The Social Contract

When I hear the word “contract” I reach for my revolver think of two unique definitions — formally, a legally binding mutual agreement made between two or more parties, or idiomatically, an attempt to hire an assassin to kill one or more of your enemies.

This past week, we were treated to a classic liberal class envy screed by Prof. Elizabeth Warren, who recently declared her candidacy in the race to choose a Democrat who will oppose current Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown in the 2012 elections.  During her talk, which targeted the wealthy (specifically those who own manufacturing businesses) as irresponsible because they allegedly balk at paying their fair share of taxes, Warren made the following statement:

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea—God bless. Keep a big hunk of it.  But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

Houston … we have a problem here.  Exactly which “underlying social contract” is she referring to?  By definition, a social contract implies mutual consent on the part of citizens and their government, whereby both parties agree to adhere to common rules in order to establish a safe and just society.  The key to a valid social contract is, without question, mutual consent.  And therein lies the problem with Prof. Warren’s ideas.

The “underlying social contract” for the United States of America is our Constitution.  It has a very clear purpose – to limit the power of government and to empower the individual.  It does this by establishing a well regulated government along with a well regulated military and judicial system.  Over the years things have been added — mail delivery, schools, roads and bridges, distribution systems for electricity and safe drinking water, Social Security, etc. — and even though we may criticize the mechanics of individual programs, the overall intent to promote the general welfare of the people has been clear.  Therefore, these expansions of government activity have been largely supported by the American people.

But ever since World War II, and even more so since the 1970′s, there has arisen a class of politically active intellectuals and elites who sincerely believe that their definition of what constitutes a contented, fair, and economically secure society is vastly superior to the type of traditional goals and values held by working class Americans of average education and modest economic means.  One of the major areas targeted by these progressive elites is wealth/income inequality.  As self-appointed saviors of our society, one of their top priorities is to confiscate money from those who have unfairly accumulated excess wealth and, in the words of Megan McArdle, “spend [that] money on projects that they think will be more valuable than the equivalent usage in the private sector.”  In other words, they believe it is their duty to empower the government at the expense of the individual.

And this is where “mutual consent” starts getting problematic.  More from Elizabeth Warren:

You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.  You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.  You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.

Huh?  By making an obviously spurious claim that “the rest of us” (i.e. everyone but the wealthy) were the ones who paid for our public services, is Prof. Warren trying to claim that wealthy Americans are resentful about paying for roads, schools, and emergency services, things that virtually all of us have depended on — and supported — for well over a century?  I think so.  And she is doing it because she is trying to manipulate her audience into being angry at “the rich” because they don’t appear to feel guilty, when they damn well should be.  Her manipulation cleverly avoids the real reason why many Americans are truly concerned about the taxes we pay.

And that reason can be summarized in a neat little rule – As the size and cost of the Federal government increases beyond what was originally outlined in our national social contract (The Constitution), the mutual consent of the people diminishes proportionately.

The Elizabeth Warrens of the world simply do not want to recognize this fundamental rule, partly because their actions over the past forty years have contributed greatly to its axiomatic truth, but mostly because acknowledging it would essentially de-legitimize their efforts to hijack our social contract and, in the words of President Obama, “fundamentally transform” America into a nation that primarily reflects their vision of an ideal society.  The more power they grab, the less mutual consent they have, and the more illegitimate their efforts become.  So they try to flip the issue around, taking genuine discontent with wasteful and inefficient government spending and recasting it as discontent with government in general.  They have become masters at using this tactic to intimidate voters by threatening to drastically cut essential services if the public at large should decide that they are paying too much money in taxes.

Of course essential services aren’t the problem.  The plain truth is that it does not take $3.8 trillion a year to maintain safe roads, or to provide a worthwhile education to our children, or to have top-notch emergency responders.  Even if you throw in the military, the justice system, environmental resources management, transportation, disaster relief, workplace safety, entitlement programs like Social Security, and other services that a majority of the people support, implemented efficiently and funded at an essential operations level, you still wouldn’t even be close to the amount of money the government is currently spending.  The American people know this.  And we are also angry over the fact that during the 2008 election the Democrats never bothered to mention that they were planning to increase Federal spending by 30% or expand our national debt by nearly 40% in only two years, or that they would shove their 2000 page “health care reform” monstrosity through Congress over the loud objections of a clear majority of the American people and without any support from Congressional Republicans.

“Mutual consent”?  Don’t make me laugh.

The Tea Party and other recent movements founded on principles of fiscal conservatism or libertarianism recognize that our government has largely been hijacked by progressive elitists who despise democracy and government checks and balances, and who have managed to strategically position themselves to rule our nation via regulation and executive orders.   It goes without saying that these elitists believe that they have the moral authority to expand government in any direction and by any amount that they choose, and to take any amount of money that they deem to be “fair” from individuals and businesses and invest that money in the government, because such an investment will promote the “common good” far more effectively than if individuals or businesses were allowed to keep and spent their own money.

The rest of us, on the other hand, see the government created by these elites as bloated, wasteful, inefficient, and corrupt.  Far from being wise managers of the nation’s wealth, government bureaucrats are easily duped by slick song-and-dance men who are long on politically correct ideology, short on sound financial planning, and masterfully deceptive about their own greed – Fannie Mae, General Motors, and Solyndra are only three out of a myriad of examples.  Political lobbying has become a billion-dollar industry which, along with barrels full of campaign cash offered by wealthy Americans seeking the ear of influential lawmakers, has essentially shut anyone but the very rich and powerful out of the legislative and rule making processes.  Factor in the super-sized influence of liberal special interests such as organized labor, which proudly serves as an advocate for a clear minority of Americans at the expense of the rest, and once again we need to ask – “Where is the mutual consent”?

Which brings us back to Elizabeth Warren.  Professor Warren, paying for our share of essential government services is one thing; being forced to fork over more and more of our hard-earned money to pay for a wasteful government that grows increasingly larger and more powerful without mutual consent between itself and its citizens is another.  I think most Americans understand this.  It’s too bad that you don’t.

_____________________________

Make sure you also read this response to Prof. Warren by a factory owner

“You built a factory out there? Good for you.” ‘Built a factory’ is a summary for a lot of work. Put up equity, designed a business, took risk to buy land, get permits, pay property taxes and use taxes and permit fees. Then, bought a bunch of equipment and had it installed …and paid sales taxes. Hired some employees and paid them a bunch of money and paid payroll taxes on top of that. Bought a bunch of raw materials from companies that paid a bunch of salaries and a bunch of taxes. Building a factory is a huge private investment that pays the public a lot of taxes for the right to be built.

Read the whole thing.

"Quietly larger than life"
Obama Media Stooge Rebuked . . . . . By Liberals
  • jim_m

    The social contract is an intellectual device intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. – Wikipedia

    I think the point here is that Warren sees all businesses as property owned by the government.  I wouldn’t be at all surprised if she viewed everything as ultimately being owned by the government and that people have what they do solely at the discretion of the government.

    • Anonymous

      But all Property
      superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by
      their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose
      of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such
      Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him
      retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of
      Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.” —
      Benjamin Franklin  

      Two people I admire.  Elizabeth Warren….and Benjamin Franklin. 

      • jim_m

        In context Franklin was peaking of the problem of people not paying taxes that were legally due.  He was speaking of the necessity of people to pay taxes for maintenance of he society for which they lived.

        Warren is saying that businesses and business owners, which already pay taxes, should have to contribute additional taxes for the services that they have already paid for,  Warren is saying that Businesses should be required to surrender their profits to the government.

        Warren is a communist and you are dishonest in your use of quotations.

        • Anonymous

          How nice of you to have the ability to “channel” Benjamin Franklin and twist his words to suit your agenda.  Warren is pointing to the fact that many businesses today are not paying enough into the system from which they are taking so much out of.  From Adam Smith to Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, our founders knew the importance of a healthy and robust society of free men.  They saw in England the results of the continued funneling of wealth to the very few and the resulting two tier system of noblemen and peasants – the same sort of society that today’s Republicans advocate.  Wealth comes from society, not the individual.  Any individual who takes from society without replenishing enough to leave that society in good health is no more than a tyrant.   

          • jim_m

            How nice of you to have the ability to “channel” Benjamin Franklin and twist his words to suit your agenda.

            Isn’t that exactly what you are doing?  The only difference is that I look at what he says in context and you do not.

            They were not saying that wealth comes from society.  They were saying that wealth comes from the individual’s interactions with society.  There is an enormous difference.  The individual exerts himself to produce goods that he then sells on the market.  If his goods are superior he can be successful.  That success comes because there is a civil society with rules that enables his success.  Society does not make his success.  To say that society makes wealth is to turn it upside down.

            Ignorant people like Warren and yourself believe that society makes wealth.  It does not. Look at the USSR.  For decades it failed to produce much in terms of wealth.  People were better off than they were as serfs but only slightly so.  No one outside the political apparatus could be considered wealthy.  People through their own exertion produce wealth.  Society enables that wealth production.

            You and Warren confused the correlation of the existence of civil society, with the causation of wealth.  There are plenty of poor societies.  Individuals go where they can best retain the fruits of their labors.

            Again it comes down to the fact that you are intellectually dishonest or perhaps just plain ignorant

          • Anonymous

            Ignorant people like Warren and yourself believe that society makes wealth.  It does not.

            Yeah, right….that’s why Warren Buffet would be just as wealthy had he bee n born and raised in Somalia….

            You’re just being deliberately ignorant.  

          • Anonymous

            Ever notice when a lib is losing they immediately accuse you of being “ignorant”?

          • Anonymous

            No, but I have noticed that the right wing in the USA looks down upon anyone with more than a junior high education.  Perhaps that explains the popularity of Reagan, Bush, and Perry….

          • jim_m

            Not true.  But the right does put more weight on being able to actually accomplish something in your life other than running for office.  Reagan, Bush and Perry all have done that.  obama, Kerry, not so much.

          • Anonymous

            Your projection is showing.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

            More like his own stupidity coupled with projection.

            It’s really rather odd how dedicated some of the trolls can be to their memes.  Perhaps it’s because they’re rarely intelligent enough to question and test their assumptions, and tend to take on faith what they’re told is the ‘right’ way to think about things…

            All things considered, it’s a much less intellectually challenged way to live than to actually have to think, and judge an idea not by how good it sounds but by the actual results it generates.

            I can understand the appeal of such a mindset… but I just don’t understand how they can ignore the results.

          • Anonymous

            Looking down your nose a bit there aren’t you Ace?

          • Anonymous

            Not really.  It’s more pity than anything else.

          • Anonymous

            Then how do you account for for those with degrees who spout gibberish. I was once asked what’s the difference between (I’ll use) a Doctor who graduates at the Top of his class and one who graduates at the bottom–the answer is ‘none’ (now I’m well aware of the academic differences but all most patients see is ‘MD’) and I digress. 
            After listening to Elizabeth Warren my interpretation was, and she made it clear: who ever started a business or endeavor should get a whoppin’ chunk of the profits and they should pay some forward for the ‘next kid’ to be able to do the same. How is that off of what America was built on?  IF it is,  then the rest of us better stop paying our taxes and let the ‘rich’ who have made all their money off the labor and sweat of the average Joe pay for this country, because they are being the profiteers on everyone else’s’ hide, given their logic.  The thinking that $20.00 an hour is to much to pay for labor given the cost of living in this country is dark-ages, serfdom rhetoric. Also $20.00 an hour does not keep up with the rise in cost of living especially if you check out the ratio of rise in wages to those in Congress for instance or the Top CEO like ENRON, Wall Street Bankers and Hedge fund managers, et al. If you actually believe I’m inaccurate, Take your head out of the sand and check the facts for yourself. My question is why would anyone want to grow the level of those in poverty and that is precisely what is happening, so what does it ‘profit’ them? Even Henry Ford was smart enough to know that if his ‘laborers’ were not making a living wage so they could afford to by a ‘Ford’ who would buy his product.

          • Anonymous

            So, I take it you are against any programs that support the middle class and labor in general.  Guess that make you a card carrying Republican who is taking in over $250K a year…and if you’re not taking in $250K a year, it makes you a dupe in support of those that do! 

             

          • Anonymous

            Oh, by the way, in light of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her attacker, was the opening line of this guys post appropriate?

            When I hear the word “contract” I reach for my revolver think
            of two unique definitions — formally, a legally binding mutual
            agreement made between two or more parties, or idiomatically, an attempt
            to hire an assassin to kill one or more of your enemies.

            Way to go Right Wing!

          • jim_m

            You have the same reading comprehension problem that Bob does.

            I said that wealth comes from interaction with society.  You and Warren claim that wealth comes from society.  There is a difference. 

            Of course Buffett would not be as wealthy in Somalia.  That is not what I am saying and is another example of your intellectual dishonesty.  But, someone of Buffett’s talents would still rise above the rest in the same relative manner.  Another problem the left has is understanding that wealth and poverty are relative terms.  A wealthy man in Somalia would not be considered so in the US but he is still wealthy by comparison to those around him. 

            The problem with the left is that they see some irrational need to make everyone economically equal everywhere.  That is the path to universal poverty (well, except for the leftist elite who get to oversee he redistribution of wealth and somehow the leftists always see themselves as part of that elite).

          • Anonymous

            YOU ARE TOTALLY FULL OF SHIT! AND THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THE COMMENTS MADE TOWARDS ELIZABETH WARREN, SHE CAN HAVE AN OPINION. CHANGING THE SUBJECT IS THE REPUBLICAN WAY OF IGNORING THE FACTS! WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A CIVILIZED CHRISTIAN COUNTRY? SO WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MAKE YOU AGREEING WITH THIS TYPE OF DIALOGUE? MORON!

          • http://www.thisheartsonfire.com this.hearts.on.fire.

            I had to take my comment back. Pls use quotes. I attributed the “Ignorant….” quote to you! My mistake.

          • Anonymous

            Well you are truly dishonest and ignorant of the facts, that corporations do not pay there fair share and want everything given to them and give little in return in fact they take! Let’s just start with the fact they send there profits to other countries and will only return it to the USA if they get a break on there taxes! They want to pay a giant, 5.5% on there profits, we have to pay 35% on our earnings! Why do they need a tax break when they don’t pay taxes, they get refunds and bailed out by the real TAX PAYERS!
            Can you explain these figures, oh brillant on! I am laughing at you superior intellect!

            THEY SHOULD PAYUP OR SHUT THE FUCK UP! What babies you and they are, cry, cry, cry, feel sorry for me! NOT!
             
            1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings. How can we justify, subsiding there business, and giving them, 150 million in tax refunds? Do they really need a lower tax rate as the Republicans believe? What is the cost of gasoline today? Lower than 150 million in tax refunds?
             
             
            2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
             
            3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS. Do you think they need a lower tax rate than 4.1 BILLION Dollars in Tax refunds? Republicans say they do?
             
            4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009. How can we justify, subsiding there business, and giving them 19 million, in tax refunds? Do they really need a lower tax rate as the Republicans believe? What is the cost of gasoline today? Lower than 19 million, in tax refunds?
             
             
            5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year! Those wonderful Boeing, TV commercials cost the tax payer about $1 million each in tax deductions cost of doing business advertising! Who are they advertising too and how many planes did the average American buy last year?
             
            6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
             
            7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
             
            8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury. How much lower does the tax rate have to be to make these guys happy? and they got 2.5 Trillion after they screwed the American People?? What is wrong with this picture?
             
            9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
             
            10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent! We need to lower there tax rate to what, “0″ to make them happy?

          • Anonymous

            You are obviously a republican clone.

        • Anonymous

          You are obviously a republican clone.

        • Anonymous

          What fucking taxes you ass hole!
          1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings. How can we justify, subsiding there business, and giving them, 150 million in tax refunds? Do they really need a lower tax rate as the Republicans believe? What is the cost of gasoline today? Lower than 150 million in tax refunds?
           
           
          2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.
           
          3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS. Do you think they need a lower tax rate than 4.1 BILLION Dollars in Tax refunds? Republicans say they do?
           
          4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009. How can we justify, subsiding there business, and giving them 19 million, in tax refunds? Do they really need a lower tax rate as the Republicans believe? What is the cost of gasoline today? Lower than 19 million, in tax refunds?
           
           
          5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year! Those wonderful Boeing, TV commercials cost the tax payer about $1 million each in tax deductions cost of doing business advertising! Who are they advertising too and how many planes did the average American buy last year?
           
          6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.
           
          7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.
           
          8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury. How much lower does the tax rate have to be to make these guys happy? and they got 2.5 Trillion after they screwed the American People?? What is wrong with this picture?
           
          9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.
           
          10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent! We need to lower there tax rate to what, “0″ to make them happy?

    • Anonymous

      You are a right wing idiot. Get off our roads. Build your own.
      To the asshole that started this smear…FU.
      You will have to be getting your gun if this shit continues…because you right wing zealots will have taken this country off the cliff, and we will get our guns.

      • Anonymous

        I like this one too but have to get off now. Just cannot keep reading such ignorant republican clone talk.

    • Anonymous

      Oh, by the way, in light of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her
      attacker, was the opening line of this guys post appropriate?

      When I hear the word “contract” I reach for my revolver think
      of two unique definitions — formally, a legally binding mutual
      agreement made between two or more parties, or idiomatically, an attempt
      to hire an assassin to kill one or more of your enemies.

      Way to go Right Wing!

    • Anonymous

      You are obviously a republican clone.

  • Anonymous

    Figures Warren is a “professor”.  As one of the “elite”, she will be one of those of the ruling class who directs the actions of others….by “mutual consent” of course.

    • Anonymous

      “The great object should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a
      political equality among all. 2. By withholding unnecessary
      opportunities from a few to increase the inequality of property, by an
      immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches. 3. By
      the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of
      property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise
      extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.” — James Madison

      Two people I admire:  Elizabeth Warren and James Madison.

      • Anonymous

        So without VIOLATING the rights of someone’s property you will WITHHOLD “unnecessary opportunities?

        By “mutual consent”?

        Nice try – but you’re slinging bullshit.  When the founders talked about “equality”, they were speaking of political equality.  NOT material or even intellectual equality – because, unlike our Ivory Tower Academics – they knew it did not exist.

        • Anonymous

          The property we “own” as citizens is only legitimate by virtue of our government.  

          • Anonymous

            So no one “owned” anything until “governments” were formed?

          • Anonymous

            By George, I think you are getting the hang of it!  Yes, until humans formed associations (what we know as “governments)  that defined, protected, and established terms of ownership, a man could only “own” something so long as he himself had the strength to keep it from others who would take it from him.

          • jim_m

            Oh, so a man could own something as long as someone couldn’t take it form him.   That means that a man could own something apart from the action of a government or society.  I guess you just invalidated your thesis that all wealth comes from society.

          • Anonymous

            That means that a man could own something apart from the action of a government or society…

            Well, not quire Jim.  The man could “own” it, but that ownership is only in his mind,  Outside of his mind, there is no ownership, no proof, no validation. 

            My beagle is very protective of her occasional steak bone from the dinner scraps and in her little mind, she “owns it” I suppose.  However, that ownership, like the one you are mentioning is just as invalid when I come along and take it.

             

          • jim_m

            Ownership is an abstract concept so therefore any ‘ownership’ is in a person’s mind.  Again you are only proving my point.

          • Bob Armstrong

            Johnny — you’re thumb wrestling with a man who has no hands, if you catch my drift.

             

          • Anonymous

            I am doing my best at dealing with people who rely on talking points and half truths.  Yeah, it’s not what I am used to.  Most people I deal with in person are educated and informed. 

          • Anonymous

            It was the people who formed that all powerful ‘government’.  Something that seems to be forgotten in certain liberal political circles like Ms Warren’s.

    • Anonymous

      If my “elite” you mean smart, knowledgeable, able, and accomplished, she is guilty as charged.

      • Anonymous

        No, I mean “arrogant”.  As in the elite will rule everyone else.  They’re “rules” will only apply to the proles.

        For an example, see Al Gore.

        • Anonymous

          Al Gore?  Not sure where you are going on that one.  Is Mr. Gore one of those wealthy hedge fund managers or investors who pay so little in taxes because they are “capital gains” and as such, subject to preferred rates of taxation?  

          • Anonymous

            And you call others “ignorant”?

            It’s called one set of rules for the elite and another set for the proles.

            As for capital gains taxes rates, perhaps you should educate yourself  before spouting off.

          • Anonymous

            Tell me please then, why a man who invests his capital ought to be charged a lower rate than a man who invests his labor?  Why this “other set of rules” for the investor class? 

          • jim_m

            Because investment puts other people to work and therefore you are not just making money for yourself but you are providing for the work of others.  You are also risking the loss of your investment so as encouragement for taking the risk you get a lower tax rate and you can deduct your losses should you have them.

          • Anonymous

            So you do favor a two tiered system…..one for the elite capital investor and another higher rate for the low class laborer….As I expected…

          • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

            I favor the Fair tax – a ‘prebate’ up to a minimum level automatically sent to the taxpayer – and beyond that a 23% tax on all new purchases.  

            “This nonpartisan legislation (HR 25/S 13) abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax — administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.” 

            Of course it’ll never pass – too many people in Washington have no desire at all to relinquish their control over the vast unwashed through ‘social engineering’ by taxation.

          • Anonymous

            Yeah, the poor people control Washington….gimme a break. 

          • Anonymous

            Invested capital is money that has already been taxed at “normal” rates.  Also called discretionary funds.  Funds you’re willing to RISK in order to make more money.

            That’s what creates jobs.  A man’s labor is worth NOTHING unless someone is willing to pay him for it.  If I’m going to be taxed at ‘normal’ rates on capital gains, then why RISK the capital in the first place?   

          • Anonymous

            You mean like GE and Bank of America that paid NO taxes?

            Oh I see….

          • Anonymous

            You really should educate yourself on the tax code.  You might also add Warren Buffet if you want to mention GE and B of A.  He’s been arguing since 2002 with the IRS as to whether his company owes a BILLION in unpaid taxes.  Kind of surprising for a man who cries out that he wants to pay MORE.

          • Anonymous

            You should open your eyes and see what our tax code is doing to the USA. 

          • Anonymous

            See?  Now we can agree on something.  I think EVERYONE should have to pay income taxes.  I don’t care if that 47% pays only $5.  A flat 10% tax on EVERYONE would have the government rolling in money – and would boost the economy.

            You want to talk about “fair” (Which BTW, Barry has yet to define in concrete terms) – how about, you pay no taxes, you don’t get to vote.  If Barry can determine what’s “fair”, so can I.

            Oh, and Barry had his chance with tax reform in Simpson-Bowles – and being the preeminent leader that he is – kicked the can down the road.

          • Anonymous

            If we tax the  middle class anymore than we are, while keeping wages down, there will be riots.  The Republicans know this. As is stands, a majority of our citizens cannot save enough for retirement, afford adequate health care, or help their children with higher education.  You cannot  get blood from a stone.  The middle class has been kicked, chipped at, taken from, and there’s not much left.    Sure, I’d love it if more of the middle class could afford to pay more in taxes. I’d jump for joy if our poor had enough left over at the end of the week to chip in.  But so long as our labor/trade/immigration/tax policies keep wages down, this is not going to happen.

          • Anonymous

            You mean Obama’s big buddies GE and Bank of America? Those guys? So since you’re down on them I assume you’re also down on Obama right? No I didn’t think so, you believe what he says not what he does.

          • Anonymous

            Politics requires some strange bedfellows, that is a fact.  I do not respect Obama for it, but he is still a far cry better than the likes of anyone on the Republican ticket. 

          • Anonymous

            The income has already been taxed once.

            In 2008 during a debate Charlie Gibson asked candidate Obama about capatial gains taxes, even Charlie understood that lowering the capatial gains tax increase federal revenues, Obama insisted that he would raise capatial gains because of fundamental fairness.. What I don’t understand and no liberal has yet explained, if government is how we make things fair and assuming that money is involved how is it fair to lower federal revenues, I mean doesn’t that reduce the amount of money the government can give to the under prevlevged?

    • Anonymous

      Oh, by the way, in light of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her attacker, was the opening line of this guys post appropriate?
      When I hear the word “contract” I reach for my revolver think
      of two unique definitions — formally, a legally binding mutual
      agreement made between two or more parties, or idiomatically, an attempt
      to hire an assassin to kill one or more of your enemies.

      Way to go Right Wing!

      • Anonymous

        Oh please!  And I remember how you just jumped in and condemned liberal comments like Hoffa’s.  Oh, wait.  You didn’t.

        You’re fucking hypocrisy is showing.  Again.

    • Anonymous

      I always find it puzzling when commenters talk about educated people as if education is a bad thing. She came from a middle class family and made something of herself through hard work.

      • Anonymous

        “Education” in and of itself does not imply or confer “intelligence”.

        Yeah, she’s “accomplished” a lot.  Run a business, met a payroll.  Oh, wait.  No, she’s spent her life in the ivory tower.

  • Anonymous

    Leave it to a liberal…And we’ll regret it in spades!! 

    Ooops! Sorry for the Freudian racist slip up!

    • Anonymous

      “Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a
      continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot
      be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all
      cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained.
      All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man’s
      own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes
      on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part
      of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.”
      — Thomas Paine

      Two Americans that I admire:  Elizabeth Warren and Thomas Paine.

      • jim_m

        Thanks Johnny for an exhibition of intellectual dishonesty.

        Paine states that a man has a duty toward his fellow man for his prosperity is attributable to a certain extent to his interactions with his fellow man. Paine speaks of an obligation to help one’s fellow man.

        Contrast Warren, who says that no one has success except for the aid of others.  There is a difference.  Paine says people are successful in their pursuits because other men do business with you, warren says you are successful because other men enable you.

        The difference is that Paine believed in personal accountability and the success of the individual and Warren believes in communism where the state owns everything.

        • Anonymous

          Intellectual dishonesty indeed!  You may wish to educate yourself with the psychological definition of “projection”.

          • jim_m

            Quite familiar with it.

            You on the other hand like to take quotes out of context.  You take a portion of a letter and you ignore what the person is speaking of and you ignore the historical context in which it was written. This is dishonest because you are representing that the words of a founder are supporting the ideas of this marxist Warren.  Warren doesn’t believe in property rights and doesn’t believe that you own the fruits of your labors.  Her Marxist rant is evidence of that.  SHe doesn’t believe that a business owns the profits that it makes.

            You are taking out of context, quotations from the founders of this nation in a feeble attempt to make it look like she is some intellectual offspring of Franklin and Jefferson.  That is intellectual dishonesty.

          • Anonymous

            Today I learned that Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Paine, Smith and others wold be denigrated as  “Marxists” and “Socialists” by today’s American right wing. 

          • jim_m

            No you are just dishonestly quoting them out of context to make hem seem to support the leftist agenda you believe in.  They would not support the confiscatory taxation and class warfare of today’s left.

            You were dishonest in your original use of quotes and now you are dishonest in your characterization of what I wrote.  You don’t seem to be able to stop yourself from lying about what other people say.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2PYAIGCXBDDGV5MGWZBQ5KOECY ZeD

            You too? This the ONLY forum you post to? Baw haw haw haw hawwww!! Lameass Conservatard…

  • Anonymous

    I think you got it.  There is no longer any “social contract,” those are the quaint ideas of 17th and 18th century philosophers.

    We are in a Brave New World now, survival of the fittest.

    • Anonymous

      lol

      I’ll see you in the final analysis! 

    • jim_m

      Unlike Barry’s promises ideas do not have expiration dates.  Your own comments are full of the influence of this idea.  The notion that government exists to help those who are less fortunate is a direct consequence of believing in a social contract.  Otherwise government exist exclusively for the benefit of the governing class.  That might be the current reality, but it isn’t what you believe it should be.

      If anything, the reason a social contract no longer exists is because only 17% of Americans believe the government has the consent of the governed.

      • Anonymous

        No, I agree that government nowadays exists for the benefit of the governing class, which includes private sector oligarchs of every nation.  The government’s just a looting machine.

        It’s why we fight wars to secure mineral resources for Chinese companies and enrich military contractors.

        It’s why “bailouts” socialize business losses while profits remain privatized.

        I’m not too hot on paying taxes, because we don’t get shit for them.  At least in Europe, where I spend a lot of time, they get health care, good education and good infrastructure.  

        • jim_m

          I think we are agreed that if the social contract does not exist it is because the government has broken it.  But that does not necessitate that the idea is out of date or wrong in any way.  On the contrary, it merely reveals how wrong our current government and leadership is.

        • Anonymous

          Maybe they shoulda bailed us out in the big one?

          • jim_m

            Don’t count on it.  I will bet that we end up holding the bag on the coming euro bailout of Greece.  obama will have no problem promising several trillion of our dollars to bailout someone else.

          • Anonymous

            We already are bailing them out – the Fed opens its credit to European banks – so they get to borrow dollars at 0% from the printing machine.  The crony bankers take care of each other, people and prices be damned.

          • Anonymous

            This guy says it’s $500 billion:

            There’s that rumored swap line opening from the Federal Reserve to the
            European Central Bank, but that’s nothing more than a cheap loan window,
            and for a measly half a trillion ($500 billion – the late Senator Ev
            Dirkson is cackling in his grave). And where do those dollars come from
            anyway? Who is supposed to pay it back, and how? What kind of collateral
            is Ben Bernanke going to hold – the contents of the south wing of the
            Louvre? One hundred million free dinners (wine and tip included) at
            Taillevent? This game of musical chairs with a hot potato is not fooling
            anyone, really.

            http://kunstler.com/blog/2011/09/punked-world.html#more

          • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

            (Shakes head…)

            You know, I wish I could get the same sort of loan terms that the ECB and the IMF are likely to get…  

          • Anonymous

            It’s very simple.  You, in the form of the Federal Reserve, lend it to them at 0%.  They lend it back to you at 5 – 30%, depending on whether it’s a mortgage or credit card.

    • retired.military

      and you will still vote for Obama and the likes of the Warren.

      • Anonymous

        I would vote for Warren if I could, she fought the bank fraudsters and rip-offs until Obama showed her the door in behalf of his Wall Street cronies.  She has more balls than Obama and the whole lapdog Congress put together. 

    • Anonymous

      So we are to become barbarians in pursuit of riches? 

      • jim_m

        Man has always pursued the accumulation of wealth.  Wealth allows for greater comfort and security in life.  This is true from the very beginning, otherwise we would never have left the cave, we would never have learned to farm, we would never have experienced the enlightenment or the renaissance.

        The barbarians are the ones who believe that wealth should not be sought after.  The accumulation of wealth is what has enabled our current society.  If you want to do without all that be my guest, but I suspect this is just more class warfare hypocrisy from you.

        • Anonymous

          In your world, in your America, how would we, the people, take care of the unfortunate?

          • jim_m

            The way man has done through the centuries with increasing effect and success:  Through private charity and the promotion of philanthropy as a virtue in civil society.  Government intervention has he effect of relieving the individual of personal accountability for his fellow man. 

            Medicaid is a great example.  In the past physicians used to dedicate a portion of their practice to care for the poor.  Services were donated.  But with the advent of Medicaid it became illegal for a physician to not charge for his services.  Physicians were taught to expect payment from patients no matter how poor they were.  Government intervention has actually made things worse in terms of access to routine medical care.  It has helped with access to catastrophic care but for routine care it has been a tragedy.

          • Anonymous

            So go back to the poor farms, orphanages, and the good old days!  

            Let the unfortunate die, let the children suffer.  Survival of the fittest.

            Sorry, I’ve got no interest in going backwards. 

          • jim_m

            That’s not what I said. Again, you resort to dishonesty.

            I think a return to personal responsibility is a good thing. You prefer an unaccountable bureaucracy where you don’t have to do anything personally about the needy.

          • Anonymous

            I hear your “talk” but please forgive me if I pay more attention to your “walk”.  You make it sound as if poverty is a choice and that if one is not self sufficient, it is most likely the result of some sort of vice.  A nation’s greatness is the care it gives to its unfortunate, no the number of billionaires it enables.  

          • jim_m

            No poverty is not a choice but it is sometimes the result of our behavior.

            A great nation enables it’s people to rise up economically. It doesn’t subsidize poverty which is what you advocate. A government should allow for people to learn how to fish rather than taking fish from the good fisherman and giving it to the hungry. You only advocate punishing people for being successful and saving people from the consequences of their actions.

            People can chose tp rise above their circumstances, you advocate eliminating the need to do so by stealing success from those who are able to achieve it. All you achieve is making people dependent on hand outs.

          • Anonymous

            If a great nation enables its people to rise, then by your own yardstick, we’ve failed as a nation compared to so many of our European allies, Canada, and others.  Yes sir, since the early 1970′s, we’ve been on a slow but steady decline. 

            While at the same time, the people of Germany, France, Denmark, Norway and others have prospered in what you attempt to denigrate as punishing people for being successful and saving people from the consequences of their actions.  Indeed.  Maybe in your fantasy world, this is the case, but it’s not the case in the real world. 

          • jim_m

            No our standard of living has outpaced theirs quite handily.  I suppose that you would rather go to France where in the heat wave of several years ago the majority of deaths came in hospitals becauise they can’t afford to air condition their hospitals.

            Our standard of living far exceeds any of those nations and if you ever traveled outside of the US you would realize that.

            Europe has done more to develope an unsupportable entitlement state.  If you want to claim that Spain, Italy, Ireland, Portugal or Greece are better than the US go ahead.  But they are only in the van guard of financial failure for the rest of Europe.

          • Anonymous

            In France, I would work fewer hours, have better health care, and a more secure retirement. 

          • jim_m

            which is why the standard of living is lower in France, why they actually have worse healthcare and why their government is struggling to avoid economic collapse due to all the unsusatainable entitlements.

            I have spent a career in healthcare and can say quite categorically that we have a far superior health system based on the one single relevant criterion: outcomes. We have measurably better outcomes in virtually every disease category than EVERY European nation.

            You live in a fantasy world where the government can magically pay for everything.  It doesn’t work that way.  The French have had huge riots in trying to pull back on their education subsidies.  They cannot afford their entitlements and they are looking at a crash in their social safety et every bit as bad as ours.

            Has your mom told you to get off her computer yet?  Your knowledge levels are those of an adolescent.

          • Anonymous

            I guess if one is able to change ones “standards” to not include health care, retirement, and education, then sure…..we’re doing fine in the USA.   

          • jim_m

            We have better health care based on outcomes than anywhere in the world. We have better retirements than anywhere else still have universities that people come the world over to attend and have more material wealth on average than any other nation. 

            Yes I would call that a better standard of living.

          • Anonymous

            So why is our infant mortality so high? Why do so many of our citizens go bankrupt after an illness and why is our lifespan so short?  It this is the best in the world, I’d like to know your criteria! 

            Are we a great place to be if one is a mulch-millionaire?  Yes, we probably are.

            Is that the nation our founders envisioned?  Methinks not! 

          • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

            Of course, it depends on what’s reported… doesn’t it?

            Another challenge to comparability is the practice of counting frail or premature infants who die before the normal due date as miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) or those who die during or immediately after childbirth as stillborn. Therefore, the quality of a country’s documentation of perinatal mortality can matter greatly to the accuracy of its infant mortality statistics. This point is reinforced by the demographer Ansley Coale, who finds dubiously high ratios of reported stillbirths to infant deaths in Hong Kong and Japan in the first 24 hours after birth, a pattern that is consistent with the high recorded sex ratios at birth in those countries. It suggests not only that many female infants who die in the first 24 hours are misreported as stillbirths rather than infant deaths, but also that those countries do not follow WHO recommendations for the reporting of live births and infant deaths.[15]

            Control what’s reported, and you control how your country is seen.

            You know, Disqus really, really sucks at times.

          • Anonymous

            Dr. Katherine Yudeh King, a pediatrician at Ben Taub General Hospital,
            which serves a large uninsured population, said one of her patients, a
            15-month-old boy, died from dehydration due to diarrhea because his
            family brought him to the hospital too late, assuming they could not
            afford care.
            “This is the type of thing that happens in Somalia and other developing nations, not something that should happen in Houston,’’
            said King, one of the founding members of Doctors for Change, a group
            that advocates for universal health care in Harris County. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/09/26/328198/texas-doctor-on-perrycare-this-kind-of-thing-happens-in-somalia/

          • jim_m

            Don’t get me started… You’ll lose this one too.

            You cannot blame the hospitals for patients who never come to them because they are ill informed.

            But in England patients die of dehydration because of poor patient care IN the hospitals:http: //www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7383752/Police-probe-death-of-hospital-patient-who-begged-for-water.html

            Over 14,000 people died of the heat wave in 2003 due to a decrepit health system: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/fran-s09.shtml

            US cancer survival rates are significantly higher than every european nation:
            http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/5-yr-cancer-survival-rates-us-dominates.html

            The one issue in the US is that people fear that we do not give access to the poor, but when you look at the statistics we have a 99.3% five year survival rate for prostate cancer.  When you include the numbers of uninsured it becomes rather obvious that even the uninsured are receiving treatment somehow and they are experiencing significantly higher cure rates than are their counter parts in fuly insured Europe,

            You are woefully ignorant on politics, economics and healthcare.

            Care to add another subject on which you know nothing?

          • Anonymous

            Ill informed?  Sorry pal, our health care system is far from world class on any scale except return of profit to investors. 

          • jim_m

            Yes ill informed, and that is being polite seeing as how you are utterly incapable of providing even the smallest scrap of argument or documentation for your position other than it is true because you say so.  I offered you links to cases showing how European health care was worse and another demonstrating statistically that ours was superiour.

            Also, hospitals in the US don’t have investors.  They are not-for-profit institutions and therefore do not have stock, shareholders or investors.  Your statement is of the most supreme ignorance on how healthcare works and how hospitals are run and funded.

          • Anonymous

            Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) is the largest private operator of health care facilities in the world, It is based in Nashville, Tennessee…..Care to try again, son?  Hint:  Turn off FOX News and open your mind.

          • jim_m

            Yes there are some for profits, but they are a small fraction of the total number of hospitals in the US and none of the top hospitals in the US is for profit. 

            So you take a tiny minority and assume that they represent the entire industry?  According to the AHA there are 5815 hospitzals in the US and you are going to say that a company that totals less than 3% of all hospitals is representative of the whole? Screw you.

            You are stupid beyond belief

          • Anonymous

            You might want to look into what “not for profit” status means. 

            I’m tired of your lies, insults, and talking points. 

            Bye

          • jim_m

            And this was my point befre.  You are intellectually dishonest.  You make a claim that hospitals are out as for profit companies to make money for investors at the expense of the pubic.  But for profits are only a tiny fraction of the industry so you are tarring the whole based on the actions of 3%.  It’s dishonest.  You don’t really have a clue other than you lefty talking points.

            As I said before you started this by spamming the board with out of context quotes from founding fathers that you misrepresented by saying that they would have been for your lefty agenda.  You then made bogus comments about the obama deficit that you never acknowledged that you were wrong on and now this. You have never offered a single link to back up any of your talking points and you have continually dragged in fox news conspriacy crap. 

            You don’t really understand economics and you know precious little about health care. You said that we don’t have a good health care system but offer no proof and not one specific area where you think it falls down other than that you think it makes too much money, but you won’t even back that up beyond the assertion.  I am done wasting my time with you.  Pony up data and links or STFU.

          • Anonymous

            Our medical model is based on profits returned to the investors of corporations.  It is not based on a model of citizen health.  Our medical model is the most expensive on the planet and yet it falls far short of providing the best health care for our citizens.  This is undeniable.  Your corporatist agenda is one that our founders fought against. Your willingness to succumb to the wealthy elite reminds one of the loyalists during the American Revolution.   

          • jim_m

            Again you lie about return for investors when less than 5% of hospitals are for profit.

            What is the point of talking to someone who lies time and again about hospitals being for profit?  Look up the data imbecile!  Show me where anything even close to a plurality of hospitals are for profit and returning profits to investors!  You are lying and you know it.

            Yes our healthcare is expensive but there are many reasons for that.  Tort reform is needed. Pice controls elsewhere force drug companies to seek greater profits here where they can recover the costs of development.  The US is the center of the world for medical advances.  Drugs, devices and new techniques are most often developed here first because we have an economic environment that will allow for funding.

          • jim_m

            Our healthcare outcomes are the best in the world.  There is no disputing that (although I suspect you will but then refuse to provide any data in support of that position).

            You complain about how healthcare is accessed.  There is a difference.  How do you propose changing how healthcare is accessed while maintaining the quality?  Socialized medicine won’t do that, it never has anywhere it’s been tried.  obamacare is just socialized medicine.

            Or are you OK with people dying unnecessarily as long as they die in a politically correct ratio of rich to poor?

          • Anonymous

            The president and CEO of Sloan-Kettering, Harold Varmus,  took
            home over 4.4 million dollars in 2009 – that’s a heck of a lot of money
            for a not-for-profit hospitalYeah, “tort reform”…more talking points from the right wing.  Lawsuits and all that represent less than 4% of today’s medical costs…but to the right wing, it’s all about “tort reform”. I suppose “tort reform” is needed to bring down the cost of everything…..

          • jim_m

            CEO compensation is a different issue.  You said that hospitals were making excess profits to pay off investors. Get your bullshit straight.  You lied repeatedly about investors driving the high cost of healthcare.  You were ignorant and wrong.  Now you change to “executive pay is too high”.  Screw you.

            You don’t have a coherent argument about health care.  You just have talking points.  WHen one is shot down you move on to the next without ever bothering to check if any of them make sense.

          • Anonymous

            I prefer a civil discussion with someone who can argue a point without personal attacks.
            Looks like I will have to move on.

          • Anonymous

            Oh this coming from the guy that called me a liar, screw you and your freaking double standards

          • Anonymous

            I believe I referred to you as either a liar or a fool.  So maybe you are not a liar.  It’s hard to keep all you right wing zealots apart.  So many of you spread the lies about “47% of Americans pay no taxes” and other such canards that you are few by the likes of Rove, Limbaugh, Beck, et al. 

          • Bob Armstrong

            Again Jim lies – notice no link to support this lying bullshit.

            He literally just makes it up and assumes that none of the rubes will bother checking – and he’s right – they don’t.

            In 2003, of the roughly 3,900 nonfederal, short-term, acute care general
            hospitals in the United States, the majority—about 62 percent—were
            nonprofit. The rest included government hospitals (20 percent) and
            for-profit hospitals (18 percent).

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_hospital

          • jim_m

            You are wrong too.  The AHA lists 5795 (I originally spec’d 5815 but found better info this morning) hospitals in the US, not 3900.  Beagle boy cited HCA which is less than 3%.  I did estimate that for profits would be ~5% and that appears to be wrong.

            Either way my original statement is not invalidated.  For profits do not represent the industry and do not even amount to a plurality of the total number of hospitals.  To say that hospitals are run for the benefit of investors is an outright lie.  there is no room for equivocation on this point. For profit is the clear minority and not in any way representative of the whole.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    Warren and those who think like her are Marxists.  They don’t believe in any “social contract” except insofar as it can be used to convince people they aren’t a totalitarian threat to freedom everywhere.

    • Anonymous

      “Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to
      exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher
      portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever
      there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is
      clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate
      natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour
      and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be
      appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to
      those excluded from the appropriation.” — Thomas Jefferson

      So in your little world, Thomas Jefferson was a Marxist?

      Wow…..

      • jim_m

        Jefferson lived in a country with vast undeveloped lands that were not owned by anyone. He was not speaking of giving the lands that were rightfully owned by a land owner.  He was speaking of the practice of allowing the wealthy to accumulate lands for the purpose of hunting when many of the poor could use the land for farming.  He was speaking more of the allocation of resources and less about taking the land from the wealthy by force (which is what you imply).  Jefferson advocated allowing the poor better access to uncultivated lands and praised the importance of the small land owner.

        Again, this is just more intellectual dishonesty from you.  Read Jefferson’s letter to James Madison again.

        • Anonymous

          Today I learned that Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Paine, Smith and others wold be denigrated as  “Marxists” and “Socialists” by today’s American right wing. 

          • jim_m

            No.  You are saying that they believed in wealth redistribution and the confiscation of land from the wealthy to be redistributed to the poor.  They did not.  You are being dishonest in saying that the founders would support the socialist/communist beliefs of a nitwit like Warren.

            And now you are lying about what I have said.  Dishonesty seems to be your theme.

          • Anonymous

            When Reagan used the power of the federal government to bust labor unions, that was wealth distribution on a grand scale.  But you’re okay with that, I guess…

          • jim_m

            PATCO broke federal law.  Period.  Trying to rewrite history won’t get you very far.  It wasn’t a question of anything else but the fact that they were legally barred from striking.

            Besides, you have to be high to think that breaking PATCO was wealth redistribution.

          • Anonymous

            PATCO broke a Federal Law.  Yes. A Federal Law that is/was used to transfer wealth from the laborer to the capital investor. 

            Game, set, match. 

          • jim_m

            PATCO employees were employees of the govenment that ran the air traffic control system.  There was no capital investor.

            You are ignorant and deranged.

          • Anonymous

            I cannot say that you are deranged, but you are ignorant, or in the least, willing to ignore inconvenient things…..the busting of the union was a sign from President Reagan that unions were now “fair game” and he would use his power to help capital investors bust the power of unions and transfer that wealth to their private portfolios.  You may recall (or you may continue to ignore) that soon after this, Reagan helped bust significant numbers of the United Mine Workers.  

          • jim_m

            There you go again changing the subject when you are wrong.  The subject was PATCo and now you change the subject.

          • Anonymous

            Who limited the argument to Patco? 

          • Bob Armstrong

            My conclusion, after being stalked, harangued, harassed and  spat upon by jim=m and others is that, in jim’s case at least, he’s a moron.

            You can’t “act” that stupid. Jim’s stupid comes from a deep-down center place inside of him. He’s stupid at the core, and willing to spin any lie to fit his attempts at arguing…

          • jim_m

            Unlike you I include specifics and links for most of my arguments.  Unlike you I actually admit when I am wrong and did so on this thread.  Unlike Beagle boy I don’t lie about the subject and then change the subject when someone calls me on the lie. 

            Beagle boy lied when hew posted his original out of context quotes, He lied about obama’s deficits being smaller than Reagan’s, and he lied when he said that investors drove the high cost of health care.  He has offered not one single link to substantiate any of his claims and has changed the subject every time he got called out.  You can look at this thread and see ow he has moved from one talking point to he next.  He is even more feeble than you, Bob.

            If you want to consider posting facts as spin you are certainly entitled to think that.  It doesn’t make it true.

  • Anonymous

    The social contract must never be abridged. The Constitution.. Yes! Our way of life! Yes, by all means.. The only clause for pause in the socialist contract, is the little paragraph that states there really are 57 states and by George, he is gonna golf in all of them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Stan25 Stan Brewer

    Far from being wise managers of the nation’s wealth, government
    bureaucrats are easily duped by slick song-and-dance men who are long on
    politically correct ideology, short on sound financial planning, and
    masterfully deceptive about their own greed…

    Those same slick song and dance men are now running the government. A good share of them are in the Congress. That  is why we have out of control spending. Those dollars that are supposed to go to bridges, roads etc are going into the pockets of those people. That is why they want more. That is why they despise we the people, because we the people want to stop all of this waste and fraud.

    • jim_m

      It’s the relationship between the song-and-dance men and the government that is the problem.  Elected officials as well as bureaucrats plan on having high paying careers in the industries they regulate.  I agree with Glenn Reynolds who proposes putting a 50% tax on all post government earnings over what their government pay was.http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/120639/
      Not a bad idea. 

      • http://www.facebook.com/michael.laprarie Michael Laprarie

        Reynolds also recently quipped that the reason our roads and bridges are falling apart is because there isn’t enough graft built into infrastructure projects to make them worthwhile for politicians to support.  I imagine there is more than just a grain of truth there.

        • herddog505

          Ditto the defense budget: if you want things built, some member of Congress has to get something out of it.  Hence, we see members of Congress from California – normally not known for being defense hawks – fighting like mad to build more C-17 transports that the Air Force doesn’t want simply because the things are built in CA.

  • Anonymous

    I’ll bet he would be safe in his factory if you didn’t pay for the police force.  And by the way, who in the hell does “the rest of us” refer to?

  • herddog505

    Michael LaprarieThe “underlying social contract” for the United States of America is our Constitution.  It has a very clear purpose – to limit the power of government and to empower the individual.  It does this by establishing a well regulated government along with a well regulated military and judicial system.

    Exactly so.  What the Constitution is designed to do is to provide a level playing field.  I suggest that the Founding Fathers had fresh and unpleasant experience with what happens when government gets into the business of picking winners and losers (the British East India Company leaps to mind) and were desirous of avoiding such a system here.  The liberals have twisted this (as Commander_Chico writes) into a “dog eat dog system”.  Well, yes, it is: if Peter has a better idea and works harder than Paul, he will LIKELY do better than Paul.  Indeed, he may run Paul out of business.  This is regrettable from Paul’s perspective, but the solution is not to have a third party – Uncle Sugar – step in and fix things so that Paul gets some sort of advantage.  The obvious reason is that Peter may use this to HIS advantage to make things even rougher on Paul.  This is what libs fail to grasp: by giving the government the power to meddle in the alleged interest of countering the power of “the monied interests”, they give the government tremendous power to HELP the monied interests who have the cash to pay off the government officials who make and enforce the laws.

    I recall my high school American history class: we were taught to have a horror of 19th century laissez faire economics.  Monopolies!  Trusts!  Robber barons!  Yes, these things happened… but they happened to a large extend because the robber barons quickly learned that they could influence government policy (such as it was) to their advantage, including getting the use of police and government troops to put down strikes and break up unions.  I’d rather have a level playing field – dog eat dog – than have a 900 lbs gorilla in the room, available to help the highest bidder.

    • Anonymous

      Question:  what do you think the Founders meant by the term “Commonwealth?”  As in Commonwealths of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Massachusetts and Kentucky?

      It always sounds quite socialist to me – the state as a “Commonwealth.”

      • Anonymous

        It’s a term used for Republic, duh!

        A Republic that stands for the common good of its people.

        But of course the modern liberal mindset is tempted to twist that around a bit.

      • Anonymous

        Yeah, the whole preamble looks like it was written by some commie lib.  “We the people….form a union” and all that!  Who knew that Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and the rest were commie libs….

        • jim_m

          This is exactly what I mean.  You take things completely out of context in order to twist them to you own ends.  The founding fathers are better characterized as from the educated merchant class.  They believed that men were equal politically but not socially or economically.  They believed that a man owned the fruits of his labors and that excessive and confiscatory taxation by the government was illegal.  They believed that an individual had a responsibility to help those less fortunate not that it was the purpose of government to do so.  They believed that government should not stand in the way of people being able to help themselves.

          But you in your dishonesty turn it around to say that they were against wealth accumulation and hat they supported the redistribution of wealth and land.  You are deeply dishonest in your argumentation.

      • Anonymous

        Well, republic is a word from res publica, thing of the public. 

        Massachusetts Constitution preamble:

        The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.

      • herddog505

        Wiki’s definition works for me:

        Commonwealth is a traditional English term for a political community founded for the common good. Historically, it has sometimes been synonymous with “republic.” [emphasis orginal - hd505]

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth

        It’s in my “common good” to have the rule of law, to have responsible government, and to have personal liberty.  Having the government rob me to give to my neighbor (or vice versa), not so much.

        I note that the Founding Fathers wrote such things as “all men are created equal” and “Congress shall make no law”, not “the rich should pay their fair share”.

    • Anonymous

      So your solution to a corrupt police department is to get rid of the police, in the belief that the crooks will leave soon thereafter? 

      • herddog505

        Um, yeah: get rid of the CORRUPT members of the police.

        And let’s touch on what is meant by “corrupt” police: it means that they are not upholding the law in an impartial fashion, either because they are using their power to advance their personal interests or else they are being paid off to advance somebody else’s personal interests.

        As an aside, it strikes me that libs (rightfully, in this case) gripe about what might be considered a form of police corruption, i.e. what I think could be called “economic favoritism”, such as when the police spend a lot more time patrolling wealthy neighborhoods than poor ones, when the police show much more energy in prosecuting crimes committed against rich citizens than against poor ones, or when the police are less more likely to arrest a rich suspect than a poor one.

        • Anonymous

          What gets me about the American right wing is their willingness to hand over our collective freedom to corporations.  What is so appealing about being ruled by corporate masters?  maybe that’s why I cancelled my 25 year subscription to National Review and ended my membership in the Heritage Foundation a few years ago. The right, in America has lost its way and now worships at the alter of corporatism.  The right tells individuals that a government “of the people” is evil socialism and that we need stewardship of the fortunate “job creators”.    

          • Anonymous

            So you cancelled your subscriptions, just like you can send your business elsewhere. If you don’t like a corporation you can avoid their goods and services, if you don’t like your government… well that’s a different story isn’t it. Besides corporations only have power because of the corrupt politicians that feed off them. So it’s all still back to government.

          • herddog505

            Not that I agree with your belief that the right wing has a “willingness to hand over our collective freedom to corporations” (WTF?), but consider the extremes of the two competing societies, i.e. “corporationist” vs. “statist”.  Which of the two has the power to COMPEL people to do anything?  Which more quickly imperils its own existence by ruling with too heavy a hand?

            Given a choice between living in a country “ruled” by corporations that actually make something and rely on satisfied customers to stay in business and one ruled by a statist government that makes nothing and can kill unruly citizens at will, I’ll take the corporate government every time.

            But that’s not what we’re talking about.  Rather, the question under discussion is basically to what – if any – extent people have a right to their own money and property.  Warren pretty clearly believes that people do NOT have a right to these things as they – somehow – did not and CANNOT earn them by themselves.  Most of us here believe to the contrary*.  This does not mean that we are anarchists or want to live under corporations instead of a democratic form of government (where DO lefties get these ideas???), but rather that we understand that “the social compact” requires among other things that people contibute something toward maintaining a government – a union – that secures the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity by providing for the COMMON defense and also promotes the GENERAL welfare by establishing (equal) justice and ensuring domestic tranquility.  We object when the government goes beyond these things and starts DEMANDING “contributions” not for “the general welfare” but to explicitly favor one person or group of people over others.  It’s the difference between a colonial-era community taxing people to maintain a “commons” where all people could pasture and graze their flocks and that community taxing people to build a farm for one or two people in the name of “fairness”.

            —-

            (*) And that musty, obsolete, quaint, more-than-fifty-years old document called the Constitution – specifically, the Bill of Rights – offers explicit support to our position:

            [N]or [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [emphasis mine - dj505]

            George Mason, one of the Founding Fathers, also explicitly addressed this in his Virginia Declaration of Rights:

            That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

            The entire point of “life and liberty” is the ability to gain and possess property, i.e. the means of improving one’s material existence.  If a man has not got the right to property, he is not much more than a serf, who only enjoys the use of things (land, a plow, a house, etc.) on the sufference and for the real benefit of his master.

          • jim_m

            Best post of the thread.

          • herddog505

            Thank you very kindly.

          • Anonymous

            Given a choice between living in a country “ruled” by corporations that
            actually make something and rely on satisfied customers to stay in
            business and one ruled by a statist government that makes nothing and
            can kill unruly citizens at will, I’ll take the corporate government
            every time.

            Yeah, that’s a load of crap-o-la for sure…..

            You really believe that a corporation exists for the betterment of mankind?

            Wow….

          • Anonymous

            Why should corportations exist for betterment of man kind? Where did you get the idea that was what they do, That’s what chuches and charities and PEOPLE of good heart do. Corporations provide goods and services that others are willing to buy, and in the process provide employment for those willing to work for them. Which in turn gives the population expendable income they can then if the CHOOSE give to their favorite charity. Corporations are not the entities you think they are.

          • Anonymous

            Corporations are not kind, nor are they evil.  Corporations exist for their own benefit and only their own benefit.  They are not immoral or moral.  They are amoral.  And this is why they need to be strictly regulated and never treated as a person. 

          • herddog505

            Jwb10001 and, actually, you answered the question as I would have done: corporations do not exist for the benefit of mankind: they exist to make money for their shareholders.

            Now, I happen to believe that the corporation – the legal instrument that allows people to pool resources and share risk – have had a net positive effect for mankind simply because they allow more economic activity that raises the general standard of living.  For example, few people are wealthy enough by themselves to open a factory to make cars, a factory that will directly employ a thousand people and indirectly employ thousands more.  A GROUP of people, however, can pool their money and realize such a project.  Many people benefit from this.  Some people benefit more than others.  So long as this is the result of honest work and competition and not some sort of fraud, I don’t have a problem with that, any more than I have a problem with the fact that my boss makes more money than I do, her boss makes more money still, and so on up the chain.

          • Anonymous

            And I guess that you believe that the oak trees that grows in my yard,trees that provides me with shade in the summer, fuel for my wood stove in the winter, and material for my wood shop throughout the year truly care about me.  

            It’s the same thing with a corporation.  We kid ourselves that the corporation cares or that the corporation is evil.  Both are incorrect.

          • herddog505

            Who’s “we”?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5X44TAL7IZHIZCFFWCX47TJNIA BlueNight

    When the rich are the only ones paying any taxes, the liberals will no longer be able to say that the public infrastructure was paid for by “everyone” anymore.

    • jim_m

      That’s already the case.

    • Anonymous

      The rich pay very little in taxes. They pay less today than they did under Reagan, 

      • jim_m

        Which would you rather:  That the rich pay more in terms of a percentage of their income?  Or that the rich pay more as an absolute amount of money?

        Today the rich pay a larger absolute sum than ever before.  Receipts went up under Reagan because people could use their money to produce more wealth without being penalized for it. 

        I’m guessing that you would prefer lower government receipts in return for a higher percentage.  The unfortunate outcome of that is that it paralyzes upward mobility.  It becomes more difficult to accumulate wealth and those who have wealth (like Warren Buffett) are largely unaffected because they do not need o realize their profits like people of lower incomes do.

        • Anonymous

          This is not a math problem.  This is not solved by arithmetic.  I’m not even going to waste my time with the canard that Reagan created an atmosphere for wealth.  Reagan simply transferred wealth from labor to capital investors, via his help with the government. 

          If you are at all concerned with upward mobility, you would know that in the USA, upward mobility is not as easy is it is in many other nations.  While exceptions exist, in today’s America,  the economic status of ones parents is the best predictor of ones status as an adult. 

          So what is the answer?  Again, it’s not a math question.  The answer is to adjust taxes to a level at which we can return to an America that builds, maintains, and protects a vibrant and productive middle class. 

          • jim_m

            You won’t look at the math because it is all counter to your argument.  Federal receipts went up an average of 8.2% under Reagan.  Inflation dropped from over 12% to under 5%.  Average household income rose 15%, income for the bottom 5th rose 7.8%.

            Incomes went up, tax rates went down but receipts went up.  Everyone got a tax cut and the rich ended up paying more absolute money in taxes after Reagan than they did when he entered office. 

            So you see it is a math problem.  You can’t do math. 

            In the case of today’s America it isn’t a lack of taxation that is crippling the economy, it is the anti-capitalist belligerence of the current government that is preventing companies from moving forward.  Util we get a President who isn’t so anti-business we will continue in this economic decline.

          • Anonymous

            Okay, so let’s ignore the huge deficits that Reagan was responsible for?  It’s easy to make everyone look wealthy by simply deferring the costs to other generations.  Even Vice President Dick Cheney is quoted as saying, “Deficits don’t matter and Reagan proved it”.

            Sorry, I am not interested in your little game.

            You want a president who will bow to the self serving interests of wealthy corporatists . 

            Again, I am not interested. 

          • jim_m

            No I an not interested in a government that is the handmaiden of big business. I want a government that will secure an open marketplace where businesses big and small can succeed.

            A ifnd you thought that deficits were bad under Reagan, I suggest you take a look at what they are under Waren’s hero, obama. Blaming Reagan for his deficits while excusing obama is crassly hypocritical.

          • Anonymous

            Actually, Obama’s deficits are dwarfed by Reagan.  Fact is that the Republicans, historically, have been responsible for the lion’s share of our deficits with their propensity to spend money like a drunken sailor and cot taxes at the same time.  (and no, I am not saying that George W. Bush fell off the wagon).   If you want a government that will secure an open marketplace where businesses big and small can succeed, you will need a government that is bigger and more powerful than the multinationals and the people who own them.  Sadly, these are the same people whom our Republicans bow to as “our job creators”……..

          • jim_m

            That’s flat out bullshit. Obama has run up deficits that are absolutely higher as well as relatively higher. The government consumes a greater percent of gdp than anytime since wwii.

            If you are going to talk economics it would help to not be so incredibly ignorant.

          • Anonymous

            Sorry, but I do not limit my knowledge base to what Fox News shovels into the Feed Trough. 
            You may wish to educate yourself on a little recent history including but not limited to the liberal doctrine that has been called the Bush Doctrine.  You will see that our nation embarked on two unfunded wars.  It was the first time in our nation’s history that such a grand plan was hatched without any thought given to fund it.  There is more, much more, but I think I’ve got a better chance of educating you in small pieces…

          • jim_m

            Them get the budget info from the federal government imbecile. You erik find that we spend far more dollars than we did in 88 when he left office and that the percent of gdp taken by the government is higher.

            I’m not surprised to get some fox news tin foil hat paranoia from you. It still is not an excuse for ignorance

          • Anonymous

            Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill was told “deficits don’t matter” when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis.O’Neill,
            fired in a shakeup of Bush’s economic team in December 2002, raised
            objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president
            balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a
            string of accounting scandals because of opposition from “the corporate
            crowd,” a key constituency.
            O’Neill said he tried to warn Vice
            President Dick Cheney that growing budget
            deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a
            threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. “You know, Paul, Reagan
            proved deficits don’t matter,” he said, according to excerpts. Cheney
            continued: “We won the midterms (congressional
            elections). This is our due.”

          • jim_m

            So you’ve got nothing, don’t you.

            You spew a bunch of BS about how Reagan’s deficits were bigger than obama’s and rather than admit you are full of shit you first say that it is some Fox news propaganda and then you change the subject to say that the debt is Bush’s fault.

            You are absolutely pathetic.  You know nothing of what you are talking about.

          • Anonymous

            Prove to me that the two unfunded wars are Obama’s deficit.

          • Anonymous

            You made the claim ace you prove it!

      • Anonymous

        That is just plain Bull $hit no other way to put it.

        • Anonymous

          Ah, I see you honed your debate skills at the Rick Perry school of oration and logic….

          • Anonymous

            I don’t debate this is a discussion but frankly you’re spewing BS so why would I address it specifically. You claim Reagan had larger deficits than Obama which is provably false by every measure. You claim rich people pay hardly any taxes which is pure bull shit they pay the vast majority of taxes while 47% of working families pay none. You fall back on the Fox News tallking point when challenged I’d suggest that you have no debate skills because most of what you say isn’t true.

          • Anonymous

            Of course, you are assuming that Obama is the guy who started the two unfunded wars that are attributable for the lion’s share the deficit on his watch.  As for your propaganda that 47% of working families pay no taxes, well sir, you are a liar or fool. 

          • Anonymous

            Pay no income taxes ok?

          • Anonymous

            Ah, so you speak the truth after the lie is exposed.  Well, that’s a start. 

          • Anonymous

            You really are a small petty man aren’t you?

          • Anonymous

            If any one says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar;
            for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God
            whom he has not seen.
            1 John 4:20 (RSV)

          • jim_m

            Idiot.  We specified income taxes.  You are apparently challenged in your ability to read.

          • Anonymous

            Look at your third comment son.  You did not specify.  Sorry, but you are a liar, a fraud, and a coward. 

          • jim_m

            I scanned the whole of the thread and cannot find what you are referring to. I have posted the 47% on here and specified income taxes.  I have posted the same data before.  Perhaps you meant someone else? If so you owe me an apology.  One I do not expect from someone as dishonest a debater as yourself.

            You started with intellectually dishonest quotes taken out of context and have followed with bullshit about Reagan’s deificts being greater than obama’s, etc,etc.

            You have demonstrated your ignorance of history, economics and world affiars.  Your talking points are amazingly feeble and you have a sngular inability to back your assertions with demonstrable facts.

          • Anonymous

            Posted by you three hours ago:

            I don’t debate this is a discussion but frankly you’re spewing BS so why
            would I address it specifically. You claim Reagan had larger deficits
            than Obama which is provably false by every measure. You claim rich
            people pay hardly any taxes which is pure bull shit they pay the vast
            majority of taxes while 47% of working families pay none. You fall back
            on the Fox News tallking point when challenged I’d suggest that you have
            no debate skills because most of what you say isn’t true.

          • jim_m

            That was JWB10001 dumbass, not me.

            Jeez you’re dumb!

          • Anonymous

            So you are now saying that most Americans do indeed pay taxes and have “skin in the game”?

            Great.

            That’s a start.

            Now if we can only get you to stay on topis and avoid the personal attacks….

          • jim_m

            Most Americans do pay income taxes.  53% as a matter of fact.

            I’m glad you have come to a right understanding of the situation.

          • Anonymous

            Most Americans Pay Taxes.

          • jim_m

            Dude, the wars are only a small fraction of the spending that obama is doing.  When Bush left in 2008 the deficit was $400B per year.  obama has averaged over $1.2T per year. All of obama’s increases have been for domestic spending and not on defense.

            47% of households in the US do not pay taxes that is a well known fact.  You are the liar and fool.  47% of US households pay no Federal Income tax.  Yes you still pay the payroll tax withholding for FICA and Medicare, but everyone who works does.  47% pay no income tax and that is decidedly not fair for those who are above the poverty line.  Since 15% of americans are deemed to be under the poverty line that makes it 32% of Americans who are getting a free ride because they are not poor and they still contribute nothing in terms of income tax.

            You are completely ignorant and are only doing a very good job of demnstrating how little you know.

          • Anonymous

            47% of households in the US do not pay taxes that is a well known fact.

            Dude, you are a liar, or an fool.

            Your statement is flat out propaganda.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

            For the 2010 tax season, it was 45% paying no federal income tax.  

            http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm

            Of course, there’s sales and local taxes – but by the time you add in various aid and credits they’re pretty much revenue-negative.  

            Try Google.  It works very well.

          • Anonymous

            That’s always the fall back position of the losing liberal what about the unfunded wars Dude!? Never mind all their liberal heros voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq because it was politically expedient at the time.

          • Anonymous

            The invasion was based on a lie, propaganda, a government of the elite. 

          • jim_m

            Yep.  All that intel was just a bunch of lies.  Intel developed by the Clinton Admin.  Own it!  The dems voted under Clinton for military action against Iraq and they used the very same intel to get them to vote for it again with Bush.

            You know little about economics and just as much about recent world history.

          • Anonymous

            There was “intel” on both side, son.  It was the Bush team that filtered it down to make it look like there were WMDs in Iraq.

          • jim_m

            And that was only one of the reasons for going in.  Again you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge of reacent history.

          • Anonymous

            And besides that it’s a Democrat talking point or should I say LIE that Bush filtered intel, so our buddy here that hates talking points has just spewed another one.

          • Anonymous

            It was one of a few lies, yes. Fact is and fact remains that Iraq posed no significant threat to our safety.

          • Anonymous

            that’s a democrat talking point!

          • Anonymous

            Democrat talking point based on nothing!

          • Anonymous

            Democrat talking point!

  • Anonymous

    From Yahoo finance:

    About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization

    So who’s the liar again?

    • Anonymous

      Oh, so now you are moving the goal posts once your lie is discovered…..Paid no “federal income” taxes…….Of course,we all know that federal income tax accounts for less than 20% of our nation’s revenue….

      • Anonymous

        Really, that’s how you see it? Fine, I’m a big lair and you really caught me man!

        • Anonymous

          It’s the same old propaganda from the same old sources.  The canard that 47% pay no taxes is employed to present the image that 47% of Americans are getting a free ride.  Why do you guys do this?  Is the “whole truth” not good enough for you? 

          • Anonymous

            You mean like that truth you spew, Reagan’s deficits dwarf Obama’s, Obama’s deficit is primarily the result of Bush’s unfunded wars. you mean those truths? Or that it’s corporation’s responsibilty to look out of the betterment of man?
            You played a petty little game with me and others here, when the truth is you’ve spewed more intentional bull shit here than anyone. You’ve got your opinion and it seems you own set of facts keep them, enjoy them.

          • Anonymous

            You are labeling Bush policy as Obama’s deficit, 

            game over.

          • Anonymous

            Game what game Ace? Read much? What on earth are you now talking about? You know what nevermind….

          • Anonymous

            It’s called looking for the cause of the deficit, bunky.  If your wife buys a car on payments, divorces you, takes the car but leaves you with the payment book…..was that your doing? 

          • Anonymous

            Really? wow so you won the game I’ll go check my 401K it must be doing great then.

          • Anonymous

            The 401 K was never intended as an instrument for safe and secure retirement for a majority of Americans.  It it simply a way for employers to screw their employees out of a secure pension and it is a way for the wealthy insiders on Wall Street to take more cash from the middle class.  Just another prime example of the right wing using government to transfer wealth from the middle class to the wealthy. 

          • jim_m

            I have used the 47% of people not paying income taxes on these boards for quite some time.  There is no lie about that.  You are demanding that we include all taxes and we are simply saying that it is irrelevant. 

            So you are going to defend that 47% of americans should have no skin in the game?  You are going to say that 47% of Americans, even though a significant portion of them are not considered poor, should have to make ZERO contribution to supoprting this governmetn?

            You’re an ass.

            BTW: I specified INCOME TAX in my first post citing the 47%. You are the one changing the story and moving the goal posts.

          • Anonymous

            Ah,. “no skin in the game” ….Republican talking points…

            Most all Americans pay taxes son.  Please.  If all you can do is repeat misleading and half true statistics and echo Republican talking points…I’m not interested. 

          • jim_m

            The data is true.  The skin in the game comment is from Joe Biden( or are you that ignorant of recent history?).

            Yes everyone pays taxes, but the one that we are wanting to raise is the income tax and we are saying that everyone should contribute their fair share.  But assholes like you are unwiling to face the fact that 47% of Americans pay nothing.  That is not fair at all.  It is a question of euity that if we are going to ask some to pay more that we should be asking all that can pay, to pay something.
            Otherwise this is just class warfare and has nothing to do with real equity and fairness.

          • Anonymous

            Don’t you love it when the guy that spewed Reagan deficits dwarf Obama’s accuses you of repeating misleading and half true statics? He’d rather you do like he does and repeat complete untruths I guess.

          • Anonymous

            Read about your hero here:  http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa013.html

          • Anonymous

            Who said Reagan was my hero? And in case you missed it not only is he not president during this completely crappy period of US history he’s not even still alive, What about the current CIC his deficits are OK? It’s a stupid game to shift the topic off you hero to a dead guy that hasn’t been president for over 20 years. What’s the point of that argument, did you mother ever tell you that 2 wrongs don’t make a right, Besides the fact that Reagan’s deficits do not drawf Obama’s even if they did it’s stupid to accept the situation we currently have.

          • Anonymous

            If you continue to ignore the fact that the majority of the mess we are in was the result of the eight mismanaged Bush years, we’ve got little to talk about. 

            My mother died a year ago, thanks.  She was well taken care of by Medicaid after her private “for profit” insurer screwed her with a misleading policy.  But the government health care came to her aid and did the right thing. 

            I can’t figure out Republicans on their outrage of the current deficits while they were silent during the years that Bush inherited a surplus and in eight years, turned it into a deficit.  Maybe Dick Cheney was right when he said that (in the world of the Republicans), deficits don’t matter and Reagan proved that. 

            Seems that the only time deficits matter is when a Democrat is in the White House? 

            Please explain that dichotomy to me.

          • Anonymous

            The majority of the mess we’re in now is due to 2 things.
            1) The govt, primarily the dems, screwing up the housing mortgage market
            2) Out of control spending under Obama.

            Repubs were quite pissed off with the deficits under Bush. (see porkbusters for example).

            By the same token, I recall a number of dems correctly complaining about the Bush deficits who seem to have no problem with Obama’s out of control deficits.

            Let’s let Obama himself explain the problem.

            “The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is
            to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children,
            driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43
            added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt
            that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child.
            That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.” (July 3, 2008)

          • Anonymous

            That’s plain not true did you ever hear of pork busters? Conservatives have been on this forever Bush, Obama whoever. Stop just spewing crap ACE!

          • Anonymous

            Both parties increase spending.  The only difference is that Republicans increase spending than then reduce revenue at the same time….

          • Anonymous

            Jim he was nit picking me not you, I’m the big liar here. I had to go back and CLARIFY my statement, I mean I got busted by Book ‘Em DanO  here and had to recant on my outlandish lie.

          • jim_m

            The moron adds it as a response to one of my comments.  He is so stupid he cannot even read who he is responding to.

  • Anonymous

    In other news that continues to undercut this particular argument:

    “49% of Americans believe the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. In 2003, less than a third (30%)believed this.”  Only 17% believe that the government has the consent of the governed.

    • Anonymous

      Source please.

      • Anonymous

        Gallup

        • Anonymous

          Yeah, it speaks rather poorly about the Tea Party controlled congress….I’ll give you that.  Those wingnuts would rather take down the entire nation rather than support our president. 

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Beagle,

    I’ve been following this “Social Contract” thread back and fourth… and I don’t think your getting the better of the argument.  In fact, your loosing badly.  Here’s why…  

    At age 15, I went to work and started paying taxes, including income taxes.  Every year since, I’ve supported my government in all its manifestations with a slice of my income derived by my labor –  even when I held multiple simultaneous minimum-wage entry-level jobs, I was tapped to pay what the powers that be considered to be my “fare share.” 

    The class warfare rhetoric of the 1970′s hasn’t changed one whit from those days.  I was considered “rich” then, and a prime revenue source as far as my government was concerned.  Over the decades, as my income rose, so too did the amount of income tax I paid.  The comparisons between my gross taxable income of the 1970s compared to the 2010s in nominal value is ridiculous, but in real terms – guess what?  Nothings really changed.  I’m still considered “rich,” just like I was as a teenager,  and must pay (whether its by AGI or percentage) an ever increasing amount of my “fare share,” year after year after year.  I know now that there will never be an end to it – till the day that I die… but even in death – the government will take one last shot at what I managed to save from my estate.

    So given my own personal lifetime experience with this issue  - I have to agree with your opponents like Jbw and Jim_m that your tired old socialistic “class warfare” rhetoric is bankrupt.

    Semper Fidelis-

    • Anonymous

      Nice little story, however, your personal experience is no proof that I am wrong.

      The class warfare in the USA is very real, and it’s being waged against the middle class.  It is a war financed by the wealthy elite who have hoodwinked so many people into the canard that they, not we, are the wealth creators of this once great nation.

      • Anonymous

        Mr. Beagle,

        If what I know from personal experience over my working lifetime is radically different from your talking points… well duh, I sure can say you are wrong.  

        Its the same with health care BTW.  My father was in the Army Air Corps and so growing up I had government run health care.  At age 20 I joined the Corps – retired in 2007.  Same thing.  Now I’m disabled and have Tricare/VA. So government run health care is what I’m qualified for.  Essentially then, all my life I’ve been under a government run health care program.

        Not long ago, I saw a young woman (20 something) activist on TV lambasting the quality of care veterans were receiving for their wounds in Afghanistan.  Without taking a breath or skipping a beat, she then went on to advocate strongly for AHCA… I remember thinking out loud to my self, “Young lady, you should be careful what you wish for.”

        So here we go again Mr. Beagle; government run health care is something I am very familiar with… and I wouldn’t wish it on anybody.  My opinion? Sure enough.  But truth be told, its all the “proof” I need to make my mind up about socialized medicine.

        Semper Fidelis-

        • Anonymous

          I am sure you have lived an interesting life.  How grand it must be. 

          For the record, our government health care is highly rated by veterans.

          http://www1.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=893

          Looks like you are out of the loop.

          My father in law is a WWII Navy Veteran.  He’s 90 years old and has received nothing but the best health care from his government. 

          And me?  I spend $15K a year for a family policy and my insurance does not cover the first $2,000 in ER visits, had $20 office and Drug co-pays, and will not cover half the tests that my doctors recommend. 

          Yeah….swelll..

          • Anonymous

            Mr. Beagle,

            Grand and interesting?  I don’t think I have ever used such words… but, I am glad to be alive.

            The VA does have some good Docs; I’ve seen some of them personally.  But there is more to  government run health care than you realize.  

            For instance, take a look at the VA’s disability rating tables.  Loss of one hand, or one foot; or loss, or loss of use of a creative organ… qualifies one for a disability compensation of 10%.  In dollar terms, 10% equates to about $117.00 per month (last time I looked). Which is the best that our government can do.  And just so you know… my VA rating of 90% also qualifies me to see the VA Docs for my service related conditions (but no others).

            Now I’m hearing your complaint about $15K in annual medical expenditures, and frankly, I find it hard to be sympathetic with your “swell” plight.

            Semper Fidelis-

          • Anonymous

            Mr. Beagle,

            Lest you think those that receive VA disability compensation are “special,”  I can honestly say that I know of no veteran alive who wouldn’t rather have their balls back, in lieu of $117.00 per month.  

            But where does that money come from?… well, in many cases, it comes from the Veteran himself, cause as our Government gives with one hand, it takes away with the other. 

            In order to accept VA disability compensation, I had to waive, dollar for dollar, an equal portion of my military retirement pay… the net effect, compensation wise – is a wash.  I don’t know of anyone who has refused such a deal, as retired pay is taxable  - while disability is not.

            No other employees in our Federal government, besides the military, has such a retirement vs disability choice burden placed upon them… but at least change is coming (albeit slowly).  By the year 2015, I will be able to draw both disability and 30 year retirement pay, as the incrementally changing offset will be completely gone  (it started in 2006).  

            I understand your Father in Law is a 90 year old veteran.  Good for him, I hope he lives to be more than a 100.

            Semper Fidelis-

  • jim_m

    I’ll post this down here so it can be read:

    Beagle boy,

    The US has the best health care system and here’s why:  You claim that we lag in infant mortality.  JLawson has already disposed of that canard quite well so I won’t repeat what he said.  The next line that someone like you takes is that other nations do better than the US in longevity.  Unfortunately for you longevity has much more to do with lifestyle and genetics than it does healthcare.  You can have great healthcare but if your genes suck or if you live a life of dissipation you just aren’t going to live that long.  Ask Jimmy Hendricks.

    The last resort of bashers of the US healthcare system is usually the last WHO report on healthcare systems.  The WHO ranked the US 37th world wide in that report.  However, of the 5 criteria used only one was healthcare outcomes.  The others were social measures of access and how much was subsidized by the government. The US where more money means you can buy more healthcare did very poorly on those measures.

    But the one measure that counts is when you have an illness do you live?  Can your healthcare system cure you? On this measure the US is head and shoulders above the world.  I’ve already linked one article showing data comparing the US and Europe.  The same goes for the US vs Canada or anywhere else. Canada is better than some but it is still horrible.  Two years ago a study was released by the Canadian government showing that 80% of Canadians diagnosed with colon cancer were deemed treatable at the time of diagnosis.  But there was a 6 month waiting period before they could start therapy for their disease.  At the time of commencement of therapy only 40% were deemed to be treatable.  In other words half of the people who could have survived their disease if treated promptly were essentially killed by the system because they had to wait for treatment.  This is not an isolated case.  In the Canadian constitution is a clause that grants everyone access to healthcare.  In Quebec a man sued the government for violating his constitutional rights to healthcare.  The Quebec Supreme Court ruled in his favor.  The judge writing for the majority said famously, “Access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare.”

    Is our system perfect?  Of course not.  Is it better than anything else out there?  Absolutely, if you measure it by whether or not it makes people well again.  Will making our system more like the systems that do a worse job of making people well again make our system better?  Only the clinically insane believe that to be true.

    • Anonymous

      If the US has “the best system in the world” then why is nobody in the world emulating it? Where are the teams of researchers & consultants studying this awesome system so they can export it back to their own countries? Where is the massive wave of protests angrily demanding the overthrow of (supposedly inferior) public healthcare systems?

      In Canada (where wait-times are going down, even as the population both grows & ages) even the right-wing Tories know better than to even hint at replacing Medicare with a US-style system as it would be political suicide. The same is true everywhere public systems operate – adopting American-style private care as an idea will inspire mocking laughter at best. Most of those systems also focus much more of their energy & resources on prevention, while a for-profit system has a direct economic interest in NOT preventing the conditions that are literally their bread & butter, so in the US preventative medicine is largely ignored.

      Forget tinkering with tort reform – perhaps first you should try taking away the industry’s  exemption from anti-trust laws.

  • Anonymous

    Our Friend Johnny has a nasty habit of complaining about talking points while displaying one after another, he complains about name calling while calling people lairs. He makes claims that he can not back up, he nit picks statements then claims that goal posts are being moved when CLARIFICATION is offered. He declares himself a winner while losing arguments. He is not to be taken too seriously.

  • Anonymous

    Gotta give Jim m and Jwb10001 a lot of credit trying to reason  with JBeagle.
    What Beagle gave us was a lesson on all the liberal talking points, logic and facts be damned.
    No wonder he’s so fond of E. Warren.+

    • jim_m

      Thanks Hank

  • Anonymous

    Posting here for readability. Warning, long post.

    JBeagle wrote:

    There was “intel” on both side, son.  It was the Bush team that filtered it down to make it look like there were WMDs in Iraq.

    ______________________________________________________________

    Really? Then what to make of what these folks said?

    “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
    destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has
    made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
    -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D,
    CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    “Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building
    weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
    – Madeline
    Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    “There is no doubt
    that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate
    that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to
    pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems
    and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
    longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
    allies.”
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
    – Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL),
    and others, Dec 5, 2001

    “We begin with the common belief that Saddam
    Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He
    has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
    destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
    – Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI),
    Sept. 19, 2002

    “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological
    and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
    – Al Gore, Sept. 23,
    2002

    “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
    to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
    power.”
    – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    “We have known for many years that
    Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    “The last UN weapons inspectors
    left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some
    stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on
    a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
    Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
    – Sen.
    Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

    “I will be voting to give the President
    of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm
    Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
    destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
    – Sen.
    John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    “There is unmistakable evidence that
    Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will
    likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should
    remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
    development of weapons of mass destruction.”
    – Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV),
    Oct 10, 2002

    “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past
    11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
    destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he
    has refused to do”
    – Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

    “In the
    four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam
    Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his
    missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid,
    comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is
    clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase
    his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to
    develop nuclear weapons.”
    – Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10,
    2002

    “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
    Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
    the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
    – Sen. Bob
    Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

    “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam
    Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He
    presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
    miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his
    continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So
    the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”

    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

    • Anonymous

      To end the first Gulf War and stave off total defeat in the debacle, Saddam agreed in an armistice to the Allied “No Fly Zones” in Iraq.  

      But afterwards, Saddam changed his mind, and decided to try and shoot down on our patrolling pilots on a regular basis.  For those safe at home armchair types, far away from the threat and imminent danger of death – that meant he tried to “kill” our service men and women in the performance of their duties.

      More than enough in my book to justify the continuation of hostilities and finish the war (which is ultimately what transpired).

      I find it telling however, when in conversations with those of the progressive persuasion, how one never receives an acknowledgement from them about these attacks on our airmen.  It just doesn’t fit their narrative – and thus its easier for them to dawn their particular cerebral blinders, and continue to act like it never happened, than to be honest and admit to themselves that it did.

      Semper Fidelis-

    • http://welcomebacktopottersville.blogspot.com jurassicpork

      “Smoking guns, mushroom clouds, blather blather blather.” – George W. Bush (R-Arbusto)

  • http://welcomebacktopottersville.blogspot.com jurassicpork

    Whenever I read shit like this in right wing sewers like Whizbang, I reach for my revolver laugh my ass off at the blatant hypocrisy. Listen, fool, do you actually think Scott “I Love Koch” Brown or his minions actually embrace the shit you write here? Do you think the corporations and special interests that Warren scares even know you exist much less take note of, much less approve your unveiled threats? I mean, only a right wing, Teabagger moron like you would still continually take the side of the same corporations that have been bending us over a barrel and making us bite a stick for decades.

    I will bring any right wing howler monkey that ever again accuses me of liberal hatred to this very screed and say, “Fuck you.” Now go jerk off to your Pam Geller poster in Mommy’s basement, you right wing loser.

    • Anonymous

      Nice man thanks for dropping in and sharing some of that well know liberal tolerance we all hear so much about.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2PYAIGCXBDDGV5MGWZBQ5KOECY ZeD

        I’m no Liberal, and I’m not tolerant of your SHIT. Never have been. I hate your fucking guts by default, Conservatard.

        • Anonymous

          ooh you hate me great, have a nice day thanks for the stimuation conversation.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2PYAIGCXBDDGV5MGWZBQ5KOECY ZeD

            I can find you…remember that…

      • http://welcomebacktopottersville.blogspot.com jurassicpork

        Like reaching for one’s revolver because someone in another state wants to hold corporations accountable passes for conservative tolerance? Do you “people” ever think and consider rather than react? I guess not, otherwise they wouldn’t call you people “reactionaries.”

        You treat liberals like Elizabeth Warren with blatant disrespect and threaten “2nd amendment remedies”, don’t expect not to get bitchslapped like the snotty little cunts that you are.

  • Anonymous

    You scored a direct hit with this post because I just got an hysterical email about it from Daily Kos.  Yes, I subscribe.  ‘Monitor’ is a better word.

    • Anonymous

      Henry -

      Yup, your spot on about that.  Them other fellers are not as articulate as Mr. Beagle though.  At least I could engage Johnny, and he might of even learnt somethin from Jwb, Jim M, Hank M, and all the rest.  Gotta say he was persistent though – even though he consistently fouled out to left field. 

      Now it looks like he’s gone and fled the battlefield and went a lookin fer some sympathy and volunteer reinforcements over at KOS.  My, my, Saddleburr, look at what a buncha feisty varmints the dawg dragged home.   He-yawl!

      SF-

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2PYAIGCXBDDGV5MGWZBQ5KOECY ZeD

    You pieces of Conservative GARBAGE don’t even deserve the right to comment about a true American like Liz Warren. You seditious TRASH scum of the earth cretinous troglodytes!

    • Anonymous

      Thanks for joining the conversation, the name calling is especially nice. Got anything constructive to add or are you just here to do a drive by shooting?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2PYAIGCXBDDGV5MGWZBQ5KOECY ZeD

        Conversation?!? Your FILTH doesn’t converse! You are barely human beings! I am DONE trying to discuss anything with the goddamn Right! I used to, oh yeah, wasted a LOT of time doing it. You and I aren’t going to change each other’s minds (or whatever you have between your ears that passes for gray matter…). Eat shit!

        • Anonymous

          if you’re done then stop posting cause all your doing is showing how stupidly immature you are.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2PYAIGCXBDDGV5MGWZBQ5KOECY ZeD

            Oh, I’m far from done, Rimlapper!

  • Pingback: Levees Not War » Blog Archive » Social Contract Shouldn’t Make Rightists Reach for Their Guns

  • Pingback: Right-wing blog on Elizabeth Warren’s viral video: ‘I reach for my revolver’ | Hotspyer – Breaking News from around the web

  • http://twitter.com/cocktail_shaker The Mixologist

    One of these days some conservative piece of shit is going to be stupid enough to say something like “Reach for my revolver…” in my presence, and he will shortly be picking his teeth up from the floor.  You folks think it makes you sound all tough and manly, but it doesn’t.  You conservatives have convinced me that you are not the loyal opposition, but a bunch of dangerous psychotics, and that you need therapy and heavy sedation to stop your sedition.

    • Anonymous

      Oh goodie now we have a tolerant liberal that wants to shoot his fellow citizens because they disagree with him. Thanks for jumping in and showing the true liberal colors.

  • http://twitter.com/cocktail_shaker The Mixologist

    One of these days some conservative piece of shit is going to be stupid enough to say something like “Reach for my revolver…” in my presence, and he will shortly be picking his teeth up from the floor.  You folks think it makes you sound all tough and manly, but it doesn’t.  You conservatives have convinced me that you are not the loyal opposition, but a bunch of dangerous psychotics, and that you need therapy and heavy sedation to stop your sedition.

  • http://twitter.com/moediggity30 moe diggity

    its a good thing that the right wing scum in this country don’t have the balls to actually “reach for their revolver”.
    if you actually put your actions into words, I’d actually respect you.
    But alas, you are cowards and also pansies of the highest degree. There is nothing to fear from the right wing in this country. All talk, no action. Hell, im inclined to say BRING IT ON!
    But you won’t. Now go boo our military and advocate murdering people without insurance or just those who aren’t like you.

    • Anonymous

      Wow another tough guy that gets on his computer and talks tough to people he doesn’t know. Yes that’s the liberal way threaten name call act in general like a high school ass hole.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2PYAIGCXBDDGV5MGWZBQ5KOECY ZeD

        I see this is the only site you comment on. I guess you just don’t have the intellectual capacity to try to hold your own on a REAL comment thread. Dumbass Conservatard.

        • Anonymous

          you mean like you do with your very intelligent and well thought commentary? And how do you know where I comment?

          • jim_m

            Genius boy makes the assumption that since this is the only site where you use your Discus profile that it must be the only one that you comment on.  Apparently, he’s never been to a site that doesn’t require it. 

            Like most lefties he has shown himself to be incapable of understanding the world that another person might live in and therefore responds with fear and hate.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2PYAIGCXBDDGV5MGWZBQ5KOECY ZeD

            Actually, no, Jim_m, you are incorrect. I’m watching you, and various other seditious little shits on this and other boards. tsk tsk tsk! You might want to tone down you rehetoric juat a scosh

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2PYAIGCXBDDGV5MGWZBQ5KOECY ZeD

            Tracing a profile is easy if you know how. I’m watching you, Fucktard…

  • herddog505

    Wow, did this thread degenerate!  Jebus…

    • Anonymous

      Its just a hit-n-run herddog, them fellers have no intenshun of stickin around and contributing anything, sides fleas… if ya know what i mean.

      SF-

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2PYAIGCXBDDGV5MGWZBQ5KOECY ZeD

      You mean Jesus, don’t you shit-for-brains? Would’nt HE be offended? You went and hurt his Jesus feelings, ya big meanie! Big meanie mother humping fuck!

  • Pingback: Right-wing blog on Elizabeth Warren’s viral video: ‘I reach for my revolver’ - Online Political Blog

  • Anonymous

    Wow.

    Yeah … I guess once you’ve already been a cheerleader for torture, Orwellian gibberish like “if you’re innocent you have nothing to fear,” or even over-ruling the Magna Carta, it’s small potatoes to retcon the social contract so it conforms with Buckley, Rand & Reagan.

    Chutzpah Award = Sure takes mighty big stones to bring up Executive Orders as a slam on Obama, after the way the previous POTUS abused them for his own agenda.

    Also, the “Tea Party” is a fairytale – they’re the exact same Republican voters who are so politically clueless that they put Bush (the man who lost money running an oil company) in power twice, but now they know that their party is as popular as pernicious anemia, so it’s time for some Astroturf-enriched Colonialist Cosplay! Once you put on the costume, it seems the make-believe just comes naturally. Lowest taxes in 30 years or more? TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!111111!!!!1! Obama cuts taxes again & again? HE’S TAXING US TO DEATH!!!11!! He makes some noises about the perennially-coddled elite maybe being made to pay their fair share back into a country that made them filthy rich? SOCIALISM!!!1!!!!

    Where’s the outrage at the GOP egregiously abusing the fillibuster to institute a de facto minority rule, utterly subverting the very predicate of democracy? Or at their voting against their own policies time after time, simply because Obama was the one proposing them?

    The flamers calling Warren a communist are PURE COMEDY GOLD … yep, those Commies are all about making businesses less able to rip off consumers, alright. What good Commie could ever resist a chance to improve credit-card regulations or make mortgage agreements clearer? I’m sure there’s something in Das Kapital about making private companies act more decently toward their customers being the true struggle of the worker’s vanguard.

  • Anonymous

    Wow.
    Threats, insults, foaming at the mouth incoherence.
    Good to see our liberal friends stopping by.

    But just so you folks know, we do understand. Seeing the liberal agenda crash and burn has got to be
    frustrating. Defending Obama and the likes of Warren would make anyone apoplectic.

    You all take care of yourselves. And try not to get hurt on the playground.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

      “Threats”

      Like “I reach for my revolver”?  I have never encountered a right winger who was not a transparently intellectually dishonest hypocrite; you’re certainly no exception.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2PYAIGCXBDDGV5MGWZBQ5KOECY ZeD

      Yeay, fuck you too, Hank. Watch yer Wives, daughters, and livestock now, ya heah!

      • Bob Armstrong

        Can the moderators just ban this asshole. He’s riling up the rubes… that’s my job.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2PYAIGCXBDDGV5MGWZBQ5KOECY ZeD

          Fuck you too, Bob. Sideways. With a broken stick…mmmmm!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    ‘When I hear the word “contract” I reach for my revolver think of two unique definitions’

    Then you’re an ignoramus who knows nothing about and does not accept the Enlightenment values upon which our society was founded, since “the social contract” is a key element of that and does not conform to either of your “unique” (an idiotic word to use in this context) definitions.

  • Anonymous

    Just clarify for me how much our “Government Grew” under George W. Now to be clear I’m not fond of what President Obama has done either. But George sent us down this road with a lot of help from Congress, both sides of the aisle and we need to make huge changes to get back on track and we need to become very fiscally conservative, since I’m not an Economist, and from what I’ve read none of them can agree anyway with what should happen–that’s an absolute ‘bollix’. But I see this article as pure rhetoric, and one side at that, which is sad because we really need people discussing these issues in a civilized manner: ie not stating (” …I reach for my revolver….”.)
    You dishonor President Reagan and all who have fallen under the gun because they do not agree with someone else’s thinking. Shame on you. This is very ‘borderline’, asocial and criminal thinking/behavior.
    PS when I reach for my revolver it is either is to hunt, self defense or target/silhouette shooting but never in haste or pointed at a person metaphorically/figuratively in jest or other wise, to imply I’d want them dead. See how Gabby Giffords family feels as well as Brady’s family, or George Tillers family to name a few on both sides of the aisle.

  • http://wizbangblog.com Kevin

    Goodbye Zed

  • Anonymous

    The Constitution and The Social Contract are two very different things. The possibility of the existence of the former depends entirely upon our mutual allegiance to the latter.

  • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

    The next time that you people decide to have a verbal boxing match, let me know in advance. That way I can set up a concession stand before the event begins.

  • Anonymous

    Reading this is funny, not. All of this banter of conservative vs liberal ideologies is distracting from the real issue of the outright fraud committed under the Republican/Democrats watch, the entire world economy was given a serious thrashing because of the simple matter of the too big to fail banks sold subprime investments as triple A investments, when people in the government raised issue with it they were fired, the rating agencies colluded with the bank/mortgage industry to foster upon everyone, the biggest theft in history. All of this was given the green light by the Republican/Democrat managed government. The bickering going on between the political groups has done nothing to shed the light of reason upon the matter. This has played out very well for the guilty parties. Until we can come together as citizens and demand the rule of law be upheld, the economy will not recover. Name calling is counterproductive. We are citizens of a Great Society and on 80% of the issues we all agree. We need to come together and demand action be taken to restore confidence in the markets and our Nation. 

  • Pingback: Insurrectionism Timeline | Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE