped it from airing on TV."

You're not posting a valid link under any criteria. Even when I attempt to repair it, it doesn't even link to YouTube.

Go to the video, right-click your mouse with the pointer inside the video image while it is not being played, then left-click on "copy the video url." Then come back to the forum comment box and right-click your mouse. Left-click on "paste." Then post it.

September 19, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "A degree or paper validating someone attended an institution of education unfortunately does not also validate intelligence, reliability and capability."

But as you should know, people who do not have a degree are automatically excluded from consideration for many jobs.

"We have a huge sector of the population with no more skills than it takes to be a trinket maker but we have politicians and other people that insist Americans should only do the high tech jobs."

Uh huh..

"Is it better to have people be dependent on government or allow them the prestige of being more self sufficient by doing work they are capable of?"

Well...of course it would be better for people to be given a shot at those jobs, or to train people to do them, but the problem is that those who believe that people deserve a shot and those who make the hiring decisions exist on different planets.

September 19, 2012 at 9:40 a.m.
degage said...

Al, I just put that link in the search area and the link was there. scroll down to Obama admits then watch.

September 19, 2012 at 10:04 a.m.
una61 said...

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Spread the Wealth?

September 19, 2012 at 10:21 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 preaches: "Luck goes around in a disguise called hard work etc.,etc.,etc."

Please, Harp3339. America is one the hardest working countries in the world. No, our main problem is very different from what you’re suggesting. It goes more like this:

Greed and corruption go around in a disquise called trickle down economics.

We have an elitist greedy right-wing 1% billionaire sector of the population who colloborate to fix U.S. tax laws, control U.S. elections, and incite anger against our Nation's seniors, the working poor, veterans, disabled workers, and a significant chunk of middle-class Americans, particularly middle-class Americans who belong to unions such as teachers, police officers, firemen, auto workers, and civil service employees.

Is it fair that this greedy and wealthy 1 percent billionaire sector can amass incredible fortunes fed by arranged tax breaks and can donate tens of millions of dollars through the campaigns of political candidates to keep it that way?

September 19, 2012 at 10:22 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Power to the People, Comrade Laurel.

September 19, 2012 at 10:29 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

MITT ROMNEY THINKS THE POOR ARE TOO RICH

Romney said 47% of Americans are immoral and irresponsible failures who refuse to take personal responsibility for their own lives. He said those miserable blights on society – “victims” – are dependent upon government and believe government owes them food, shelter, healthcare, transportation, you name it.

He said those people don’t pay income tax and have no interest in bettering their lives, that they want everything to be handed to them and that President Obama is only too glad to give them everything they want.

Conservative Nicholas Kristof disagrees. He wrote, “It’s worth recalling that a good chunk of the 47% who don’t pay income taxes are Romney supporters.” Seniors, men and women in the military, and blue collar republicans, “Who think conservative policies are better for the country even if they’re not getting a tax cut under Romney’s plan.“

To be specific, under the Romney plan the rich pay less while lower and middle-income families pay more. How’s that for family values?

So who are the 47%? Well, about 28% paid payroll, Social Security, and Medicare taxes, 10% are elderly, and 7% made under $20,000. Romney thinks these people are an economic problem and should pay HIGHER taxes. In fact, the entire Republican Party thinks these people are an economic problem and should pay HIGHER taxes.

Senator Orrin Hatch: “I think it is abysmal that the bottom 51% do not pay income taxes.”

Representative Eric Cantor: “Over 45% of the people in this Country don’t pay income taxes at all and we have to question if that’s fair.”

Former Governor Mitt Romney: “I think it’s a real problem when you have half of Americans who are not paying income tax.”

In South Carolina House Republicans introduced a bill that would cut taxes on the rich and raise taxes on the poor.

In Wisconsin House Republicans introduced a bill that would cut taxes on the rich and raise taxes on the poor.

In Kansas (what’s wrong with Kansas?) Governor Brownback signed into law a tax bill that cuts taxes on the rich and raises taxes on the poor.

Romney agrees that the problem with poverty is that the poor have too much money. He says the economic problem facing America is that 47% of Americans are lazy, irresponsible moochers who should pay HIGHER taxes.

Mitt Romney is a buffoon.

September 19, 2012 at 10:36 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Jack_Dennis said: "Power to the People, Comrade Laurel."

Working as "greeter" for the U.S. Banana Republic, Jack? May I ask what they are paying guys like you these days? Have you reached minimum wage yet?

September 19, 2012 at 10:36 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Look what happens when a flaming liberal like Bennett presumes that he can design a button for what he thinks is his opposing party!

I guess he missed the memo about not using the Hope & Change button this year. He can’t even get his side right.

What a dork.

September 19, 2012 at 10:37 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...
September 19, 2012 at 10:45 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

HOPE AND CHANGE

Median household income falls after administration declares the recession over.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-09-14/decline-in-u-s-income-raises-stakes-in-2012-presidential-race.html

September 19, 2012 at 10:51 a.m.
alprova said...

BRP, that was...so last week.

Don't you have anything new to add?

Poor Mitt. He might connect with the a few of the American people who are on the fence if he had a few celebrities to party with.

September 19, 2012 at 10:53 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Laurel: Minimum wage should be about $35 hr., with full bennies, no?

September 19, 2012 at 10:54 a.m.
MTJohn said...

harp3339 said..."Luck goes around in a disguise called hard work."

If that is the case, Harp, why isn't every African woman a millionaire?

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/535539_380026628703988_1532706950_n.jpg

September 19, 2012 at 10:59 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

MTJohn: apples to kumquats.

September 19, 2012 at 11:14 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BigRidgePatriot said: “Look what happens when a flaming liberal like Bennett presumes that he can design a button for what he thinks is his opposing party!”

I don’t think you’ve been paying enough attention to what Republican politicians like Mitt Romney have been saying and doing, BigRidgePatriot. Like it or not, Bennett’s “Cruel and Unusual” design reflects the attitude and actions of most Republican politicians rather well.

“We, the parasites

There's one entitlement Mitt Romney isn't opposed to: The ability to become richer at the expense of low- and middle-income Americans.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0919-dugan-romney-entitlements-income-tax-20120919,0,4883471.story

September 19, 2012 at 11:16 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

MTJohn said: If that is the case, Harp, why isn't every African woman a millionaire?

Excellent point, MTJohn. But I doubt Harp will be able to see the holes in his argument.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/535539_380026628703988_1532706950_n.jpg

September 19, 2012 at 11:21 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Laurel: Nice link. The LA Times. Now there's a fair and balanced news organization.

September 19, 2012 at 11:25 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova said... "He might connect with the a few of the American people who are on the fence if he had a few celebrities to party with."

Yeah, the American Idol and Glamor Girls crowd. Personally, I would rather have a president that does not find his inspiration in a tower of champagne. You guys go ahead and keep reaching to the bottom of the societal barrel for your voters.

September 19, 2012 at 11:40 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Jack_Dennis said..."MTJohn: apples to kumquats."

I agree, Jack. Apples to kumquats is an excellent analogy for the logic that conservatives employ to suggest that welfare recipients in this country are free-loaders.

Certainly, personal industry is important. But, without legitimate opportunity, a person cannot advance regardless of how hard he/she works. In many, various and subtle ways, we deny people legitimate opportunities in this country. And, in this country where we chant the mantras that we are the "land of opportunity" and "God bless America", we have a long history in which people have amassed great fortune by intentionally denying others opportunity.

And, while the powerful are exploiting others, they blame the consequences of their cruel and unusual deeds on those who advocate hope and change. It is truly bizarre that we have a large class of prols in this country. Apparently, the thought police are doing their job very well.

September 19, 2012 at 11:43 a.m.

alprova said... Help me understand your statement. What exactly makes a Liberal any different than a Republican who helps the poor? Liberal or Democratic politicians pay taxes too, that are used in the same manner that taxes taken from Republican politicians are spent.

And according to the rumors floating about, there are more Democrats who are millionaires than there are Republicans. Could it be that they sacrifice more in the form of taxes because they are more wealthy than their counterparts, or do you believe that only Republican politicians pay taxes in this nation?

A telling series of questions. It seems that your horizon for helping the poor involves the IRS, political hucksters, and federal, state, and local bureaucratic distribution channels. I’ve posted links to many studies showing that such strategies are the LEAST EFFECTIVE remedy for alleviating poverty (and they nearly always cause more harm than good via unintended consequences). My comments were based on studies showing that when it comes to voluntary decisions and actions about using one’s own resources to meet the needs for the poor, liberals are AWOL. It’s a credibility issue.

“Democrats Vs. Republicans: Who's The Most Greedy?” (Investor’s Business Daily, Mon, Jan 30 2012) http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/012712-599290-democrats-like-giving-money-from-others.htm

http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/acbrooks/Pages/Who%20really%20cares/WSJ%20review%2012-22-06.pdf

from Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide -Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters by Arthur C. Brooks:

Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than liberal households, even in spite of lower average incomes

Conservatives are also more generous in other ways, such as blood donations, and volunteer work. In fact, if liberals gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45%

People who mistrust big government give more than those who rely on the government to take care of the poor. This includes giving and volunteering even to traditionally “progressive causes” such as the arts and the environment

Conservative “red” states give away far more of their incomes than liberal “blue” states do

Religious people give away four times more money each year than secularists. This is not just because of giving to churches – religious people are 10 percent more likely than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities

Religious people are far more generous than secularists with their time. For instance, a religious person is 57% more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person

Religious people are also more generous in informal ways, such as giving money to family members, and behaving honestly

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258358706104403.html

September 19, 2012 at 11:44 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mountainlaurel said... "I don’t think you’ve been paying enough attention to what Republican politicians like Mitt Romney have been saying and doing, BigRidgePatriot. Like it or not, Bennett’s “Cruel and Unusual” design reflects the attitude and actions of most Republican politicians rather well."

Oh, but I have! I would like to suggest that enslaving the population in a system of government dependency is the cruel and unusual way. It is funny that you guys think the democrats own that atrocity. The republicans are at least as guilty of burdening us with the yoke of big government. The weak minded are so easily distracted by the campaign slogans and manipulation!

September 19, 2012 at 11:45 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

On Letterman, The Exalted One could not remember the amount of the national debt. Sounds about right. (Letterman was excreting DNA)

September 19, 2012 at 11:46 a.m.
Easy123 said...

JackTroll,

"Truly, he eviscerated you. Face up to it, wanker."

Truly, I can understand why a Wingnut moron such as yourself would feel that way. Try again, coffin dodger.

September 19, 2012 at 11:48 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Nooga: Good one. You really got me.

September 19, 2012 at 11:54 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

President Barack Obama attended a fundraiser at Jay-Z's 40/40 Club in Manhattan that featured a champagne tower of 350 bottles worth $105,000 - more than twice the median household income of an American family. The tower of $300-a-bottle Armand de Brignac Brut Gold, known as 'Ace of Spades' because of its label, is a permanent fixture at the club. 'It’s floor-to-ceiling gold bottles in the entire space,' a 40/40 representative told the New York Post. 'It’s beautiful—breathtaking. It’s the first thing you see when you walk in.' The median income for an American family was $51,413 in 2011.

Classy. Must be the top 1/4%

September 19, 2012 at 11:55 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Jack_Dennis said: "Nice link. The LA Times. Now there's a fair and balanced news organization."

Please, Jack. Even the lord of the neo-cons over at the Weekly Standard has declared Romney’s comments to be “stupid and arrogant.” Granted, the concern express by the neo-con lord is limited to the large number of Republican voters that Romney has insulted and belittled.

September 19, 2012 at 11:57 a.m.

Easy123 said...

The safety net isn't a noose. It doesn't destroy families, productivity, or self-respect. Liberal politicians sacrifice more than Republican politicians simply by supporting the poor with programs and legislation. No liberal politician has ever made a conscious effort decision to lock anyone into poverty. Your hyperbole and Wingnut rhetoric isn't based on facts.

I am now convinced that you have never actually met a poor person or lived within a day’s drive of one. Making poverty permanent has been liberal bread-and-butter for at least the last half-century. The liberal rhetoric of compassion is simply vacuous, although it yields all sorts of political bounty among a mind-numbed, green-with-envy electorate.

September 19, 2012 at 12:01 p.m.
Easy123 said...

wwwtw,

"I am now convinced that you have never actually met a poor person or lived within a day’s drive of one."

And your opinion is strictly your own and is not consistent with reality in any way. I am now convinced you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about so you have to use conjecture and hyperbole in an attempt to discredit me.

I know too many poor people. I am related to poor people. I live with poor people. I am a poor person.

"Making poverty permanent has been liberal bread-and-butter for at least the last half-century."

False. Liberals have not attempted, in any way, to make poverty permanent.

"The liberal rhetoric of compassion is simply vacuous, although it yields all sorts of political bounty among a mind-numbed, green-with-envy electorate."

I don't know anyone nor have I read of any Liberals that base their support for the "safety net" on compassion. Compassion plays a part but it isn't the most important reason in support of having a "safety net", nor is it vacuous.

September 19, 2012 at 12:11 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Whats_Wrong_With_the_World said: "Making poverty permanent has been liberal bread-and-butter for at least the last half-century."

Huh? The only political group that has been steadly working working to make poverty permanent in the U.S. is the one wearing red – commonly known as the Republican Party. The name of their scam is called trickle down economics.

“Cutting effective taxes on the rich doesn’t boost economic growth, but it does correlate with rising income inequality.”

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/crs-study-taxes-economic-growth.php

September 19, 2012 at 12:28 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Jack_Dennis said... "On Letterman, The Exalted One could not remember the amount of the national debt."

I would bet if he was asked how much campaign cash he had on hand at the moment he could spout that off without thinking. The campaigner and chief! Please do not burden him with important questions about the work of the office of the president.

September 19, 2012 at 12:29 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Some of EASY's best friends are poor!!! Bwahahahaha....The man is eating you alive, son.

September 19, 2012 at 12:30 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JackTroll,

"Some of EASY's best friends are poor!!!"

Read the whole statement, jackoff. Wait, can you read? Or do you have one of the programs that audibly reads the words for you?

"I know too many poor people. I am related to poor people. I live with poor people. I am a poor person."

"The man is eating you alive, son."

Your ignorance is eating you alive, geezer.

September 19, 2012 at 12:33 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mountainlaurel said... "The only political group that has been steadly working working to make poverty permanent in the U.S. is the red one – commonly known as the Republican Party."

I wish you could see that both parties are guilty of selling us to their special interests. Some of the special interests are different but many of them overlap. They both worship at the altar of big banking and crony big business capitalism. Their use for you is over as soon as they have convinced you to vote for them.

September 19, 2012 at 12:35 p.m.
miraweb said...

Actually - I'll take a bite at that. In my view the basic "right to life" is pretty hard to defend if you exclude rights to food, shelter, medicine, and warmth.

Our constitution does say "pursuit of happiness" - it does not say "pursuit of life." The basics needed to sustain life are a matter of justice, not charity.

(Now, I know someone will wander off on an abortion thread anytime the word "life" is mentioned. It's their right I suppose - but do try to focus for a minute).

For those able to provide for themselves, that right is easy to sustain.

For those who are unable - the mentally retarded, children, the elderly, the sick - the right does not go away. It becomes our duty to help, and our privilege.

A stable society with laws, contracts, and good infrastructure makes those rights easier to hold for everyone. Corruption in government, misrepresented investment instruments, mortgages written to fail - make holding that right much harder for most Americans.

In my view - even if none of this were true, compassion alone would still be a good enough reason to help those unable to help themselves. I'll own that one.

I did see an article in the BBC yesterday by Mardell - a British reporter who covers the U.S. He found our discussions about people becoming dependent on public services to be a bit of a joke.

In his view, we would need to get a real, working support system first before we would have the right to complain about those living large off of it.

I agree with Alprova - it is too easy to categorize people. Chances are you don't know the details about the financial situation of the guy next door. It's pretty ballsy to say you know about the financial lives of people you've never met.

September 19, 2012 at 12:39 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy123troll: Free advice. Don't engage Whats_Wrong_With_the_World. Not a fair fight.

September 19, 2012 at 12:42 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JackTroll,

I wouldn't be offering anything "free" around here. People might call you a Socialist. But I do not take advice from stupid people anyway.

I've engaged WWWTW before and I will again.

You are not of sound enough mind to delineate what is or is not a fair fight.

September 19, 2012 at 1:10 p.m.
mymy said...

Easy said.......

"I know too many poor people. I am related to poor people. I live with poor people. I am a poor person."

You did not have to tell me that. As long as you stand by liberal policies/Obama, etc., you and yours will remain poor. It sounds like you like it that way!!!!!!!

September 19, 2012 at 1:22 p.m.
Easy123 said...

mymy,

"You did not have to tell me that."

You couldn't have known that with any amount of certainty without me telling you.

"As long as you stand by liberal policies/Obama, etc., you and yours will remain poor."

False. I'm still in school and work a part-time job. Most people in my situation are "poor". I'm working to change that.

Liberal policies work better on the economy than Conservative policies.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/readme/2008/09/politicians_lie_numbers_dont.html

http://www.currydemocrats.org/in_perspective/economy_better_under_democrats/economy_does_better_under_democrats.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/08/1089785/-Private-sector-jobs-grew-far-more-under-Democratic-than-Republican-presidents-1961-2012

"It sounds like you like it that way!!!!!!!"

False.

Would you like to give it another try? That effort was lacking.

September 19, 2012 at 1:31 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy not having a good day. Go on down to the shelter and register some voters.

September 19, 2012 at 1:32 p.m.
jesse said...

Actually wwwtw is right! L.B.J.'s war on poverty and new society was for the express purpose of getting poor blacks dependent on wellfare and such! He is quoted as saying "with this one signature i will have the n*'s voting democratic for the next 200 years"! He knew exactly what he was buying and history has proven that he knew exactly what he was talking about!

September 19, 2012 at 1:33 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JackTroll,

I'm having a great day.

"Go on down to the shelter and register some voters."

Um, no.

Troll on!

September 19, 2012 at 1:37 p.m.
miraweb said...

I have to admit, Mitt's mom is a charmer. If he had half her charisma, he might be doing a bit better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPZPaysBTqk

September 19, 2012 at 1:47 p.m.
alprova said...

Jack_Dennis wrote: "The LA Times. Now there's a fair and balanced news organization."

Well, I don't know if they are more fair, but they are certainly more balanced than you are.

September 19, 2012 at 1:58 p.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "Yeah, the American Idol and Glamor Girls crowd. Personally, I would rather have a president that does not find his inspiration in a tower of champagne. You guys go ahead and keep reaching to the bottom of the societal barrel for your voters."

Written like a true Conservative, showing his colors just like Mitt.

And it's the Liberals who are responsible for class warfare?

Uh huh...yeah...sure.

September 19, 2012 at 2:05 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"Laurel: Minimum wage should be about $35 hr., with full bennies, no?" - Jack_Dennis

I know you're just being your usual sarcastic, curmudgeonly old self, JD, and you probably are of the typical conservative opinion that even $7.25/hr. is too much to pay a "burger flipper" or other service employee... but if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation over the years it would be approximately $10.55/hr. today. The poverty level is $21,000. A full-time minimum wage job amounts to $15,000 annual gross pay. Even a wage of $7.45/hr. or $8/hr (what the average Walmart or other big box retail employee makes) keeps that worker well below poverty level. A wage of $10.55/hr. would earn a worker $21,990 gross pay annually, just barely over the poverty line. Since 1968, the last time the minimum wage was actually equal to the real value of the dollar, the minimum wage has never kept pace with inflation.

In the last 25 years, congressmen/women have raised the salaries for themselves 18 times, amassing a 277% increase altogether. The minimum wage has been raised 7 times in that span and each time it was still well below the rate of inflation - not even close to being equal to the real value of the dollar. The dollar today is worth less than the value of the dollar in 1981.

September 19, 2012 at 2:05 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova said... "Written like a true Conservative, showing his colors just like Mitt. And it's the Liberals who are responsible for class warfare?"

Ooo! Ouch! That hurt alprova!

Don't deal with the reality that democrats have made an art form out of getting the dim witted and dependent to believe they have their best interests at heart.

...instead try to paint the messenger as the source of the problem. You all are working the projection thing too hard, those who can think for themselves can see right through you!

September 19, 2012 at 2:30 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

BTW, I don't think I like that "conservative" label. It carries a bunch of connotations that I strongly disagree with.

September 19, 2012 at 2:34 p.m.
alprova said...

WWWTW wrote: "It seems that your horizon for helping the poor involves the IRS, political hucksters, and federal, state, and local bureaucratic distribution channels."

Not at all, but it seems to be the subject of the day. You pop in and drop that bomb of a statement without elaborating, so I questioned it.

"I’ve posted links to many studies showing that such strategies are the LEAST EFFECTIVE remedy for alleviating poverty (and they nearly always cause more harm than good via unintended consequences)."

Everyone has an opinion on how to alleviate poverty, just like everyone has an opinion on how to solve the issue of unemployment.

"My comments were based on studies showing that when it comes to voluntary decisions and actions about using one’s own resources to meet the needs for the poor, liberals are AWOL. It’s a credibility issue."

Really? Then explain why it is that poverty still exists? If there are people who have the magic bullet, what's preventing them from taking aim at the problem and fixing it?

"Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than liberal households, even in spite of lower average incomes."

But of course, all the Conservatives I know earn less than Liberals.

"Conservatives are also more generous in other ways, such as blood donations, and volunteer work. In fact, if liberals gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45%"

Who knew?

"People who mistrust big government give more than those who rely on the government to take care of the poor. This includes giving and volunteering even to traditionally “progressive causes” such as the arts and the environment."

Are you purporting that there is a polling organiziation out there anywhere that did a sampling of people to determine who distrusts the Gov't and then went on to ask how much they volunteered and gave to various types of charities?

Sir, I am deeply involved with a polling organization, and what you just typed up there is the most outlandish claim ever attempted in this forum.

"Conservative “red” states give away far more of their incomes than liberal “blue” states do."

It's a novel idea, but there really isn't any way to accurately track such a statistic. For instance, no one would ever in a million years dig out of me what I donate or do for a soul. I consider that as private to me as my personal prayers to God.

Conversely, there are lots of liars too. Since no one would like to appear to be uncaring, and as there are no consequences for lying...who really knows what the truth is?

"Religious people give away four times more money each year than secularists."

Same answer.

"Religious people are also more generous in informal ways, such as giving money to family members, and behaving honestly."

I'm sorry, but what I read is more along the lines of a plea, rather than statements of fact.

September 19, 2012 at 2:43 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"I am not republican or libertarian but opposed to all of the above by the federal government except a strong defense prepared and capable of swift and deadly response to any attacker without regard for collateral damage. Afghanistan should have been a near zero population country once it was known as the source of the 9/11 attack." - harp3339

I have read many of your posts and occaionally you say some fairly sensible things. But after reading what you wrote there, well, decency, or the knowledge that I would get flagged for using over-the-top profanity, prevents me from calling you what you deserve to be called.

What gives you the unmitigated gall to think that you, as an American, are so special or so privileged that our military has the right to completely blow away an entire country like Afghanistan just because of a handful of terrorists that 99.99% of the Afghan population had nothing to do with and didn't even have knowledge of? Besides, the hi-jackers were not even from Afghanistan but from Syria. Al-qaida was known to have its base in Afghanistan and we successfully routed them out and destroyed their network of terrorist operatives, but the vast majority of the Afghan population had asolutely nothing to do with them. Certainly there are many Afghans, particularly among the Taliban, who do not like America, but most of them are not necessarily intent on destroying us - at least, they WEREN'T before we invaded them. And there are millions of innocent women and children who just want to live their lives in peace and they haror no ill will towards us.

Your comment is cruel, uncouth, elitist, and stupid.

September 19, 2012 at 3:01 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Alpo: You still an enormous bag of gas. Don't anyone stick a pin in this guy.

September 19, 2012 at 3:01 p.m.
alprova said...

Jack_Dennis wrote: "Alpo: You still an enormous bag of gas. Don't anyone stick a pin in this guy."

And you Sir are nothing more than a sideline commentator. You missed your lot in life. You would have done great as a color announcer on the radio, during sporting events.

I'm sure that you feel it necessary to comment on what people post all the time, to fill imaginary dead air time, while your invisible sidekick takes a swig of alcohol before resuming.

But I suspect that what you are failing to understand, is that when you write your little one-liners, you become a common internet troll.

You're just like Mr. Wilson, every time you pick on Easy123, whom you seem to have as much distaste for as he does Dennis Mitchell. You need to take up stamp collecting or something.

For the record, I stick myself with a needle twice a day, thank you very much, so your theory is full of holes.

If my posts are too long for you, then please, don't read them. I don't post for your benefit. There are many people with the same problem you have, who also suffer from attention deficit disorder.

I'll stop this post right here. I wouldn't want to be responsible for your eyes rolling back in your head.

September 19, 2012 at 3:22 p.m.
mymy said...

Obama policies hammered following coal-mine closings, layoffs

The announcement that 1,200 coal-mining jobs have been eliminated across central Appalachia has sparked renewed cries that Obama administration policies are crippling domestic-energy production and jobs -- and is already factoring into the 2012 presidential race.

Obama, perhaps due to his coal policies and other factors, faces dim chances in West Virginia come November. Keith Judd, a felon incarcerated in Texas, won 40.7 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary. And neither West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin III nor Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin attended this month’s Democratic National Convention.

Steve Roberts, president of the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, said internal polls already show Republicans have a shot at unseating Rep. Nick Rahall, a pro-coal Democrat.

In addition, Ohio and Virginia -- two battleground states Obama won in 2008 – are coal-producing states where Romney could hammer his message on the industry in the weeks ahead.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/19/romney-pro-business-groups-blame-obama-polices-on-recent-mine-closings/#ixzz26wdFPIIi

September 19, 2012 at 3:26 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Alpo, you continue to prove my point.

September 19, 2012 at 3:26 p.m.
alprova said...

Javck_Dennis wrote: "Alpo, you continue to prove my point."

I really don't care about your point. I don't participate in this forum to please you, to bow to your demands, or to serve your interests.

So please...buzz off you annoying speck of a fly.

September 19, 2012 at 3:33 p.m.
ibshame said...

"Jack_Dennis said... President Barack Obama attended a fundraiser at Jay-Z's 40/40 Club in Manhattan that featured a champagne tower of 350 bottles worth $105,000 - more than twice the median household income of an American family. The tower of $300-a-bottle Armand de Brignac Brut Gold, known as 'Ace of Spades' because of its label, is a permanent fixture at the club. 'It’s floor-to-ceiling gold bottles in the entire space,' a 40/40 representative told the New York Post. 'It’s beautiful—breathtaking. It’s the first thing you see when you walk in.' The median income for an American family was $51,413 in 2011.

Classy. Must be the top 1/4%"

Some would have to wonder do you ever think before you post or do you just point and click for the hell of it? Are you really going to make a comparison about Beyonce and JayZ's fundraiser for President Obama when Mitt was caught at a $50,000 A PLATE fundraiser making his now infamous statement about the 47% of this country?

Don't worry Mittens will win in this part of the country by a landslide. Fortunately, neither this part of the country nor this state will determine the outcome of the election.

September 19, 2012 at 3:36 p.m.
miraweb said...

Poor mymy. Stuck with today's marching orders to change the subject and no one pays any attention.

26 days until Mitt files his tax returns!

tick tock!

P.S. Fox called. They've asked for their exclamation points to be returned. They're running low this week.

September 19, 2012 at 3:36 p.m.
alprova said...

Voters' Reaction to Romney's "47%" Comments Tilts Negative"

36% of voters say that they are less likely to vote for Mitt Romney after his comments about the 47% were brought to light.

20% say they are more likely to vote for him.

43% say that their opinion has not changed about Mitt Romney either way after seeing the video.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157544/voters-reaction-romney-comments-tilts-negative.aspx

September 19, 2012 at 3:40 p.m.
mymy said...

Easy: I'll tell you just like I did my own: education/degree only opens the door to give you a opportunity. It is what you do with that opportunity that makes the difference.

If you do get an opportunity, better get a new attitude or it won't last. The world does not owe you anything, but an opportunity regardless what the "ONE" says. His policies are not good for the economy/jobs/fostering opportunity. So, if re-elected don't hold your breath for an opportunity to be out there waiting for you.

September 19, 2012 at 3:42 p.m.
alprova said...

miraweb wrote: "P.S. Fox called. They've asked for their exclamation points to be returned. They're running low this week."

;')...LMAO...

September 19, 2012 at 3:43 p.m.
miraweb said...

Actually - that's brilliant.

If Mitt wants to bump his disdain for the little people off the news cycle, all he has to do is part with a few tax returns.

I bet that would change the subject.

September 19, 2012 at 3:46 p.m.
Salsa said...

False hope and no change. Yes, that is cruel but not so unusual.

September 19, 2012 at 3:46 p.m.
MTJohn said...

mymy said...Easy: I'll tell you just like I did my own: education/degree only opens the door to give you a opportunity. It is what you do with that opportunity that makes the difference."

What should we do about those in our society who only face locked doors and have never been given an opportunity?

September 19, 2012 at 3:57 p.m.
alprova said...

mymy wrote: "The world does not owe you anything, but an opportunity regardless what the "ONE" says. His policies are not good for the economy/jobs/fostering opportunity. So, if re-elected don't hold your breath for an opportunity to be out there waiting for you."

Ma'am you are such a negative Nancy. Nobody has ever done as much as this President has done for young people. They know it too.

Opportunities are opening up each and every month, and that has been the case for the past 31 months straight. 4.6 million jobs in fact that have been created in the private sector that did not exist in January 2009.

Clearly, more jobs are needed, and in time, if people do not vote to restore the party to power that drove the nation's car into the ditch a few years back, those jobs will be created.

How anyone cannot see that this country is indeed moving in the right direction, compared to where it was, is beyond all comprehension.

You posted the story about the coal workers being laid off in West Virginia a while ago. Well guess what? Coal jobs have been disappearing for most of the last two decades. The demand for coal is diminishing litle by little, and it has nothing at all to do with the President's policies.

The conversion to green energy has been ongoing since the early 1980's, through the efforts of our Gov't's Department of Energy.

Look it up Ma'am. Educate yourself. It would require you to divert your attention from Fox News for a little while, but then that would be a good thing, and hardly something that one would coin as being foolish.

I'd like to issue you a challenge. You harp day in and day out about everything going wrong as being the result of the President's policies. Can you cite those damaging policies, with proof to back them up as coming from his own lips or with links to documentation that have his signature on them?

Tick tock, tick tock...

By the way, you are aware of what the Bible says about people that run around calling other people "fools" all the time, are you not?

God doesn't like that word and you use it entirely too often.

September 19, 2012 at 4:09 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

^^^^gasbag alert!

September 19, 2012 at 4:33 p.m.
mymy said...

MTJ: In most cases it is their own fault.

September 19, 2012 at 4:34 p.m.
mymy said...

Fool: The shoe fits so you have to wear it!

I suggest you get some news other than from the Liberal/Cheerleading/lying MSM. They are a joke just like Obama. They help give the country the worst President it has ever had and still refuse to admit it by reporting the truth. That's my opinion and nothing you say will change the truth.

I've heard it all and I strongly disagree with liberal policies!!!!! They are/have been very destructive for society and have only made more people described as the “entitlement society”. I am not talking about SS and Medicare. Take that out of the mix.

Liberals are nothing but Pimps and Fluke's!!!!

September 19, 2012 at 4:37 p.m.
prairie_dog said...

Life is really a lot simpler now that we know that neither the newspapers or the TV/Radio outlets are unbiased. Makes it really easy to tune out the propaganda until the weather and sports coverage start.

September 19, 2012 at 4:50 p.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Simple question. Yes or no. Are you better off noe than four years ago when gas was $1.80 a gallon? Yes or no. If you can't say yes truthfully, Change has been for the worse and hope is just a fleeting idea.

September 19, 2012 at 4:57 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Obama in Seattle: "Sometimes I Forget" The Magnitude Of The Recession

Here's out of touch for you. I guess it's easy to "forget" the magnitude of the recession when his biggest concern over the last four years has been picking up his golf game.

By the way alpo, did CNN doctor this video? Oh wait...the only doctored videos are the ones you don't agree with.

September 19, 2012 at 4:59 p.m.
alprova said...

mymy wrote: "Fool: The shoe fits so you have to wear it!"

That's where you are the most incorrect. Your labels are strictly your opinion, and I doubt that we have the same foot size.

"I suggest you get some news other than from the Liberal/Cheerleading/lying MSM. They are a joke just like Obama."

You are not a rational soul, by any stretch of the imagination. If you think that Fox News is a source of truth, more power to you.

"They help give the country the worst President it has ever had and still refuse to admit it by reporting the truth. That's my opinion and nothing you say will change the truth."

Well you have it half right. It is your opinion, but I do see that changing your understanding of the truth is all but impossible. Facts are meaningless to you.

You are indeed entitled to be as ignorant as you wish to remain.

"I've heard it all and I strongly disagree with liberal policies!!!!! They are/have been very destructive for society and have only made more people described as the “entitlement society”."

Yet you cannot cite those policies or describe any of the specifics contained in them, can you? As I recall, Michelle Bachmann had the same problem.

"I am not talking about SS and Medicare. Take that out of the mix."

I see. Could one of your reasons for making that statement include the fact that you depend on both of these programs to sustain you in life these days?

"Liberals are nothing but Pimps and Fluke's!!!!"

Written like a true Republican, no doubt.

You're a hateful woman, mymy. I pray on a daily basis that the Lord will touch your heart and soften it just a wee bit.

September 19, 2012 at 5:01 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Six million Americans will pay the health care tax rather than obtain coverage under President Obama’s health care law, according to a new Congressional Budget Office estimate Wednesday — a 50 percent increase over CBO’s estimate of just two years ago.

There's that pesky old CBO again. Wonder what other ObamaCare revisions are coming. Hmmmm?

September 19, 2012 at 5:07 p.m.
alprova said...

Whatsnottaken wrote: "Simple question. Yes or no. Are you better off noe than four years ago when gas was $1.80 a gallon? Yes or no. If you can't say yes truthfully, Change has been for the worse and hope is just a fleeting idea."

Simple question. Can you cite the reason that the current price of gasoline is the President's doing, and why it is that you are blaming him for it?

There are many other reasons why I am personally far better off than I was three and a half years ago. I buy a tankful of gas per month, and drive an average of four miles a day. Gasoline prices are not high on my personal list of grievances.

Gasoline prices, contrary to the belief by some, are completely market driven and out of the President's control.

I think most people know this, but they like to blame him anyway.

September 19, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
mtngrl said...

whatsnottaken said...

"Simple question. Yes or no. Are you better off noe than four years ago when gas was $1.80 a gallon? Yes or no. If you can't say yes truthfully, Change has been for the worse and hope is just a fleeting idea."

Simple answer, Yes I am.

4 years ago a large amount of my company's customers started having trouble due to the Bush recession, which led to a lot of lost business for us. Then we started having layoffs. The company froze the wages of those that were left and stopped all 401(k) matching. No bonuses or raises for the entire 2009 year. The company ran at a loss just to keep the critical employees on hand and the company up and running.

By 2010 things turned around drastically, and much of that is thanks to the stimulus. Every year since we have been hiring, getting raises (3 years in a row now) plus all benefits back. The stimulus also had a very direct effect on my getting to work from home since EPB was able to get their fiber optics internet to me in such a short time.

So yes, things are much better. The bad was due to the previous admin and the good has been helped by the current admin.

September 19, 2012 at 5:23 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

CBO raises estimate of those hit by Obama health care tax

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/19/cbo-raises-estimate-those-hit-obama-health-care-ta/

I'll post a link to what Jack is referring to. I thought only the rich gets hit for Obamacare. Ooops!

September 19, 2012 at 5:30 p.m.
patriot1 said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=... Are we better off due to REAL energy policies such as this? Wow what a leader!!!

September 19, 2012 at 5:31 p.m.
mtngrl said...

Plus, since I work from home I do not notice gas prices much.

So please tell me what did Bush do to get those prices to $1.80? How long did he keep them there? And answer Alprova's quesiton on what President Obama did to change that

September 19, 2012 at 5:32 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Michelle Obama: Barack “Has Been Struggling With Us”

Poor baby! The poor little spoiled socialist pigs are just struggling with the guilt of living the good life while the people they claim to help are getting food stamps. The guilt must be overwhelming!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/michelle-obama-barack-has-been-struggling-with-u

September 19, 2012 at 5:36 p.m.
alprova said...

Jack_Dennis wrote: "Six million Americans will pay the health care tax rather than obtain coverage under President Obama’s health care law, according to a new Congressional Budget Office estimate Wednesday — a 50 percent increase over CBO’s estimate of just two years ago."

That figure is a projected estimate, not a statement of fact. You do know the difference, don't you?

"There's that pesky old CBO again. Wonder what other ObamaCare revisions are coming. Hmmmm?"

Whatever they are, you can rest assured that they will be aimed at assisting those who are in need of health care insurance and targeted to preserving Medicare for those who qualify for it.

Don't you fall into that latter class of people, Jack?

In the years to come, you will one day be grateful to Barack Obama, who stood up for something that has not been politically expedient for him, to say the least, but that will become a legacy for him that one day will be embraced by most people.

September 19, 2012 at 5:42 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

mtngrl: It's very obvious that you don't get out much. You are typical of the liberal mindset. Me me me-ism. As long as YOU'RE doing alright, then the stimulus must have worked.

By Obama's own admission, the recession was officially over in 2009. Remember the "summer of recovery"? Anything that happened after 2009 should be laid at the feet of your precious Obama. So how could this economy still be blamed on Bush if Obama said the recession was over 3 1/2 years ago? There's a much larger world out there beyond your little hidey hole in the south.

September 19, 2012 at 5:48 p.m.
fairmon said...

mountainlaurel said.....

Please, Harp3339. America is one the hardest working countries in the world.

What a crock. I have significant experience with American workers and those of other countries. A good days work would kill many of those Americans that are supposed to be working. There are some excellent exceptions to this statement but generally it is true. Of course the majority of American jobs are services which involves a desk, a computer, a telephone with pampering galore with the exceptions being professionals such as Dr's., lawyers etc. Insurance workers, government employees and teachers have among them the most coddled and spoiled employees on the planet. Again, with some exceptions.

ML also opined.....

We have an elitist greedy right-wing 1% billionaire sector of the population who colloborate to fix U.S. tax laws, control U.S. elections, and incite anger against our Nation's seniors, the working poor, veterans, disabled workers, and a significant chunk of middle-class Americans, particularly middle-class Americans who belong to unions such as teachers, police officers, firemen, auto workers, and civil service employees.

Unions have become as corrupt as the politicians they support.

Is it fair that this greedy and wealthy 1 percent billionaire sector can amass incredible fortunes fed by arranged tax breaks and can donate tens of millions of dollars through the campaigns of political candidates to keep it that way?

I do agree there should be zero deductions, incentives, credits and other manipulation of taxes. I don't see any initiative on the part of either party to correct that. Or, do you think democrats did not participate in creating the crooked patch work called the tax code? I am sure you know what I think of deductions for any reason including helping you buy a house or giving you a tax credit because you opt to have a house full of rug rats. Are you willing to pay more taxes or do you just want anyone with more income than you to pay more?

September 19, 2012 at 5:50 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Alpo: You funny boy.

September 19, 2012 at 5:51 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Alpo, when you wake up, get yourself some strong coffee because you're obviously in dreamland. The federal government has such a wonderful history of efficiency in managing large entitlement programs. What makes you think this massive entitlement program will finally be the one that the government gets right?

September 19, 2012 at 5:54 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

harp is right. Liberals have a tremendous jealousy complex and anybody with more than them should be made to pay. To make themselves feel good, the liberals must bring everybody else down.

September 19, 2012 at 5:57 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

The liberal mantra: STRIVE FOR MEDIOCRITY!!

September 19, 2012 at 6:01 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said....

In the years to come, you will one day be grateful to Barack Obama, who stood up for something that has not been politically expedient for him, to say the least, but that will become a legacy for him that one day will be embraced by most people.

I do hope you are right but I do think you are terribly wrong. Let's hope we all live long enough to find out becauswe. Obama will be re-elected and most of the provisions will kick in during that time so we should know.

I am glad, as the man promised, I could keep what I had. I can other than changing companies, paying a higher premium and changing DR.s since the one I have had for years is not in the new companies network. No telling what would have happened without his commitment that I could keep what I had. Well I hope I have a little change left when they get through, I assume that is what was meant by the hope and change mantra. Think about it...the candidates say we live in the greatest nation on earth, I hope you will elect me so we can work together to change it. Yes we can we yelled and now it is "oh crap" we did". We now owe 16 trillion and growing. Well kids, that will also be part of my estate, so tough stuff, deal with it.

September 19, 2012 at 6:04 p.m.
alprova said...

TOE02800 wrote: "Alpo, when you wake up, get yourself some strong coffee because you're obviously in dreamland."

Do you really think so?

"The federal government has such a wonderful history of efficiency in managing large entitlement programs. What makes you think this massive entitlement program will finally be the one that the government gets right?"

You included the word "efficiency" in your diatribe. That's a whole other argument and one worthy of debate in the future, but let's concentrate on the subject at hand, which is assisting the American people to become more self-sufficient.

I always defer to my pat answer any question regarding the way the Gov't handles its obligations to the American people. Can you cite one time that the U.S. Gov't bounced a check? Has the U.S. Gov't ever once defaulted on any of its obligations?

I'll just bet that you don't have a lifetime perfect record when it comes to managing your own finances.

September 19, 2012 at 6:10 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

73 to 78% of democrats believe the role of government is to provide food and housing. Just lovely.

September 19, 2012 at 6:12 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

That's your answer? Typical liberal answer. Deflect the tougher questions for the touchy feely here and now.

What I do with my money is MY business. If I blow it all, I pay the price. I can't print money like the government. When the government blows OUR money, they just print more, resulting in the loss of the worth of the dollar(inflation). Which hurts all walks of life, even the poor. Are you advocating hurting the poor alpo? Which republican will you blame when this all blows up as the disaster that it is? You liberals are out there on your own on this one.

September 19, 2012 at 6:21 p.m.
miraweb said...

Peggy Noonan: Time for an Intervention

This is not how big leaders talk, it’s how shallow campaign operatives talk: They slice and dice the electorate like that, they see everything as determined by this interest or that.

They’re usually young enough and dumb enough that nobody holds it against them, but they don’t know anything. They don’t know much about America.

We are a big, complicated nation. And we are human beings. We are people. We have souls. We are complex. We are not data points. Many things go into our decisions and our political affiliations.

You have to be sophisticated to know that. And if you’re operating at the top of national politics, you’re supposed to be sophisticated.

It’s time to admit the Romney campaign is an incompetent one. It’s not big, it’s not brave, it’s not thoughtfully tackling great issues. It’s always been too small for the moment.

All the activists, party supporters and big donors should be pushing for change. People want to focus on who at the top is least constructive and most responsible. Fine, but Mitt Romney is no puppet: He chooses who to listen to.

An intervention is in order.

“Mitt, this isn’t working.”

. . . But the logic of Romney’s fundraising has seemed, for some time, slightly crazy. He’s raising money so he can pile it in at the end, with ads. But at the end will they make much difference? Romney’s staff used to brag they had a lower burn rate, they were saving it up. For what? For the moment when Americans would rather poke out their eyeballs and stomp on the goo than listen to another ad?

Also, Mr. Romney’s ads are mostly boring. It’s kind of an achievement to be boring at a moment in history like this, so credit where it’s due: That musta taken effort!

If you’re gonna lose, lose honorably. If you’re gonna win do it with meaning.

Time for the party to step up . . . Some of them won’t want to do it because they’re starting to think Romney’s a loser and they don’t want to get loser on them.

http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2012/09/18/time-for-an-intervention/

(For those too young to remember - Peggy Noonan was a key speechwriter for Ronald Reagan.)

September 19, 2012 at 6:23 p.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "I am glad, as the man promised, I could keep what I had. I can other than changing companies, paying a higher premium and changing DR.s since the one I have had for years is not in the new companies network. No telling what would have happened without his commitment that I could keep what I had."

Harp, you're a little to smart to keep banging that drum. If you work for an employer who currently offers health care benefits, that employer makes the decisions whether or not to keep his or her current insurance provider, not you. You cannot blame the President for that.

When ObamaCare is fully implimented, there will indeed come a day, when you will be able to keep your current health care insurance policy, and transport it from job to job, that is if the employer you choose agrees to pay for a part of your health care insurance.

One day, negotiations for transporting health care benefits will become as routine as negotiating your salary.

"Well I hope I have a little change left when they get through, I assume that is what was meant by the hope and change mantra."

There is always hope. Change comes with time, understanding, and patience.

"Think about it...the candidates say we live in the greatest nation on earth, I hope you will elect me so we can work together to change it. Yes we can we yelled and now it is "oh crap" we did". We now owe 16 trillion and growing. Well kids, that will also be part of my estate, so tough stuff, deal with it."

How many years did it take to amass that debt? How many years do you think it will take to pay it down? For sure, spending will have to be decreased, but then revenue will have to increase as well.

Taxes are going to have to be increased on those most able to pay them. Spending will have to decrease for things that do not impact those in need, or for social entitlements.

It cannot be any other way.

September 19, 2012 at 6:26 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

"73 to 78% of democrats believe the role of government is to provide food and housing. Just lovely."

Let's not quote Rush Limbaugh. Provide facts.

http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/partisan-polarization-surges-in-bush-obama-years/

September 19, 2012 at 6:28 p.m.
alprova said...

TOES02800 wrote: "That's your answer? Typical liberal answer. Deflect the tougher questions for the touchy feely here and now."

Your inability to refute my statement is noted for the record.

"What I do with my money is MY business. If I blow it all, I pay the price. I can't print money like the government."

Ah... but you can whip out those credit cards to tide you over, if you have them that is.

My strategy is more simple, and it hasn't let me down yet. I don't blow all my money and I put a little back each and every week, for the little emergencies in life. I haven't borrowed a dime since November of 1999.

"When the government blows OUR money, they just print more, resulting in the loss of the worth of the dollar(inflation)."

What inflation? The inflation rate has not risen above 3 percent since 1989.

"Which hurts all walks of life, even the poor. Are you advocating hurting the poor alpo?"

Where's your evidence? Inflation currently stands at 1.69%, despite two recent instances of quantitative easing and one more on the way.

"Which republican will you blame when this all blows up as the disaster that it is? You liberals are out there on your own on this one."

If and when what you are flapping those chicken wings about does come to pass, I'll be more than happy to revisit the issue, and I assure you, I'll stick to the facts like I always do.

'Till then...

September 19, 2012 at 6:48 p.m.
alprova said...

TOES02800 wrote: "73 to 78% of democrats believe the role of government is to provide food and housing. Just lovely."

Proof? Who said it, and how likely is it that it was drawn completely off the top of someone's head?

Never mind, Easy pegged it. It is indeed a Rush Limbaugh quote -- a claim that he says was based on a poll that he never produced on his show or on his web page and evidence that Bing cannot locate either.

What a load of crap.

September 19, 2012 at 7:03 p.m.
Easy123 said...

alprova,

The poll was whether "you agree that the government should take care of people that can't take care of themselves".

I provided the Pew study above. Limbaugh and Toes have deliberately lied about the poll question and the study to suite their agenda.

September 19, 2012 at 7:13 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

From the Pew research center.

Nearly eight-in-ten Democrats (79%) say it is government’s responsibility to “take care of people who can’t take care of themselves.” That represents a nine-point increase since 2002 (70%) and is the highest percentage of Democrats to express this view since the late 1980s.

The partisan gap is even larger over whether the government should “guarantee every citizen enough to eat and a place to sleep.” Roughly eight-in-ten Democrats (81%) say the government should provide such a guarantee, a modest rise from last year (78%) but a nine-point gain since 1999 (72%). By contrast, fewer than half of Republicans (46%) believe the government should guarantee food and housing, a percentage that has not changed significantly over the past few years.

http://www.people-press.org/2003/11/05/part-4-success-poverty-and-government-responsibility/

My bad, it's actually 81% of democrats. And you can't say it's any different nine years later. I'm sure it's only gotten worse.

September 19, 2012 at 7:26 p.m.
facyspacy said...

Poor people do make a decision to be poor.

September 19, 2012 at 7:29 p.m.
GameOn said...

Gulf Oil Spill.......Real Leadership

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J1F-pGlfW7g

September 19, 2012 at 7:40 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

"A narrow majority of Republicans (54%) agree; that marks little change from last year (52%) or that late 1990s."

http://www.people-press.org/2003/11/05/part-4-success-poverty-and-government-responsibility/

I'm sure it has only gotten worse, correct?

September 19, 2012 at 7:50 p.m.
Easy123 said...

facyspacy,

"Poor people do make a decision to be poor."

False.

September 19, 2012 at 7:50 p.m.
miraweb said...

In case you missed this - there is a Libyan social media movement on Twitter and Facebook where young people are sending photos of themselves rejecting the violence at the U.S. Embassy and sending apologies to the American people.

Very remarkable.

A sample: http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5050e6306bb3f7cf76000023/image.jpg

September 19, 2012 at 8:14 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Obama In 1998: "I Actually Believe In Redistribution"

I'll post it again. PMSnbc has played the Romney tape 300 times now, yet they NEVER showed this one in 14 years.

September 19, 2012 at 8:58 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

"... at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot."

Why did you omit that part of the quote? Oh wait, I already know the answer.

September 19, 2012 at 9:03 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

What does that have to do with anything? As if that justifies redistribution.

Give a man a food stamp and he'll eat for a day.

Teach a man to apply for food stamps and he'll eat for life.

Liberals are funny like that.

September 19, 2012 at 9:16 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

This is worth repeating a hundred times. Obama does not know how to lead. Heaven forbid he should still be in office over the next few years.

GameOn said... "Gulf Oil Spill.......Real Leadership"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=J1F-pGlfW7g

September 19, 2012 at 9:26 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Cradle to the grave....Vote Democrat.

September 19, 2012 at 9:27 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ chilling

September 19, 2012 at 9:40 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Jesse said: “L.B.J.'s war on poverty and new society was for the express purpose of getting poor blacks dependent on wellfare and such!

Sorry, Jesse, but I believe the facts show something different that what you seem to be suggesting. For starters, there is a limitation on the length of time a family can receive TANF assistance, and the ethnicity variance among recipients is not a large one. For example, in 2009 the U.S. Department of Human Services shows:

Black families comprised 33.3% of TANF families,

Non-Hispanic white families comprised 31.2% of TANF families

Hispanic families comprised 28.8% of TANF families

Jesse said: “He is quoted as saying "with this one signature i will have the n's voting democratic for the next 200 years"!”*

I don’t recall ever hearing that Johnson quote, but I do recall reading about his prophecy in regard to the Civil Rights Act and that he would be “signing away the south for 50 years.”

As for the impact of President Johnson’s “Great Society,” I believe the stats show that his efforts made a difference in the lives of a lot of families: "From 1963 when Lyndon Johnson took office until 1970 as the impact of his Great Society programs were felt, the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century." The percentage of African Americans below the poverty line dropped from 55 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 1968."

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965 also helped great numbers children to get out of the ghettos. “The poorer states like Mississippi benefited greatly from the federal funding and by the end of the 1960’s the percentage of African Americans obtaining a high school diploma rose from 40% to 60%. . . Johnson’s 1965 Higher Education Act was more successful as it gave significant aid to poor black colleges; it led the number of African American college students to quadruple within a decade. Lyndon Johnson’s introduction of Medicare and Medicaid helped to address the issue of poor health in the minorities, African American infant mortality halved within a decade.”

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Lyndon_Baines_Johnson.htm

September 19, 2012 at 9:57 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

Redistribution doesn't need to be justified. That's what the government does. You just want demonize the word because you think it will support your "conservative" agenda. Your tax dollars are "redistributed" to a lot of programs. The military is the biggest one of all. I don't see you bitching about that "redistribution". I don't see you bitching about Social Security, Medicare, public school funding, transportation and infrastructure funding, veterans benefits etc. All of that would qualify as "redistribution" as well. Why aren't you crying about all the veteran's that steal your money, or high schoolers, teachers, policemen, road workers, Medicare beneficiaries, etc.? More of your tax dollars are being "redistributed" to those areas than to safety net program.

Only 13% of Federal tax dollars go to safety net programs.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

You're like a baby with colic. Always crying and moaning for no reason.

September 19, 2012 at 9:58 p.m.
acerigger said...

Per the New York Times:

Eager to shoot down President Obama’s legislative agenda just weeks before the election, Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked a measure that would have provided $1 billion over five years to help veterans find work in their communities.

"JOBS,JOBS,JOBS",right? Yeah, right azzholes!

September 19, 2012 at 10:33 p.m.
mymy said...

Easy: You just don't get it, never will.

How much and what is the MSM reporting about the Mid-East issues: Libya was a terror attach.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/19/top-administration-official-says-strike-in-libya-was-terror-attack/

September 19, 2012 at 10:46 p.m.
MTJohn said...

mymy said..."MTJ: In most cases it is their own fault."

Mymy - I'm sure that you can substantiate that conclusion with a lot or Rush et al. references to "crack hos", "welfare queens" etc. etc. But, you can't substantiate it with facts.

It is a lot easier to blame the victims of the flaws in our economic system than it is to acknowledge the reality of those flaws. The latter requires us to assume personal responsibility - an attribute which seems lacking among the right-wing prols.

September 19, 2012 at 10:47 p.m.
Easy123 said...

mymy,

I don't think you have ever offered a rebuttal that had any substance.

You just don't get it. You're incompetent and all you can offer is copy and pasting articles from Conservative propaganda sites and media sources.

Your effort is completely lacking. But I'm sure you'll just offer another unlettered rebuttal to that as well.

I'm sure the situation in Libya was attached to terror in some way.

September 19, 2012 at 11 p.m.
mymy said...

Easy: afraid to watch the video?

September 19, 2012 at 11:05 p.m.
Easy123 said...

mymy,

Afraid to spell words correctly?

Another lacking rebuttal?

I vote yes.

September 19, 2012 at 11:13 p.m.

mountainlaurel quoted a website called "talking points memo" to make her point. Doesn't get much better than that. My sides are splitting.

September 19, 2012 at 11:46 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said....

How many years did it take to amass that debt? ans. 236 years with a double in the last 4 years. How many years do you think it will take to pay it down? All current proposals only slow down the growth so how many years to pay it can only be guessed at when payments on it begin. I have seen estimates of 360 years at 1 million a day payments.

For sure, spending will have to be decreased, but then revenue will have to increase as well. Revenue does not have to be increased however more people working decent jobs would do that. Each department needs to be reviewed/justified annually and required to provide/submit a zero based budget for approval.

Taxes are going to have to be increased on those most able to pay them. Spending will have to decrease for things that do not impact those in need, or for social entitlements.

I don't care if taxes are increased if spending is reduced by $10 for each new tax dollar. Those truly in need and unable to do for themselves are not a major number and should be provided for. To heck with your so called social "entitlements". I watched one woman on TV insist that the government was obligated to assure everyone had access to cable TV service, phone service, modern heat and AC for their dwelling, a vehicle and fuel, food, clothing, shelter and health care if they were unable to obtain it on their own regardless of the reason. If that is what you are suggesting as social entitlements we are wasting time discussing it. I am not and will never be in that camp. In my opinion once you receive the amount paid into social security plus a reasonable interest then your account is depleted and there will be not one penny more from that fund. If you die your estate gets the balance not withdrawn prior to your death. Anything beyond that is charity/welfare and should be handled as such by the states.

September 19, 2012 at 11:49 p.m.
Easy123 said...

WWWTW,

Refute mountainlaurel's point then. You don't score any points by criticizing the name of a website.

September 19, 2012 at 11:54 p.m.
alprova said...

"How much and what is the MSM reporting about the Mid-East issues: Libya was a terror attach (sic)."

Fox News is qubbling over the wording that has been forthcoming from the White House over the past week. The White House has stated repeatedly that the events that led to the killing of four Americans was a "spontaneous act." tied in part to the protests of the anti-Islamic video being hosted on YouTube.

Fox News has been asserting, without offering any proof mind you, that the killings were a pre-planned event, now asserting that they were tied to al-Qaeda, and has even gone further with their claim that there was intelligence that warned of the attack, again without offering any proof whatsoever.

If indeed the attack was pre-planned, and anyone in the White House, or elsewhere for that matter, was warned that the Consulate building was in imminent danger, where is the damn proof that this information was forwarded to the President, who is being blamed by Fox News for failing to protect those American lives?

The fact is that there is no credible evidence, outside of the acting Libyan President repeating his line on Fox News that he knew of the threat. It may well be that he was informed to the threat, but he has no proof whatsoever that he acted after obtaining such knowledge by contacting a soul connected with the U.S. to inform them that the threat existed.

The investigation is still ongoing into those events. When it is concluded, I'm sure that it will show that our system of intelligence failed to pick up any credible threat that was passed on up the chain that would have precipitated an actionable response in advance of the terror attack.

Why is it so plausable for people to think for one second that the President would not have done everything possible to protect American lives, if he knew of a credible threat?

If one believes what Fox News shovels all the time, even during times of the day when they should be simply reporting the news, accusations fly all the time that are purposely meant to demean and discredit the President.

If Fox News has proof that the President failed to act on any credible threat that was placed before him, then by all means they need to offer it.

If they do not have such evidence, then they need to back off of those claims pretty quick, for they will eventually come back to bite them in the butt, big time.

Of course those killings were a terror attack. But is there a shred of proof that the threat was picked up by our system of intelligence?

Do people really believe that the terrorists are not going to get smarter, or already have wisened up, due to instances where their plans have been thwarted? They know they have moles who have infiltrated their organizations.

Not every threat of terror is going to be known in advance. For anyone to believe otherwise is quite stupid.

September 20, 2012 at 12:09 a.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "ans. 236 years with a double in the last 4 years. How many years do you think it will take to pay it down? All current proposals only slow down the growth so how many years to pay it can only be guessed at when payments on it begin. I have seen estimates of 360 years at 1 million a day payments."

Those estimates are only valid if spending and revenue remained as they are. Revenue will most certinly have to rise substantially, and spending will have to be cut exponetially, but again, only in areas that will not impact the truly needy or to entitlements.

"Revenue does not have to be increased however more people working decent jobs would do that. Each department needs to be reviewed/justified annually and required to provide/submit a zero based budget for approval."

Agreed, but it's going to take more than people simply getting back to work. That will level things off a bit, but taxes are going to have to go up.

"To heck with your so called social "entitlements". I watched one woman on TV insist that the government was obligated to assure everyone had access to cable TV service, phone service, modern heat and AC for their dwelling, a vehicle and fuel, food, clothing, shelter and health care if they were unable to obtain it on their own regardless of the reason."

You can't judge an entire nation of people by the misguided attitudes of one woman feeling that she is entitled to welfare. People have paid a lifetime into the Social Security and Medicare systems. They deserve those benefits.

If one wants to phase out both programs for future generations, fine...but the starting point for phasing them out must begin with new entries into the jobs market. Steer them and mandate them to fund their own retirements when they are young. Cutting people off who have been conditioned to expect those programs to be there for them is simply wrong.

"If that is what you are suggesting as social entitlements we are wasting time discussing it. I am not and will never be in that camp."

Nor will I.

"In my opinion once you receive the amount paid into social security plus a reasonable interest then your account is depleted and there will be not one penny more from that fund."

That constitutes a breach of contract with the American people. The fund was supposed to be invested to grow and to support people for the rest of their lives, regardless of what they personally contributed over the years.

"If you die your estate gets the balance not withdrawn prior to your death. Anything beyond that is charity/welfare and should be handled as such by the states."

The program is written to include keeping forever, any unpaid funds not returned to a beneficiary if they die. It's a trade-off, I suppose, for offering lifetime benefits to those who live to collect beyod what they have paid into the system.

September 20, 2012 at 12:39 a.m.

alprova said... Sir, I am deeply involved with a polling organization, and what you just typed up there is the most outlandish claim ever attempted in this forum.

It is outlandish to feign ignorance of the fact that liberals don’t put their money where their mouth is when it comes to charitable giving. Ask Joe Biden. (“Democrats Vs. Republicans: Who's The Most Greedy?” (Investor’s Business Daily, Mon, Jan 30 2012) http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/012712-599290-democrats-like-giving-money-from-others.htm

As stated in my post, the findings I listed are from Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide -Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters by Arthur C. Brooks.

The conclusions are summarized at the links I provided. A simple left click on the links and you’re on your way to enlightenment. http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/acbrooks/Pages/Who%20really%20cares/WSJ%20review%2012-22-06.pdf http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258358706104403.html

September 20, 2012 at 12:46 a.m.
alprova said...

WWWTW wrote: "It is outlandish to feign ignorance of the fact that liberals don’t put their money where their mouth is when it comes to charitable giving. Ask Joe Biden."

I take no responsibility for one Democratic politician who does not demonstrate a great deal of charitable giving. That in no manner reflects that all Democrats or Liberals join him in doing the same, and you should know that.

I consider it quite ignorant to size up an entire group of people based on the example of one man.

Your links share no facts at all, for the reasons I stated earlier. At best, they offer pure conjecture based on people sharing an assumed amount of truth.

When people are cornered on the subject of charitable giving during a phone call, even with someone they do not know at all, they are not likely to be comfortable in being honest about the fact that they do not give to charities, especially if there are no consequences for not telling the truth.

Do you go to church? Do you always drop something into the collection plates or baskets? Have you ever run short now and then and bypassed it? Have you ever wondered if anyone noticed that you did not drop a tithe in? If so, do you remember that pang of guilt because you may have been judged by others, even if you do not know them?

That is why I tend to discount your evidence. It assumes that everyone who responded to the poll was 100% honest in their responses, and I know that is not possible. You think they were.

Sharing your links again does not bolster your case. You are free as rain to hold any opinion you wish, but that's as far as it goes.

A poll taken by phone is not scientific evidence, and it never will be.

September 20, 2012 at 1:53 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said....

If one wants to phase out both programs for future generations, fine...but the starting point for phasing them out must begin with new entries into the jobs market. Steer them and mandate them to fund their own retirements when they are young. Cutting people off who have been conditioned to expect those programs to be there for them is simply wrong.

I agree with that. I am not suggesting any changes for those now participating or near that age.

September 20, 2012 at 5:32 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

harp3339 said... "Steer them and mandate them to fund their own retirements when they are young."

This statement makes me cringe. Confiscate 50% of our wealth by force. Force us to buy medical insurance (another 16%?), auto insurance( another 2%?). Tax our property and confiscate it from us if we cannot pay (this is not all that different from what was going on in feudal times, when you were allowed to stay on and use the King’s land as long as you paid adequate tribute)...

AT WHAT POINT DO PEOPLE START RECOGNIZING THAT THEY ARE SLAVES?

September 20, 2012 at 9:28 a.m.
Lookingback said...

This exceeds the boundaries of decency.

September 25, 2012 at 3:03 p.m.
Lookingback said...

OBAMA = One Big Assed Mistake America

September 25, 2012 at 3:06 p.m.
Lookingback said...

Original Chinese Proverb: Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.

2012 White House Revision: Give a man a welfare check, a free cell phone with unlimited free minutes, cash for his clunker, food stamps, section 8 housing, free contraceptives, Medicaid, ninety-nine weeks of unemployment, free medicine, and he will vote for Democrats the rest of his life; even after he's deceased.

September 25, 2012 at 3:11 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.