Ten Questions Right Wingers Cannot Answer

[Guest Truth Teller]

The United States has incurred a massive national debt of more than $13 trillion. If current projections hold, that will rise to more than $19 trillion by 2015.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN088462520100608

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

There is only one way for this debt to be reduced, or even serviced (pay the interest on it): someone will have to pay taxes.

Who should pay them? Should tax rates be raised on the poor? Forget it, they don’t pay enough in taxes to make a difference.

Should tax rates be raised on the working class and the middle class? We are the backbone of this and every developed country and we are already struggling. We used to support a family, send our kids to college, pay off our mortgages and put away enough for retirement on one income. Now we have two incomes, those of us who have two adults capable of working who can find a job, and we’re struggling. Our real wages have declined because the rich have leveraged the economy so that they win and everyone else loses. If we point this out, we are accused of inciting class warfare.

The wealthy have gained more from the system than everyone else. It’s not because they have contributed more. A few of them have but most of them have just pushed paper from one side of a desk to the other; they have transferred wealth but they have not created it. In fact the bloodsuckers like the hedge fund managers have become filthy rich by betting against prosperity in many cases. They've done more to undermine the economy and our national welfare than to build them.

Whenever a liberal tries to level the playing field, he is accused of redistributing wealth. Yet people accept the accumulation of vast fortunes for doing nothing except redistributing wealth!

This isn’t funny anymore. Our future depends on restoring balance to our economy and in particular restoring a strong middle class. No economy can survive without it.

The wealthy have gained more from the system than anyone else. They relied on the labor of the working class and the middle class to make their wealth. They rely on the government to make the rules by which they make their money. They are the only ones who can afford to pay more taxes, so that the country can prosper again. Why shouldn’t they be required to do it?

[Guest 2smart4u]

The United States has incurred a massive national debt of more than $13 trillion. If current projections hold, that will rise to more than $19 trillion by 2015.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN088462520100608

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

There is only one way for this debt to be reduced, or even serviced (pay the interest on it): someone will have to pay taxes.

Who should pay them? Should tax rates be raised on the poor? Forget it, they don’t pay enough in taxes to make a difference.

Should tax rates be raised on the working class and the middle class? We are the backbone of this and every developed country and we are already struggling. We used to support a family, send our kids to college, pay off our mortgages and put away enough for retirement on one income. Now we have two incomes, those of us who have two adults capable of working who can find a job, and we’re struggling. Our real wages have declined because the rich have leveraged the economy so that they win and everyone else loses. If we point this out, we are accused of inciting class warfare.

The wealthy have gained more from the system than everyone else. It’s not because they have contributed more. A few of them have but most of them have just pushed paper from one side of a desk to the other; they have transferred wealth but they have not created it. In fact the bloodsuckers like the hedge fund managers have become filthy rich by betting against prosperity in many cases. They've done more to undermine the economy and our national welfare than to build them.

Whenever a liberal tries to level the playing field, he is accused of redistributing wealth. Yet people accept the accumulation of vast fortunes for doing nothing except redistributing wealth!

This isn’t funny anymore. Our future depends on restoring balance to our economy and in particular restoring a strong middle class. No economy can survive without it.

The wealthy have gained more from the system than anyone else. They relied on the labor of the working class and the middle class to make their wealth. They rely on the government to make the rules by which they make their money. They are the only ones who can afford to pay more taxes, so that the country can prosper again. Why shouldn’t they be required to do it?

There's another way to reduce the debt that the Loony Left has never considered, cut spending !! Eliminate the socialist giveaway programs such as zerOcare and free college tuition for illegal aliens as a start. After Nov zerO's Chinese credit cards are being cut up and the GOP will take care of the spending frenzy.

[Guest Guest]

There's another way to reduce the debt that the Loony Left has never considered, cut spending !! Eliminate the socialist giveaway programs such as zerOcare and free college tuition for illegal aliens as a start. After Nov zerO's Chinese credit cards are being cut up and the GOP will take care of the spending frenzy.

No they won't. They'll do exactly what they did under Bush and double the national debt with another round of tax cuts for the rich and unfunded wars that have nothing to do with our national security.

And even if we did exactly what you suggest, it wouldn't save any money. Go ahead, moron, you made the claim. Show how much money your lame-brained ideas would save. They wouldn't save anything. In fact, if we repealed the health care law we would pay more money in higher insurance premiums, which were skyrocketing out of control. That is why the law was passed. And if people who are capable of getting a college degree don't get it, they end up being a bigger drag on the economy. So neither of your idiotic ideas would save a penny. Prove otherwise if you can. You can't and you won't.

You know your problem, Stupid? No, you don't but I'll tell you anyway. You never say anything based on facts. You made a claim that certain changes in the law would save money. Prove it and show, with facts, how much money it would save. You won't because you can't because they won't.

[Guest 2smart4u]

No they won't. They'll do exactly what they did under Bush and double the national debt with another round of tax cuts for the rich and unfunded wars that have nothing to do with our national security.

And even if we did exactly what you suggest, it wouldn't save any money. Go ahead, moron, you made the claim. Show how much money your lame-brained ideas would save. They wouldn't save anything. In fact, if we repealed the health care law we would pay more money in higher insurance premiums, which were skyrocketing out of control. That is why the law was passed. And if people who are capable of getting a college degree don't get it, they end up being a bigger drag on the economy. So neither of your idiotic ideas would save a penny. Prove otherwise if you can. You can't and you won't.

You know your problem, Stupid? No, you don't but I'll tell you anyway. You never say anything based on facts. You made a claim that certain changes in the law would save money. Prove it and show, with facts, how much money it would save. You won't because you can't because they won't.

You want me to prove with facts everything I say, yet you throw out statements such as "So neither of your idiotic ideas would save a penny" without offering a shred of proof to back them up. So typical of the Loonys. We'll see in Nov who the people believe.

[Guest Guest]

The United States has incurred a massive national debt of more than $13 trillion. If current projections hold, that will rise to more than $19 trillion by 2015.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN088462520100608

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

There is only one way for this debt to be reduced, or even serviced (pay the interest on it): someone will have to pay taxes.

Who should pay them? Should tax rates be raised on the poor? Forget it, they don’t pay enough in taxes to make a difference.

Should tax rates be raised on the working class and the middle class? We are the backbone of this and every developed country and we are already struggling. We used to support a family, send our kids to college, pay off our mortgages and put away enough for retirement on one income. Now we have two incomes, those of us who have two adults capable of working who can find a job, and we’re struggling. Our real wages have declined because the rich have leveraged the economy so that they win and everyone else loses. If we point this out, we are accused of inciting class warfare.

Another Marxist rant from Comrade Truth Teller. You can take every dime in banks, 401s, etc. and it won’t be enough to pay or reduce the debt. There is not enough money to keep up with increasing debt. So how can you tax your way out of this. The only way is to balance the budget, reduce spending and cut taxes to get businesses hiring and investing. Raising taxes over 250,000 will also raise taxes on small business; an S corporation will have a higher tax rate than a major corporation. It will raise the capital gains tax. Think this doesn’t mean anything to you, wait till you sell your home. Maryland's millioniarre tax was suppose to raise 106 million, they lost 257 million. FDR raised taxes and extended the depression by 7 years, Reagan and Bush cut taxes, got us out of recession and had record revenues to the government. Their problem was they spent too much. Maybe Obama should take a lesson from Panama, they lower taxes for everyone, lowered corporate tax rate from 30 to 25% and their economy grew over 6% this year.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703976804575114241782001262.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h

The wealthy have gained more from the system than everyone else. It’s not because they have contributed more. A few of them have but most of them have just pushed paper from one side of a desk to the other; they have transferred wealth but they have not created it. In fact the bloodsuckers like the hedge fund managers have become filthy rich by betting against prosperity in many cases. They've done more to undermine the economy and our national welfare than to build them.

You have it backwards. There are always people that gain from the system illegally but most wealthy people worked hard, took a risk and prospered from it. They created jobs, what’s wrong with that. You seem to hate wealth and wealth creation as if they owe you something. You want to get even or use taxes as a punishment. You say you’re not inciting class warfare but you call the wealthy “blood Suckers”. Hedge Funds have been around since 1950. Those “bloodsuckers” created a lot of wealth for union pension funds, 401s, etc. It was ok that the Democrats took 11.7 million from hedge funds. I guess they are bloodsuckers too.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Schumer_s-racket_-Lobbyists-and-hedge-funds-94869359.html

Whenever a liberal tries to level the playing field, he is accused of redistributing wealth. Yet people accept the accumulation of vast fortunes for doing nothing except redistributing wealth!

Level the playing field, spoken like a true Marxist. You want to take people’s property because they have it. They have more money and pay more taxes, how much is enough?

This isn’t funny anymore. Our future depends on restoring balance to our economy and in particular restoring a strong middle class. No economy can survive without it.

I agree by restoring the economy and the middle class. You do that by getting the private sector going and creating jobs, not by borrowing,taxing and spending

The wealthy have gained more from the system than anyone else. They relied on the labor of the working class and the middle class to make their wealth. They rely on the government to make the rules by which they make their money. They are the only ones who can afford to pay more taxes, so that the country can prosper again. Why shouldn’t they be required to do it?

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need – Karl Marx

[Guest Gadfly]

You want me to prove with facts everything I say, yet you throw out statements such as "So neither of your idiotic ideas would save a penny" without offering a shred of proof to back them up. So typical of the Loonys. We'll see in Nov who the people believe.

Neither. The people are going to throw out a government that they see as ineffective. There is no more a turn to the right than 2006 was a turn to the left. It is easy to believe your own hype, but if Republicans do the same thing that Democrats did then they will get the same results.

[Guest Guest]

Another Marxist rant from Comrade Truth Teller. You can take every dime in banks, 401s, etc. and it won’t be enough to pay or reduce the debt. There is not enough money to keep up with increasing debt. So how can you tax your way out of this. The only way is to balance the budget, reduce spending and cut taxes to get businesses hiring and investing. Raising taxes over 250,000 will also raise taxes on small business; an S corporation will have a higher tax rate than a major corporation.

You don't know what you're talking about. What spending would you like to reduce and how much money do you claim your ideas would save? You won't answer that because there isn't anywhere to cut spending that would come anywhere close to the trillion dollars we're going to get by restoring Clinton-era tax rates for the super-rich. Prove me wrong if you can.

Maybe you didn't notice but the rich aren't investing here anymore. They're investing overseas where the labor is cheaper. They've been doing that for more than a decade, which is why Bush's tax cuts didn't create jobs here in America. Again, prove me wrong if you can.

And those "small businesses" you reference: all that means is that they have only a few employees. It can be a multi-billion dollar hedge fund. That label is just another way the rich have found to lie to the people. Idiot Boehner admits that restoring the Clinton-era tax rates would affect only 3% of small businesses and that those 3% account for 50% of the income. Notice how the lying scumbag talks about half of tax income! Listen to minute three.

That's the point, moron!

[Guest Truth Teller]

Another Marxist rant from Comrade Truth Teller. You can take every dime in banks, 401s, etc. and it won’t be enough to pay or reduce the debt.

That’s nonsense. No one is proposing to do that but it would reduce the debt.

There is not enough money to keep up with increasing debt.

Then we have a major problem, don’t we. How did we get into it? We ignored our pressing need to develop new sources of energy, even after presidents as far back as Nixon warned us that we had to do it. We ignored infrastructure. We ignored health care until recently. We gave the rich a tax cut with borrowed money. We started two wars with borrowed money. Basically, we went along with right wing economics. That’s why we’re in this mess. Most of our massive debt was incurred under Republican presidents. That is a fact. Obama has incurred more debt but unlike Reagan, Bush and Bush, he had no choice – unless you’re willing to let the economy collapse and rebuild it from nothing.

So how can you tax your way out of this.

No one is proposing to tax our way out of it. We just don’t want Bush’s tax break for the rich extended. It was supposed to expire after ten years. Let it expire. They’ll pay an additional four percent. It’s a reasonable amount and they can afford it and the country needs the revenue to avoid incurring even more debt.

The only way is to balance the budget, reduce spending and cut taxes to get businesses hiring and investing.

Yeah, right: balance the budget with an aging population and a declining manufacturing base. You’re babbling. How could this be done? The Republicans couldn’t do it. Clinton did but he was aided by a technology boom.

Reduce spending where? What do you propose to cut and how much would it save? You’re babbling again.

We can’t afford a tax cut. The deficit is already too high. It would not get businesses hiring unless you target it very carefully, and even then we can’t afford it now. Maybe there are particular sectors where it could be done beneficially, but you would have to analyze the situation sector-by-sector. The way you put it, you’re just babbling.

Raising taxes over 250,000 will also raise taxes on small business; an S corporation will have a higher tax rate than a major corporation.

That’s another right wing lie. Only 3% of small businesses would be affected but they account for 50% of the so-called “small business” income. See Boehner's stunning admission in the film clip from the post at 9:26. I put "small business" in quotes because they’re not really small. They’re making vast sums of money, many of them by speculating in markets and weakening the economy.

It will raise the capital gains tax. Think this doesn’t mean anything to you, wait till you sell your home.

Just like a right winger: it’s all about you personally. You don’t seem to care about the country, which is in trouble economically. Every tax costs somebody money but you’re just babbling again because someone has to pay taxes. The way you put it, every tax is a bad idea. Sounds great until you want government to provide services.

Maryland's millioniarre tax was suppose to raise 106 million, they lost 257 million.

Do you suppose that had anything to do with the fact that they compared 2007, when the economy was humming on paper, against 2008, when the economy tanked? Typical right-wing lie and distortion.

FDR raised taxes and extended the depression by 7 years,

That’s more right wing babble. Tax increases did not extend the Great Depression. The economy needed stimulation, which didn’t happen until the government put people back to work to supply the weapons necessary to fight World War II. No one had any money to buy anything. That’s why the economy remained sick for more than a decade.

Reagan and Bush cut taxes, got us out of recession and had record revenues to the government.

There you go again, whining about spending but not saying what spending you would cut. Reagan and Bush borrowed against the future because it was politically popular. They put off any hard choices. We’re paying the price now.

Their problem was they spent too much. Maybe Obama should take a lesson from Panama, they lower taxes for everyone, lowered corporate tax rate from 30 to 25% and their economy grew over 6% this year.

More right wing babble. You cherry pick one economy that isn’t close to resembling ours and try to draw a conclusion from it. That’s all you right wingers do. You never look at the big picture. You just pick a few pieces of information that sound like they support you but when anyone looks at them carefully, they don’t support you at all – like the tax example from Maryland.

The remainder will follow.

[Guest Truth Teller]

You have it backwards. There are always people that gain from the system illegally but most wealthy people worked hard, took a risk and prospered from it. They created jobs, what’s wrong with that.

They didn’t create jobs here, that’s what's wrong with their getting tax breaks here. They sent American money overseas and now you want to give them more money so they can send more money overseas. They don’t have to be patriotic about their investments but they shouldn't get tax breaks for helping to destroy our economy.

You seem to hate wealth and wealth creation as if they owe you something.

That’s not true. I’m all for wealth creation but we need real wealth, not just paper wealth. And I’m not asking for anything for me personally. I’m saying that the richest people in the country owe something back to the country that made it possible for them to get rich. An economy, even in a strongly capitalist country, is a system. If the system doesn't work as a whole, virtually no one makes money. The whole system is set up for people to make money. It's ridiculous for the people who made the most money from the system to whine about paying taxes when that's necessary to relieve the country's mounting debt.

You want to get even or use taxes as a punishment.

No I don’t. I just don’t want people leveraging the system to destroy our economy and drain America of jobs.

You say you’re not inciting class warfare but you call the wealthy “blood Suckers”.

No I didn’t. Bill Gates isn’t a bloodsucker. He has added vast amounts of value to the American economy. I called hedge fund managers bloodsuckers, because they are. They don’t add anything of value to the economy. All they do is transfer wealth and take advantage of tax breaks that were meant for people who add value to the economy. Compared with everyone else, they don’t deserve those tax breaks.

Hedge Funds have been around since 1950. Those “bloodsuckers” created a lot of wealth for union pension funds, 401s, etc. It was ok that the Democrats took 11.7 million from hedge funds. I guess they are bloodsuckers too.

Some people in both parties are bloodsuckers. On balance, the percentage is greater among the Republicans. But this isn’t about “rah, rah, team!” You’re thinking like a right-wing Republican, dividing the country into “them” and “us.” It’s true that hedge funds sometimes put money into some American pockets by taking it out of other American pockets. That doesn’t add value to the American economy because they’re not creating anything. All they’re doing is transferring wealth. When government does that, you B**ch about it and call it socialism. So why isn’t it socialism when hedge fund managers do it with help from the government? It is. You just refuse to admit it.

Level the playing field, spoken like a true Marxist.

Written like a true right-wing puppet. Do you really think that most people who got rich earned it? They got rich because they knew how to play a particular game, that’s it, with rare exceptions like Bill Gates. Most of the people who work the hardest and make the greatest contributions, like research scientists, live very modestly. The system stinks. It rewards the wrong things.

You want to take people’s property because they have it. They have more money and pay more taxes, how much is enough?

No, I want them to be taxed for the only reason anyone should be taxed: the government needs the money to operate and maintain the nation's economic health. We have a $13,000,000,000,000 national debt and someone has to pay first the interest on it and eventually the principal, I hope. Where do you propose to get the money: from people who don’t have it? You want the rich to keep their money, even though nurses and teachers and farmers and factory workers have to pay debt we incurred giving it to them.

I agree by restoring the economy and the middle class. You do that by getting the private sector going and creating jobs, not by borrowing,taxing and spending

That’s just rhetoric. How do you propose to get the private sector going? You can’t do it with tax cuts because the debt is already too high and more tax cuts aren’t stimulating the economy. They would just increase an already unsustainable debt, which harms the economy. We’re going to have to plan a transition, and that means government will have to be involved in the transition phase. We need a green revolution to green technologies. China is beating us to that punch and we’re letting it happen because the oil companies are so powerful politically. If the Tea Partiers want to do something useful, let them focus on that.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need – Karl Marx

Quoting Marx to characterize something that isn’t Marxist only reveals the poverty of your argument. How do you respond to the content of the argument I made? The rich became rich by creating a system of laws that was unduly favorable to wealth accumulation and insufficiently concerned with the welfare of 98% of the people. The rich gained control of the government and restructured the laws to facilitate a paper economy built on speculation. An economy like that may look good for awhile but inevitably it degenerates and devolves toward collapse, which is exactly what happened in 2008. The economy can’t be run for the top 1 or 2%. Every time anyone has tried that, the economy has collapsed because the people didn’t have enough money to buy goods and services; it isn’t a sustainable system, not to mention that it isn’t fair. How do you respond to that, except by quoting Karl Marx or Daffy Duck? Obviously, you don’t and you can’t.

[Guest Truth Teller]

You want me to prove with facts everything I say, yet you throw out statements such as "So neither of your idiotic ideas would save a penny" without offering a shred of proof to back them up. So typical of the Loonys. We'll see in Nov who the people believe.

Here's how it works among intelligent people: You made the claim, so you have the burden of proof to support your claims with facts. You don't because you can't.

You claim to have ideas that will save money. How? How much money? Based on what?

The CBO says that the health care legislation will save money. But you don't like the law so you'll say anything.

Same thing with credits for college tuition. You want to make it about the relatively few college students who may be illegal immigrants. You're not going to save beans on something like that, and you don't even try to make an intelligent argument. For you, it's any excuse to rant against illegal immigrants. But if they're going to college, then they're trying to be part of the system and contribute. There's no reason to think they'll be a drag on the system, in fact the truth is just the opposite. You're just making the usual stupid remarks you always make without thinking about them.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Here's how it works among intelligent people: You made the claim, so you have the burden of proof to support your claims with facts. You don't because you can't.

You claim to have ideas that will save money. How? How much money? Based on what?

The CBO says that the health care legislation will save money. But you don't like the law so you'll say anything.

Same thing with credits for college tuition. You want to make it about the relatively few college students who may be illegal immigrants. You're not going to save beans on something like that, and you don't even try to make an intelligent argument. For you, it's any excuse to rant against illegal immigrants. But if they're going to college, then they're trying to be part of the system and contribute. There's no reason to think they'll be a drag on the system, in fact the truth is just the opposite. You're just making the usual stupid remarks you always make without thinking about them.

Where are all you "intelligent" socialists going to go in Nov. I wouldn't expect all the Loonys to stay in the USA after the patriots take back the country. (I heard France is nice in the fall).

[Guest Guest]

They didn’t create jobs here, that’s what's wrong with their getting tax breaks here. They sent American money overseas and now you want to give them more money so they can send more money overseas. They don’t have to be patriotic about their investments but they shouldn't get tax breaks for helping to destroy our economy.

That’s not true. I’m all for wealth creation but we need real wealth, not just paper wealth. And I’m not asking for anything for me personally. I’m saying that the richest people in the country owe something back to the country that made it possible for them to get rich. An economy, even in a strongly capitalist country, is a system. If the system doesn't work as a whole, virtually no one makes money. The whole system is set up for people to make money. It's ridiculous for the people who made the most money from the system to whine about paying taxes when that's necessary to relieve the country's mounting debt.

No I don’t. I just don’t want people leveraging the system to destroy our economy and drain America of jobs.

No I didn’t. Bill Gates isn’t a bloodsucker. He has added vast amounts of value to the American economy. I called hedge fund managers bloodsuckers, because they are. They don’t add anything of value to the economy. All they do is transfer wealth and take advantage of tax breaks that were meant for people who add value to the economy. Compared with everyone else, they don’t deserve those tax breaks.

Some people in both parties are bloodsuckers. On balance, the percentage is greater among the Republicans. But this isn’t about “rah, rah, team!” You’re thinking like a right-wing Republican, dividing the country into “them” and “us.” It’s true that hedge funds sometimes put money into some American pockets by taking it out of other American pockets. That doesn’t add value to the American economy because they’re not creating anything. All they’re doing is transferring wealth. When government does that, you B**ch about it and call it socialism. So why isn’t it socialism when hedge fund managers do it with help from the government? It is. You just refuse to admit it.

Written like a true right-wing puppet. Do you really think that most people who got rich earned it? They got rich because they knew how to play a particular game, that’s it, with rare exceptions like Bill Gates. Most of the people who work the hardest and make the greatest contributions, like research scientists, live very modestly. The system stinks. It rewards the wrong things.

No, I want them to be taxed for the only reason anyone should be taxed: the government needs the money to operate and maintain the nation's economic health. We have a $13,000,000,000,000 national debt and someone has to pay first the interest on it and eventually the principal, I hope. Where do you propose to get the money: from people who don’t have it? You want the rich to keep their money, even though nurses and teachers and farmers and factory workers have to pay debt we incurred giving it to them.

That’s just rhetoric. How do you propose to get the private sector going? You can’t do it with tax cuts because the debt is already too high and more tax cuts aren’t stimulating the economy. They would just increase an already unsustainable debt, which harms the economy. We’re going to have to plan a transition, and that means government will have to be involved in the transition phase. We need a green revolution to green technologies. China is beating us to that punch and we’re letting it happen because the oil companies are so powerful politically. If the Tea Partiers want to do something useful, let them focus on that.

Quoting Marx to characterize something that isn’t Marxist only reveals the poverty of your argument. How do you respond to the content of the argument I made? The rich became rich by creating a system of laws that was unduly favorable to wealth accumulation and insufficiently concerned with the welfare of 98% of the people. The rich gained control of the government and restructured the laws to facilitate a paper economy built on speculation. An economy like that may look good for awhile but inevitably it degenerates and devolves toward collapse, which is exactly what happened in 2008. The economy can’t be run for the top 1 or 2%. Every time anyone has tried that, the economy has collapsed because the people didn’t have enough money to buy goods and services; it isn’t a sustainable system, not to mention that it isn’t fair. How do you respond to that, except by quoting Karl Marx or Daffy Duck? Obviously, you don’t and you can’t.

In your long winded response you claim I have no solutions. Yet all you offer is higher taxes, deficit spending and green technologies. Higher taxes and few windmills are not going to get us out of this mess. The only way to create permanent jobs is the private sector; the government can’t do that, cutting spending and taxes. You ask where I would cut spending. Cutting spending is the job of the people we elect, however I would start with destructive laws like Obama care and cap and trade. This President and Congress is incompetent, they are screwing up those green jobs that you say are suppose to save us.

http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/wind-energy-funds-going-overseas/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/03/stimulus-money-overseas_n_483593.html

I have a business with employees, and these fools in government are making it impossible for me to expand and hire. The government is the “bloodsucker” by wanting more and more taxes and wasting it. Unlike you, I want less government not big government nanny state.

In all my posts I have cited credible sources, you rarely use any and when you do it’s a ridiculous source. In another thread you actually cited a far left college psychology professor, are you kidding me? You are the one that can’t back anything up, try turning off the TV and do some real research.

[Guest Truth Teller]

Where are all you "intelligent" socialists going to go in Nov. I wouldn't expect all the Loonys to stay in the USA after the patriots take back the country. (I heard France is nice in the fall).

The sad thing is: this is how this person and millions like him think political discussions are supposed to take place in a democracy. I'm not pointing it out because of him but because it reflects what has happened in the United States at the grass roots. Democracy can survive a lot but it cannot survive too much of this.

[Guest 2smart4u]

The sad thing is: this is how this person and millions like him think political discussions are supposed to take place in a democracy. I'm not pointing it out because of him but because it reflects what has happened in the United States at the grass roots. Democracy can survive a lot but it cannot survive too much of this.

Your hypocrisy borders on lunacy. You lament over what has become of our political discussion in a democracy. Yet the democrats are guilty of the most vicious attacks I've ever heard on republican candidates. Sarah Palin and her family, the Tea Party demonstrators, George Bush, Chaney, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity are just a few that are victims of slanderous remarks made by democrats.

I think you need to reconsider your "Truth Teller" moniker.

[Guest Truth Teller]

In your long winded response you claim I have no solutions.

That’s because you don’t. You want to repeal the new health care legislation and “cap and trade,” the latter of which didn’t even become law, so there's nothing to repeal. Your only “solution” is to go back to the way it was under Bush, when the economy nearly collapsed. I said you had no solutions and you just proved it.

Yet all you offer is higher taxes, deficit spending and green technologies. Higher taxes and few windmills are not going to get us out of this mess.

That is false. I can’t offer you anything because I’m not an elected official but if I was, this is what I would try to enact:

1. Creating jobs by restoring our infrastructure. We have to put people back to work, not just in the private sector. If you want services, and everyone does whether they admit it or not, you must pay for them. If you want the economy to move forward, there are investments that only the government can make.

2. Investing in new energy technologies, including wind, solar and geothermal energy. Calling this “a few windmills” is juvenile. If we had made these investments beginning in 1974, when Richard Nixon told us we should, we wouldn’t have these problems today. You should read Thomas Friedman’s book Hot, Flat and Crowded. http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Flat-Crowded-Revolution---America/dp/B002BWQ504/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1285548422&sr=1-1

3. Ending the war in Afghanistan as soon as possible, thereby saving hundreds of billions of dollars every year, and not engaging in further unjustified wars. That will save taxpayers money.

4. Raising tax rates on the rich, especially those who make their money by speculation, such as in the hedge funds. Those people shouldn’t receive any tax breaks. They don’t contribute anything to the economy; in fact, they do most of their investing overseas. So every time we give them a tax break, we’re shipping money overseas.

5. Strengthening the new health care legislation with a public option, so that people have a choice that will keep insurance rates down. A dollar spent on health insurance is every bit as much a dollar out of your pocket as a tax.

6. Investing in our children’s education, through college. The U.S. made this a national priority in the 1960s and it paid off, but in recent decades we have been losing ground again. Math and science education are especially important.

7. Getting money out of politics, with a constitutional amendment if necessary to make clear that political power is per person, not per dollar. All election campaigns should be publicly funded and access to elected officials should be subject to strict rules to make sure everyone has equal access. One-dollar-one-vote is not democracy. The Framers would be appalled.

The only way to create permanent jobs is the private sector; the government can’t do that, cutting spending and taxes.

That’s not true. Government spending ended the Great Depression, when the U.S. Government spent vast sums of money on munitions and conscripted men into the armed forces. You may refuse to accept the fact but I favor the private sector over the public sector; however, there are some things that can only be done in the public sector, and times when its role is greater than at other times. Another example is when the U.S. Government built the national highways.

This creates permanent jobs by changing the shape of the economy. The goal isn’t to have permanent federal employees: I thought you didn’t want that. Neither do I, but you don’t seem to understand that government has to play a role in an advanced economy like ours, especially in a transitional stage. Without that, millions of private sector jobs will never be created at all – at least not in this country.

When you make a blanket statement like the one above, all you’re telling me is that you’re a rigid ideologue who can’t see past his personal tax bill. Sorry, bub, but running a country this size requires a strong and active government. If we don’t figure this out now, we’ll figure it out after the economy collapses. Show me one developed country in the world that doesn’t appreciate this reality.

You ask where I would cut spending. Cutting spending is the job of the people we elect, however I would start with destructive laws like Obama care and cap and trade. This President and Congress is incompetent, they are screwing up those green jobs that you say are suppose to save us.

http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/wind-energy-funds-going-overseas/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/03/stimulus-money-overseas_n_483593.html

Did you read the articles? Look who is calling for the very reform you’re asking for: Democrats. I’m not happy with either party but that doesn’t mean we can afford to give hundreds of billions of dollars to the oil companies every year until the oil runs out.

As for the health care legislation, are you aware of the fact that the new health care legislation is projected to save us money and reduce the deficit, and that its repeal would add $455 billion to the deficit?

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/08/26/cbo-cost-repea/

Do the facts matter to you? At all?

I have a business with employees, and these fools in government are making it impossible for me to expand and hire.

That’s not true. The reason you’re having trouble, assuming you're a competent businessman, is that the United States economy is in trouble – has been for a long time. We have a massive debt, most of which was incurred under Republican presidents, who insisted on cutting the size of government instead of using it to invest in our future. The global economy is taking jobs out of the United States at a rapid pace, and will continue to do so unless we develop a national strategy to counteract this trend: that will require an active government, which Republicans uniformly propose.

If people like you don’t start thinking and stop merely reacting, we are not going to avoid a continuation of the economic decline that is well underway. Our current economic problems are structural, not cyclical; yet many Americans can’t see anything past this month’s unemployment rate. Don’t get me wrong: unemployment is of central importance but we have to have a long-term plan. You don’t have one; in fact you oppose having one. You think we can survive in a cut-throat world without planning. You’re wrong, and those countries that understand it are going to prove that you’re wrong. I want to maintain a free enterprise system. If we do not recognize the role government must play in a modern capitalist economy, we may not even be able to maintain free enterprise: you watch what people will be willing to do if they’re starving and in the streets.

The government is the “bloodsucker” by wanting more and more taxes and wasting it. Unlike you, I want less government not big government nanny state.

It's all slogans with you guys. You're not thinking and remarks like that prove it.

In all my posts I have cited credible sources, you rarely use any and when you do it’s a ridiculous source. In another thread you actually cited a far left college psychology professor, are you kidding me? You are the one that can’t back anything up, try turning off the TV and do some real research.

You cited the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Examiner, two right-wing sources, and all those pieces said was that Democrats are corrupt too, as if we didn’t know that. I cited statistics on the national debt.

1. My point was central. Yours was not.

2. I’m not interested in Democrats and Republicans, per se. I’m interested in the economic welfare of our country. The Republicans are stooges for the giant corporations. That’s not a leftist comment: it’s the truth, and if we don’t get it – soon – then we are not going to avoid major trouble, perhaps catastrophe. We can’t just pretend that the global economy hasn’t happened. It’s not the same world as it was in 1930 or 1960 or even 1980. If we get that, soon, we are not going to avoid an economic collapse and the rise of other nations, which will displace us.

3. I don’t recall the link to something from a college professor but if you’ll supply the link, I’ll explain to you why the citation makes sense. You have to put things in context, something you’re obviously not accustomed to doing.

[Guest Guest]

Your hypocrisy borders on lunacy. You lament over what has become of our political discussion in a democracy. Yet the democrats are guilty of the most vicious attacks I've ever heard on republican candidates. Sarah Palin and her family, the Tea Party demonstrators, George Bush, Chaney, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity are just a few that are victims of slanderous remarks made by democrats.

I think you need to reconsider your "Truth Teller" moniker.

Not at all. Truth is a complete defense to a charge of slander. http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#2

Palin, Bush, Cheney, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity and many of the Tea Partiers, including you, are FREAKING NUTS! It's the truth so it's OK to say it.

[Guest Guest]

Your hypocrisy borders on lunacy. You lament over what has become of our political discussion in a democracy. Yet the democrats are guilty of the most vicious attacks I've ever heard on republican candidates. Sarah Palin and her family, the Tea Party demonstrators, George Bush, Chaney, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity are just a few that are victims of slanderous remarks made by democrats.

I think you need to reconsider your "Truth Teller" moniker.

Outstanding post.

[Guest Guest]

The CBO says that the health care legislation will save money. But you don't like the law so you'll say anything.

Wrong again,here's the real costs without the lying,gimmicks and tricks.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11376/RyanLtrhr4872.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html?_r=1

[Guest Guest]

Wrong again,here's the real costs without the lying,gimmicks and tricks.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11376/RyanLtrhr4872.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html?_r=1

Yeah, right: an article on economics from a G.W. Bush stooge.

Dumbo, do you expect health care to be free? When you look at costs, you have to ask "compared with what?" Returning to the old system would cost nearly half a trillion dollars according to the latest CBO estimates.

Your standard is unfair and completely ridiculous: to you, if government spends a penny, that's a disaster but if private companies cost us trillions of dollars, that's just fine. What is wrong with you?

Instead of just reacting against everything associated with government, think for once! I'm not saying government is great but if you don't think privately owned corporations will take your money every chance they get, then I have a bridge to sell you.

[Guest Truth Teller]

No one answered this question either. Some tried to argue that tax breaks for the rich create jobs. Maybe that was true 50 years ago, when the economy was national but it’s not true anymore. The rich are investing overseas, so every less dollar in the federal treasury is another few cents we have to pay every year because the tax break would have to be financed with borrowed money (since we’re in debt). So extending the Bush tax giveaways for the rich would mean that 98% would be paying to have the rich invest overseas, thereby taking jobs away from Americans and weakening our economy, and with it our country.

Then they tried the “small business” shell game. Those so-called small businesses small only in the number of owners. Some of them are multi-billion dollar hedge fund companies. Yet again, knuckleheads on the radical right think income redistribution is just fine if the richest 2% are getting the benefits, but not fine if 98% of are being helped.