Obama has thrown his arms open to the Taliban:
ENNISKILLEN, Northern Ireland — Calling for an “Afghan-led, Afghan-owned peace process,” President Obama expressed cautious optimism about the Taliban’s surprise agreement to negotiate directly with U.S. officials toward ending America’s longest war and decades of bloodshed in Afghanistan.
U.S. and Taliban officials announced separately Tuesday that they would hold their first formal meeting in coming days in Doha, Qatar, the site of failed negotiations early last year, although they did not set a date. Afghan officials said they hoped to follow up with their own talks with the Taliban delegation.
U.S. officials said the talks would involve a new group, the Taliban Political Commission, which they said was authorized by fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar to open an office in Doha. They said the makeup of the group is unknown, but it apparently includes or represents the Pakistani-based Haqqani network and other armed insurgent groups.
“This is an important first step toward reconciliation, although it is a very early step,” Obama said as he wrapped up meetings here with leaders of the Group of 8 industrialized nations. “We anticipate that there will be a lot of bumps in the road.”
Afghan President Karzi took umbrage with the decision and some feel he is justified:
On this occasion, however, Mr Karzai’s temper tantrum, and suspension of talks with the US within hours of Obama’s announcement, appears to be fully justified. As Afghanistan’s democratically elected president, Mr Karzai might at the very least expect to be involved in any discussions relating to his country’s future. He is also within his rights to object to the Taliban naming their office in Qatar, where the negotiations are due to take place, as the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan”. The country Mr Karzai governs is no such thing, and his government has committed itself to a pluralist society, rather than one based on the narrow strictures of Sharia. The Taliban have even been allowed to fly their own flag over the building.
Obama is desperate for a solution- any solution. So much so that he gives the Taliban the upper hand:
Such is Mr Obama’s desperation to reach a deal with the Taliban before the last American combat troops return home next year, that he is prepared to go to the most extraordinary lengths to tempt them to the negotiating table – even if it means alienating a key White House ally. Consequently, on the day after Nato formally handed over control for Afghan security to Mr Karzai, the Americans find themselves in the invidious position of having the Afghan president refuse to talk to them about their own future role in his country.
Indeed, coping with Mr Karzai’s disaffection is the least of Mr Obama’s worries as he embarks on a last-ditch effort to do a deal with the Taliban before the mission ends. In the past, Washington has insisted on two pre-conditions before it would countenance talks: a cessation of hostilities and, crucially, a firm commitment from the group to cut its ties with al-Qaeda.
But Obama’s demands omit something democrats constantly accuse the GOP of doing- engaging in war on women. And it’s not a small thing.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb2Gm2Q0MV8[/youtube]
The Taliban has been waging war on women for a long time.
The number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan has decreased for the first time in six years, said the UN, but targeted killings by insurgents – particularly of women, girls and government employees – increased dramatically.
In its annual report on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the UN recorded 2,754 Afghan civilians being killed in 2012, a decrease of 12% compared with 2011, and 4,805 being injured, a slight rise.
Improvised explosive devices laid by insurgents were responsible for 81% of casualties, with a 9% rise in the number of civilians killed or injured by IEDs.
“The decrease in civilian casualties [the UN] documented in 2012 is very much welcome. Yet the human cost of the conflict remains unacceptable,” said Jan Kubis, the UN envoy to Afghanistan.
The overall decline was attributed in part to one of the worst winters on record impeding fighting. Fewer suicide bomb attacks and a fall in the number of air strikes also helped ease 2012’s death toll.
But the report showed a 20% increase in the number of women and girls killed or injured. Deliberate targeting by the Taliban and other insurgents also tripled in 2012, said the UN. Most were hit while in their homes or working in fields.
The Taliban attacked Malala Yousafzai, a 14 year old women’s rights activist:
KARACHI, Pakistan — At the age of 11, Malala Yousafzai took on the Taliban by giving voice to her dreams. As turbaned fighters swept through her town in northwestern Pakistan in 2009, the tiny schoolgirl spoke out about her passion for education — she wanted to become a doctor, she said — and became a symbol of defiance against Taliban subjugation.
On Tuesday, masked Taliban gunmen answered Ms. Yousafzai’s courage with bullets, singling out the 14-year-old on a bus filled with terrified schoolchildren, then shooting her in the head and neck. Two other girls were also wounded in the attack. All three survived, but late on Tuesday doctors said that Ms. Yousafzai was in critical condition at a hospital in Peshawar, with a bullet possibly lodged close to her brain.
The Taliban explained:
A Taliban spokesman, Ehsanullah Ehsan, confirmed by phone that Ms. Yousafzai had been the target, calling her crusade for education rights an “obscenity.”
“She has become a symbol of Western culture in the area; she was openly propagating it,” Mr. Ehsan said, adding that if she survived, the militants would certainly try to kill her again. “Let this be a lesson.”
Fortunately, Yousafzai has recovered and has denounced the attack as cowardly.
Unfortunately, the attacks continue:
It’s the latest cruel tactic in the Pakistani Taliban’s battle to stop girls and women from getting an education: acid thrown in their faces to scar them for life and deter others from following in their footsteps.
A doctor who treated the victims of an acid attack on a college van in the city of Parachinar in northern Pakistan last month told CNN that two girls had been left with severe burns to their faces.
The Pakistani Taliban have taken responsibility for the attack in threatening pamphlets distributed around the city. They also warn local girls against going to school, Dr. Shaban Ali said.
“We will never allow the girls of this area to go and get a Western education,” said Qari Muhavia, the local Pakistani Taliban leader, when contacted by CNN by telephone.
The Taliban attacked a school bus filled with women students:
QUETTA, Pakistan — At least 25 people were killed in southwest Pakistan on Saturday when militants blew up a bus carrying women students and attacked a hospital treating survivors, officials said.
The bomb attack on a bus in Quetta, capital of the restive Baluchistan province, killed 14 women students, and another 11 people died in a blast at a city hospital around 90 minutes later.
The second attack hit the emergency ward of the city’s Bolan Medical Complex where the wounded were taken and was followed by a gun battle with militants holed up inside the hospital.
The standoff lasted for several hours and ended when security forces stormed the building, freeing 35 people who had been taken hostage, Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar told reporters.
Quetta was the scene of two of the bloodiest attacks in Pakistan this year, both targeting Shiite Muslims, and the student victims were members of a women’s university popular with the minority community.
Nisar said the bus bomb killed 14 students and wounded 19.
Even HuffPo has noticed how bad the Taliban make things for women:
In Afghanistan, the United States and its allies continue to wage a war for a just cause. Today, some 68,000 U.S. troops are in that country, fighting against terrorism and the inhumane reign of the Taliban.
President Barack Obama wants America to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2014, which would be 14 years after we first sent troops there. The Republican leader on the GOP presidential ticket, Mitt Romney, has called that deadline merely a “goal.”
What happens in Afghanistan in 2014 depends so much on who is elected president of the United States in 2012.
And what happens to the women and girls of Afghanistan depends so much on who is elected president of the United States in 2012 as well.
Will all the advances in freedom that women and girls in Afghanistan have seen since the U.S. involvement be erased when our troops leave?
Will there be more innocent victims like Yousafzai? How many more?
These are Obama’s new peace partners, and their goal sounds very much like Osama Bin Laden’s goal:
The Taliban statement made it clear that its fighters remained determined to unseat Karzai’s government and to “end the occupation” of NATO troops in the country.
Here’s a pretty good overview of life under the Taliban.
[youtube]http://youtu.be/emMrn9ja5iU[/youtube]
These are Obama’s new peace partners. These are the people with whom Obama plans to “negotiate.” This is the Taliban Biden described as “not our enemy.” At one time Obama called the war in Afghanistan the “War of Necessity.”
Now he just wants out and is ready to throw Afghanistan’s women to the wolves.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
The irony of Taliban ”morality:
A woman’s exposed elbow or ankle is ”immoral,” KILLING HER for showing it is NOT immoral.
Tribal cheiftans’ daughters are forcibly married to Taliban members despite being betrothed to other men.
This enforces the ”peace” by adding the cheiftan to the side of the enforcers against his own tribe.
Throwing acid on girls for trying to get educated or trying to avoid such a marriage is ”moral.”
Taliban imposed morality is not morality.
One who leads a ”moral” life out of fear is not a moral person because he has not made his choices freely.
The Taliban are harsh masters who rule by fear.
They set the limits of behavior on others and call their limits, moral.
“Let this be a lesson.”
Indeed.
A lesson in hypocrisy.
When the Russians were in Afghanistan, women attended University in Kabul. Some were sent to Russia to learn to be doctors. Women made gains in the job market and in politics.
All of which came to a screeching, bloody halt when the Russians left and the Mujahedin took over.
Under the Mujahedin, and later the Taliban, women were not allowed treatment by male doctors.
And there were no female doctors.
Sooooo…..
And human rights groups, and women’s rights groups, were mostly silent.
Now, when women are again making gains in Afghanistan, our politicians are preparing to abandon them to the Taliban once more.
And again, human rights groups, and women’s rights groups, are mostly silent.
We are going to condemn these women to hell.
@Nan G: #1
Nan, Islam is a religion of weakness.
All of these restrictions on women, the impossible rules of evidence for rape, the punishments of women for the acts of men, lead to one conclusion:
Islam is based on the belief that men are too weak to withstand temptation, therefore women who tempt them in any way are at fault for the men’s behavior!
Islamic men are deathly afraid of strong, capable women, because men are too weak to compete.
Islamic men can not compete with women in any way save through brutality. They are afraid of women, and respond to that fear in the only way that the ignorant and immature can- with violence and degradation.
And just as expected, the U.S., Afghani and Taliban peace talks are going swimmingly. Well, maybe not really:
And how’s that whole Egyptian thing going for you, Obama? Seems neither side likes you anymore.
Another day, another typically exploitative, disgustingly dishonest Dr John post. Okay, I’ll bite: Dr. John, we’ve been there for 12 years. All your examples have happened despite that fact. (and let’s not pretend that you care about what happens to Afghan girls – they’re just more fodder for your ODS.) So what is the solution? Endless war with continued civilian atrocities and US military casualties? What is your sure fire alternative to a diplomatic solution?
We do have to agree that the Taliban would be good at keeping the peace if we let them be in charge. Anyone who disagrees with them for any reason will be killed.
Turning over Afghanistan to the Taliban so that the whole country can be turned into a Califate, then sit back and watch them use the same brilliant tactics to take control of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons, on their way to forming a Global Califate, doesn’t require any negotiating, NONE – particularly when we have the prodigious talents lavishly holding audience in the current White House.
Don’t waste any more taxpayer money flying to Qatar to meet the Taliban, just stay home. No need for more embarrassment of the type felt during this week’s European trip. Ouch.
. . . . Oh, wait. No – can’t do that. There’s an election coming up in 2014. Soooo, let’s see, what could these clever artists in the Admin be up to that costs American taxpayers billions in cash and won’t make them look bad for 18 months? Hmm, buy the Taliban’s acquiescence to refrain from crowd-shredding body bombs for 18 months. Oh, and get the Taliban to call a moratorium on mutilating young girls and assassinating women, also for 18 months. Just 18 months – then, well, who cares? Electioneering will be over. Right?
So the negotiating is over the ‘price’ of temporary Taliban restraint. What a beauty. This Admin lives in a very special space. We just need another crowd rousing speech from the teleprompter – that’ll make everything OK.
@James Raider:
Great points. Why derail such a clear path to victory just because you have a Muslim name. George Bush, unlike Obama, must have realized that most wars take 20 to 50 years to win, particularly when you’re the world’s last superpower and you’re fighting people who travel on donkeys. No reason to rudely rush our way out the door under such circumstances. Much better to deploy more fresh-faced American nineteen year olds so they have their fair share of fun. But you were going to give us the answer how to win in Afghanistan (don’t you think twelve years is too long to be so modestly coy?)
The Taliban announced that it would open an office in Doha for what an Obama administration official called “milestone” talks, but a senior official for the insurgent group said “formal” discussions would not begin without the release of Taliban commanders held at Guantanamo……
Mulla Fazal Akhund is responsible for killing thousands of Shi’a Afghans between 1996 and late 2001.
Noorullah Noori fought alongside al Qaida as a Taliban military general, against the Northern Alliance. The detainee was responsible for the line near Murghab, Afghanistan in the vicinity of Herat, he also provided assistance to a friend who was using profits from the sale of narcotics to provide material support to the Talibanand al Qaida.
Abdul Haq Waseeq was the Taliban Deputy Minister of Intelligence. He also was a participant in military operations in Konduz.
Khairullah Khairkhwa had been the Taliban’s deputy minister of the interior, interim minister of the interior, the minister of the interior, and the Minister of Information. Khirullah was also to serve as the Taliban’s Minister of Foreign Affairs spokesman, giving interviews to the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Voice of America.
Mohammad Nabi Omari was a senior Taliban official who served in multiple leadership roles.
~~~~~~
And talk about your tone deafness!
Just a couple days ago the Taliban was taking credit for bombing the airport at Kabul!
Three died including Americans.
LOL!! These “Taliban Tards” sound like they have a LOT IN COMMON with the current crop of Libs in DC!!! A MAN ( politician/gov administrator) does something wrong.. it’s the WOMAN ( read “some one else” ) who “corrupted” HIM and made him do it!! Gee, sounds like a lot of TESTIMONY from this Administration…. “it’s SOMEONE ELSE’S FAULT… I, didn’t do it”!! Even tho like these Taliban scum.. they SURE AS HELL DID!!! Sick, Twisted, Laughable, yet SAD and disgusting….
Tom.. how to win?? Well, only one way.. fight a REAL WAR…. with ONE WINNER.. and one LOSER.. who surrenders unconditionally. Or is wiped out. We haven’t, so we have in reality we have done nothing. You want to “win”? Then all the Taliban, Al Queda etc, have to be killed.. every last one of them… also, Hezbollah, etc etc.. if NOT.. forget it…. just like Roaches.. if you leave a few behind.. they will COME BACK…. those are the hard, COLD, REAL facts…. Sorry. No sugar coated win is possible. That’s what has been being tried all this time. You cannot reason, with a Rabid Dog….. you have to put it down, or let it run, and take your chances…
@Hankster58:
That’s a perfectly reasonable response, and I thank you for that. Is it feasible politically though? Since the opposition has no identifiable standing army, what you’re calling for is essentially wholesale slaughter of the Afghan population.
I’m not “Calling for” anything, I’m telling you, if a “total win” is the objective.. that’s the deal… in the case of Saddam in Kuwait… the in/out we did in GF1 was proper for THAT Objective… but this deal we’ve gotten into the Second time….. total cluster#$%#% …. you cannot “reform” a populace that won’t do what it takes to accomplish it….
Another example of this.. is MEXICO! Mexico is a disaster… but, instead of the Mexicans rising up, and REFORMING their own nation.. it’s easier to come here rip us off, than do the dirty work fixing their homeland would require..
so we’re screwed on BOTH of these fronts.
@Hankster58: #11
Common sense and liberals don’t mix. One thing I learned over the years is that conservatives will accept some ideas from liberals, and condemn some of the things some republican politicians do, but you will hardly ever hear of a liberal who wants to agree with anything a republican says, or will condemn anything a democratic politician does.
@Smorgasbord:
Oh, i agree! I get into “discussions” all the time with em…. and NOT ONE.. will EVER admit it, when one of theirs OBVIOUSLY, does wrong!! Can’t argue with a “twisted narcissist” mind….
One has to wonder Smorgas, what era did you acquire this education that “conservatives will accept some ideas from liberals but you will hardly ever hear of a liberal who wants to agree with anything a republican says”? If anything, Democrats in Washington have caved time and time again on legislation after legislation while Republicans have built a reputation as die hard obstructionists. On a state level, GOP super majorities have passed rather radical agendas while shutting Democrats completely out or refusing to consider their amendments.
This culture pretty much began in the Tom DeLay era where the concept seemed to switch from working with Democrats to simply trying to destroy them.
Perhaps your conclusions are based on water cooler discussions with co-workers or a consensus of your drinking buddies? I don’t know. But it isn’t consistent with what’s going on in the real political world.
Back to the original theme of this thread, the concept that Obama and/or Democrats are the owners of the “war on women” is equally illogical and inconsistent with how the GOP and Dem leadership, on both a Fed and State level, have voted.
@Ronald J. Ward: #16
I was in my 40s when I started driving a truck. I didn’t pay much attention to any politics until I started listening to talk radio. All that the liberal ones had was hatred for the republicans. The conservative shows sometimes never even talked politics. They might talk about something that happened. They were much easier to listen to than the hate spewing liberal shows.
You said that democrats have caved many times, but didn’t give any examples. One thing that is really interesting to me is that the states that are doing the best are run by republican governors, and the cities that are doing the best are run by republican mayors, and the cities that are doing the worst are run by democratic mayors. An added note is that the states that don’t have an income tax are doing OK, so getting rid of the IRS will be a good thing.
There seems to be very few republicans who go by the original values of the republican party. The
amnestyimmigration bill is a good example. Most republicans seem to be OK with legalizing the illegals first, then MAYBE work on securing the border.@Smorgasbord:
That’s a rather mixed bag of a response Smorgas. You’ve based your political analysis on the contents of talk show radio. Well, I’m not sure how or even why to argue that one.
I should know better than to question your findings on Republican vrs Democratic governed cities and states (I mean, I’d hate to sound like one of those liberal contrarians that never agree on anything) but last I heard, Michigan wasn’t doing too well. And according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce report released just last month, Wisconsin (which should by now be the role model of conservative economic leadership) placed 44th for economic performance, 50th for short-term job growth, and 39th in “business climate”. So I’ll assume your data was again a product of right wing radio talk shows and as we all know, they can’t lie. I mean, if they said it on a right talk show radio, well, bonjour, right?
Aren’t the “few republicans who go by the original values of the Republican Party” pretty much dinosaur droppings? Who was this “original republican party” you speak of? Bush Republicans? Need I go there? Reagan Republicans? Didn’t he like raise taxes 7 times and expand the size of government considerably? Nixon Republicans? Didn’t he inspire a predominately conservative appointed Supreme Court to vote on Roe V Wade and was actually quoted as saying “There are times when abortions are necessary, I know that, you know that’s when you have a black and a white”. Eisenhower Republicans? Lord knows if he was running today, Republicans would run him out of town as a socialist from hell. So, I really don’t know how far back you have to go to find this “original” party you speak of.
@Ronald J. Ward:
I would certainly like to know what legislation you are talking about since the Republicans were totally shut out of the Obamacare negotiations while the Democrats were locked behind large mahogany doors with the invisible sign that said “No Republicans Allowed.”
So please, you need to provide us with some examples of your claim.
After searching the U.S. Chamber of Commerce website, I could find no such report released in June, 2013. Again, perhaps you should provide us with a link so we can read what it says for ourselves. You also seem to think that Wisconsin is a solid red state. Quite the contrary; Wisconsin is a split state, with heavy union clout. I suggest you study the history of Wisconsin. Do you really think that if Michigan elected a Republican Governor, that person could turn around decades of Democrat destruction in just a couple of years? It is not true that all of Rome burned in just one night. Could a Republican mayor turn Detroit around in just two years?
I will agree with you that the GOP contains few “original value” Republicans, but there are some. Now, perhaps you would like to tell me where are the John Kennedy Democrats? You know, the ones that actually believed that lowering taxes for everyone built a stronger nation and provided greater revenue for the Federal Government? Seems like the only thing left with Democrats are those who belong to the Congressional Progressive Caucus that was started by a self-proclaimed Socialist, Bernie Sanders. Where are the FDR Democrats, who believed we were a Judeo-Christian nation, and was not afraid to express his faith in God on national radio? Where are those Democrats?
If you want to have a discussion in how the parties have changed, at least have the decency to provide links to the things you assert.
Aside from the recent Dem caving on tax cuts, sequestration(you may recall Boehner admitting to getting 98% of what they wanted), and I could go on and on, I’m not sure where or how you deduce that Republicans were shut out of the Affordable Care Act or as you prefer, Obamacare. The reality is that the bill includes 161 amendments offered by Republicans. There were a total of 6 bipartisan groups who met 72 times. There was 30 bipartisan hearings. History simply doesn’t support your ““No Republicans Allowed” claim.
It’s rather frustrating when one has to research for you but it becomes worse when they not only have to read for you but then they have to apply simple math for you as well. You’re struggling to find the “June 2013” report yet from the very copy and paste blockquote you provided, it clearly reads “the U.S. Chamber of Commerce report released just last month”. Now, I’m not sure what month it is where you live but where I live, it’s June. Accordingly, “last month” would have been May, which you can find here.
While I’ll agree with you that cities and states all have their own variables so that turnaround time isn’t exactly comparing apples to apples. But the claim was made that Republican ran states were doing just fine when in fact, many are not. And in all fairness, if one is going to make such claims, shouldn’t they provide relevant links just as you seem to expect of me?
@Ronald J. Ward:
To begin with, we now know that sequestration was not a Republican idea, but came right straight out of this Administration. Or do you not believe Woodward? You see, Obama thought he was going to play a trump card on that, but he got called on it and he was holding aces and eights. Of course, we had all the hysteria coming from Obama how planes were going to fall out of the sky if sequestration happened, but alas, most people haven’t even noticed it.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/17/bob_woodward_sequester_was_obamas_idea.html
Then you said:
And then you said:
When I told you I had gone to the U.S. Chamber website and could not find the report, what do you provide me with? A report from the State of Wisconsin, NOT the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
And yes, I did say “June, 2013” when I should have said “May, 2013”. I guess picking nits is your favorite thing to do. Ah well, so it goes with liberals. Doesn’t eliminate the fact that you did not provide anything from the U.S. Chamber, so no link there. You may be new here, but you will find that when you cite something as fact, I will not be the only one requiring you to provide a link for your citations.
How about this?
http://247wallst.com/2013/06/13/the-most-dangerous-cities-in-america-3/
How many of those cities are “red?”
And this?
http://247wallst.com/2013/06/12/states-with-the-fastest-growing-economies/
How many red compared to blue states there?
Who made that claim? And what red states would those be that you say are not doing fine?
The sequestration blame game is rather disingenuous. Okay, blame Obama because he proposed it but understand that the GOP was playing a quite dangerous game which ultimately lowered our credit rating. So yes, Obama bought some time. This is almost like a robber holding a gun to someone and demanding money or they’ll shoot. The victim has no money so he says “here, take my watch”. Later, the robber argues the case with “well, I didn’t steal his watch, he gave it to me”. Understand that the GOP was holding the country hostage in order to bargain for things they could never acquire through normal legislation. That’s simply not the way our fore fathers intended for the legislative branch to operate.
You seem to be splitting hairs and going after the wrong person on your red state/blue state argument. Perhaps Smorgusbord should come back and identify these states doing well. I’ve given 2 examples which you’ve dismissed as circumstantial yet no one has really justified Smorgusbord’s claim. Your very links speaks well of CA which is predominantly blue.
Here’s a tip. Google “U.S. Chamber of Commerce Wisconsin 2013” and you’ll come up with over 3 million links. Or, do you honestly dispute the numbers I gave?
“I guess picking nits is your favorite thing to do. Ah well, so it goes with liberals”. Why do most every right wing blogger have some bigoted mindset that automatically renders anyone that doesn’t kowtow to every single conservative thought process as a “liberal”? I happen to be adamantly pro-life, I strongly support the 2nd amendment (well, actually all of them), and there are other conservative views that I support. Ah well, so it goes.
Ronald re-writes history!
Our DOWNGRADE, is due to Spending TOO MUCH in relation to our Gov’s “income”.. and the BANK failure caused by the DEMOCRAT CRA…. You want to pass BLAME?? Blame the LEFT… they are WAY MORE than 50% responsible. Sure the Repubs hold part of the blame, but a much SMALLER part. When are you Libs, going to act like MEN, and ADMIT, you CANNOT SPEND what we do… SANELY… and survive.
as to the Sequester… Obama thought he’d backed the Right into a corner, and they’d cave.. he was wrong, as usual. No one but himself to blame.. his (NON!) fiscal policy is killing us!!
I’m wondering Hankster, if you’re actually serious about who is rewriting history here. After reviewing your links to validate your claim, I found,, oh, uh, wait, you didn’t actually do that did you? Well, the S&P (the guys that downgraded our credit rating), clearly stated; We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues”. Now, looking at the debt limit debate, that was key.
And that “spending what we do not have” is more of a product of the Bush/109th Congress drunkard spending spree. They simply put everything on a credit card only to deny payment when the creditor came calling. That’s just not who I think America should be.
And again, the sequester is a product of the GOP, anyway you slice it. You can ignore my above arguments and keep repeating your debunked claim but that doesn’t change facts or reality, or history, or that you’ve come up short in validating your claim.
And another point is this. While you can point at Obama to blame for asking for the sequester, that request would have remained simply a request had the GOP not overwhelmingly voted in favor of it. So who is actually to blame here?
Ronald….. Tax and Spend… Got it.
Ronald…. Obama debt 3X now what Bush’s was….
Sequester was a Stupid Idea from day one… Obama again STALLING to push off “the inevitable”.. the day of reckoning.
Ronald, one day.. the Debt will COME DUE…. how to you plan to deal with THAT??
Your “tax the Rich” won’t cover it.
YOUR POOR.. are helping CAUSE IT…. What are you doing, to reign in THAT EVER INCREASING DEFICIT??
@Ronald J. Ward: #18
I am a mixed bag of stuff. I don’t belong to any party because I don’t see enough of what I want in a party. I don’t have to defend or condemn any of them. If I don’t like something about a party, I say so.
I don’t base my political opinions on radio talk shows. They opened my eyes to what was going on in congress. Since then, I have paid more attention to the different news media, and started following different conservative blogs. Even though I agree with most of what the TV or radio hosts say, I can’t listen to most of them very long, because they have to do all of the talking. Even when someone calls into a show, the host does about 75% of the talking, and if the caller says something the host doesn’t like, the host hangs up on them. I wanted to hear what the caller had to say. I don’t listen to or watch them much any more for that reason.
I used to follow some liberal blogs, but they are all the same. They want people to go along with whatever the democrats want us to. They don’t ever seen to have any complaints with any democrat. The conservative sites and shows will condemn a republican for doing something illegal or immoral. I remember the radio talk shows were constantly complaining about some of the things George Bush did, and some things he didn’t do, and I agreed with them.
I didn’t say that ALL states that had republican governors were doing great. The ones that are doing the best are run by republican governors.
The republican party used to be the one that had the highest values. As I have mentioned different times, we no longer have a two-party system. We have one party with two branches, and both branches feed off of the same roots. Both parties have had control of congress and the white house, and could have fixed Social Security, the national debt, the constant increasing of the size of government, illegals, etc., but neither one did. This is why I don’t belong to any party, and if I donate, it is to a candidate, not the party.
Dr John doesn’t like the way Obama is handling things? Head on over there and show us what YOU would do. More than 50% of recently discharged vets voted for Obama. According to Fox News Exit Polls 2012 the vet vote was split evenly between Obama and Romney, BUT Romney got the older vets WW II and Vietnam while Obama got the younger ones who knew more about Afghanistan and Iraq. Instead of sending others over to do what you want go yourself. And send postcards. Don’t want to fight them ? well head on over and help the Afghani women, they sure as hell DO need help.
Hankster. Bush went from a a budget SURPLUS to a 1.4 trillion deficit. Every Obama deficit since ahs been less than Bush’s.
Dr John. Don’t like the Taliban and the way they treat women? Well head on over and help those ladies out. But don’t be thinking about doing it with 100,000 US troops. And remember that in 2012 Obama and Romney split the vet vote, BUT Romney got the older vet vote, Obama got the votes of the younger vets that had been to Afghanistan and Iraq, according to Fox News Exit Polls 2012. Those ObamaBots you love to hate? That’s who they are.
@Hankster58: I don’t know where you get your numbers or how you do your math. The debt grew 188% under Reagan, 55% under the 4 years of George H.W. Bush, and 89% under George W. Bush, compared to 35% under Clinton and a so far 53% under Obama. President Obama inherited a $12 trillion debt with an economy literally in free fall.
So in reality, GWB and the GOP racked up huge bills, started 2 expensive wars, lowered taxes (mainly on the most wealthy), and then handed the mess over to Dems and Obama and at the same time, refused to work with them to pay the very debts they created. This is simply poor governance as I’ll explain.
Lowering taxes while starting 2 wars is simply historically unprecedented and mathematically illogical. Abe Lincoln pushed and raised taxes to pay for the Civil War as did McKinley for the Spanish-American War and Wilson for WWI as did other presidents to cover WWII, Korea, and Vietnam as did even Read-My-Lips-No-New-Taxes GWHB to keep the Gulf War from crashing the economy. This is not some new concept.
The “Your “tax the Rich” won’t cover it” argument is flawed on several fronts. The math isn’t about revenue generated from the rich through tax increases but rather about how the rich stimulate the economy when faced with taxes. Years ago I had a business that did quite well. I had a service truck and the payments were around $1300 a month on a 5 year lease to own. I was excited about having it paid off but then my tax lady told me that I could only keep around $400 a month as I’d no longer have that deduction. So, it was only logical to add another new truck . If I could have simply kept that money tax free, that’s precisely what I would have done. And I recall at the end of the year, going over the figures and going shopping for a new computer or new office furniture because I had the option of either investing it or paying it in taxes.
And this is the real “trickle down” economics that has worked for years. I buy a new truck (as do thousands all over the country) and those factory workers (and the plastic factory workers and aluminum and steel, nuts and bolts, glass, and on and on who provide parts and services) make money which is mostly returned to the economy. The worker can get new tires at Bob’s Garage so Bob can stop for pizza at Perry’s Pizza so Perry can get a haircut so the barber can go grocery shopping so the check out gal can get her hair done at Sally’s salon. And that same concept applies to buying computers or office furniture.
So today we have around 30 Fortune 500 companies paying negative taxes with most of the rest paying less than 1% to 2% with many Republicans pushing for even lower. So, how much lower than negative should we go? And who is going to pick up that tab?
A cold hard reality that many on the right don’t want to face is that their trickle down theory- that lower taxes on the wealthy will generate more money for them to allow them to provide more jobs and better pay- has proven to be an abject failure. The top are enjoying the lowest taxes in history while sitting on more liquid assets than ever in history. And they’ve been doing so for well over a decade. Yet, jobs are not returning at an unacceptable level and wages are declining. It simply did not work nor has it ever worked in history nor will it ever work.
Well, I wish I had an answer but that problem’s been hanging around since biblical times and I suspect it always will. Do I advocate handouts? No. Do I advocate people literally starving in the streets, being “sent home to die”, or cities of cardboard boxes under bridges? No. But somewhere in that argument has to be a happy medium of dealing with this age old and ongoing problem. As a child, I recall an elder defining a Democrat verse a Republican. He said a D wanted to take wages from the working man and give it to dead beats and the R wanted to take wages from the working man and give it to the rich man. Now I’m not attacking an ideology here but I can’t recall in my lifetime the Republican Party being so loyal to the wealthy in every way.
Getting back to the topic of this very thread “war on women”, I don’t think the GOP hate women, or minorities, or the poor, or middle class workers. But I think that today’s GOP puts the interest of corporate donors ahead of everything, in every aspect, regardless of anything. And I think they’ve kowtowed to their their corporate think tanks who’ve done an excellent job at utilizing the hatred of a black president to push their objective of Plutocracy and social Darwinism.
And if we were to see the GOP take a strong super majority, I suspect we’d see an end to minimum wages laws, child labor laws, overtime pay, FMLA, NLRB, all unions, and corporations would likely be free of any and all regulations. Sweat shops and slave wages would return, toxins would flow in rivers, and voting rights would be contingent on wealth.
And states with higher income tax are outperforming no tax states.
I might add, if the moderators will tolerate it, that my above comment reflects why I’m no Tea Party fan.
While the Tea Party was quite effective, let’s be realistic. The momentum grew as a result of being orchestrated by highly influential right wing extremist, bankrolled by corporate billionaires, and constant free supportive airtime from Fox News. Most every aspect of the TEA Party was either misleading or catered to corporate interests. Take the very acronym “Taxed Enough Already” while enjoying the lowest taxes in 60 years. Emulating the original Boston Tea Party was also rather fraudulent as that protest was a civil disobedience action against a private corporation, ignited by a corporate tax cut for East India Trading Company. The rebellion was due to a fear that corporate greed was harming the country. The original Boston protesters of 1773 believed that government was needed to protect citizens from becoming slaves to corporations.
The Tea Party can’t be taken serious as an operative political party because not only are their exact polices vague and incoherent, but from what we can make out, they don’t stand up to scrutiny. They push for lower corporate taxes while many Fortune 500 companies are paying negative taxes now while covering their ears as to how that will work. They promote such things as ending the EPA yet refuse to acknowledge that companies could easily dump their toxic chemicals in river. They seem to have an ultimate goal of Plutocracy and Social Darwinism.
It was simply an historically great time and they could sell their snake oil by utilizing a black president, particularly with media giant FOX News at their disposal. Fools fell in line behind the piper.
Where from? Lots of Sources.. But how about.. the UBER-LIBERAL CBS network?????
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/
NOW…. “Bush’s” debt was HIGH in 2008… But, from 2006 to 2008… a DEMOCRAT CONGRESS was doing the Spending.. was it not? look at Bush’s 2000 t0 2006 six figures….. PRE PELOSI/REID… and you get a more HONEST PICTURE……
You said “” President Obama inherited a $12 trillion debt with an economy literally in free fall.””
Lets look at that…. 2006 debt was 8 trillion.. note that’s BEFORE DEMS took over spending. 2 years later, Pelosi and Reid tacked on 4 trillion more.
as to FREE FALL??? thank the DEMOCRAT CRA.. for crashing the banks…. OOOPS!!!
@ John…. the “Clinton Surplus” has been DEBUNKED… Now, in honesty.. there in fact WAS a SURPLUS, for a VERY SHORT TIME, and it was minimal…. NOTHING like what the Libs like to CROW about… it was accounting tricks that “created it”… sorry. Also, the ACTUAL Clinton “Surplus”…. Compare it to what OBAMA has THROWN AWAY in BANKRUPTCY LOSSES pursuing his GREEN AGENDA…. and you libs do not scream about THAT amount.. so it must have been an INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT to you, no????
Well rather be TEA PARTY.. than the ANTI-Constitution anti- LAWFULNESS Two Faced Hypocritical Democrat/Socialist/Liberals party of today… but that’s just me.
“”The Tea Party can’t be taken serious as an operative political party because not only are their exact polices vague and incoherent, but from what we can make out, they don’t stand up to scrutiny. “”
So FOLLOWING the U.S. Constitution isn’t a SERIOUS IDEAL??? It does NOT stand up to scrutiny? The Constitution, is INCOHERENT?? WOW!!
“”They push for lower corporate taxes while many Fortune 500 companies are paying negative taxes now while covering their ears as to how that will work. ”
FLAT TAX.. or FAIR TAX would END THAT… DEMS RESIST BOTH IDEAS! You were SAYING????? Liar?
“They promote such things as ending the EPA yet refuse to acknowledge that companies could easily dump their toxic chemicals in river.”
ENDING the FEDERAL EPA as it now operates, does NOT mean no oversight you simpleton! My STATE… likes YOURS, has IT’S OWN Dept of Natural Resources…. allow THEM, to KEEP YOUR STATE CLEAN!! Fool….
“”They seem to have an ultimate goal of Plutocracy and Social Darwinism.””
Darwinism.. you need some, seems your brain, has NOT EVOLVED… since you seem unable to comprehend SO LITTLE, OTHERS SAY…. almost every point in your response above I took this from, is flawed, misstated, or a downright lie…. I’m done talking to you.. you’re head is filled with cement…. probably federally funded by ME! LOL!!
@Hankster58:
Real numbers…..or percentages?
Which will a liberal choose?
Whichever makes his point.
So, Islamaphobia attacks went up 100% during a supposedly bad year…..really means went from ONE attack of calling someone a name, to TWO attacks.
Compare that with the 30-out of 32 top domestic terror suspects in America being Muslim.
Kinda makes you go, hmmmm…
Real dollars or percents.
Can you imagine if Obama had managed to get enough votes to pass even one of his budgets?
What would the national debt be now?
Fortunately for all Americans, including liberal, not one vote went for any Obama budget.
Not even a Dem’s vote!
Ronald, your opinion about the modern Tea Party is your own. Don’t care. I don’t have much use for the Occupy movement myself. To each his own. However your misstatements of the Boston Tea Party history, and your take away that the protesters believed that “government was needed to protect citizens from becoming slaves to corporations”, is so far off the mark that I recommend you return for an American History class on the subject of the American Revolution, and the key events leading up to that event.
Pertinent facts:
1: The protest was not rebellion against the East India Trading Company, but the Townshend Act enacted by British Parliament.. Ergo, it was a protest against the British tax policies. Key to their anger was the fact they had no say in such tax policies since they had no voting rights for members of Parliament. Hence the “No Taxation Without Representation” slogan.
2: The “corporate tax cut” you seem to find disdainful was actually a rebate on their 25% ad valorem import tax into England, making them uncompetitive with the Dutch. In other words, what Parliament did for their Royal Charter East India Trading company was to over level the field with a tax incentive… much as you suggest was the reason for you to grow your own company with your truck story. East India was in financial trouble, and requested aid from the British government.
However the total rebate also resulted in a virtual monopoly in American tea trade. But then the East India Trading Company, as a Royal Charter, was all about English monopolies in trade.
3: While the British government had no official direct control, or shares, in East India Trading Co, it was a Royal Charter organization with a state-backed indemnity, and a powerful lobby influence because shares were owned by wealthy British merchants. The quiet power and authority that Parliament attempted to exercise over the East India Trading Company was evidenced by their Regulating Act of 1773, which forced the company into administrative and economic reforms while also making it abundantly clear that the throne held ultimate power.
So the East India Trading Company was not so “private”, but a quasi government arm, much like Fannie/Freddie as GSEs.
4: The protestors didn’t look to “government” to protect them from the evil corporation, East India, because it was “government”…. specifically the British government… they were protesting. As a matter of fact, the MA Governor refused to return the tea, per the protesters request. After the Boston Tea Party, Parliament implemented military rule in MA, passed the Coercive Act, blockaded the port, granted British officials immunity to prosecution, and forced Colonialists to quarter them.
From the passage of the Townshend Act to the Colonial boycotts of British products, the seizure and blockage of MA, this was all protests against the *government* authority – *not* a corporation. Thus Continental Congress met the following year in order to discuss how to break the Colonies away from British rule and establish what would become the US. That plan was not to “protect” them from the East India Trading Company, but to create their own elected representatives that would create policies… away from British control.
So to correct your odd review of history, the original Tea Party was a rebellious act against the ruling authority of that time – the British – and the key to the beginning of the American Revolution. The Colonialists were not looking to the British government for protection from East India Trading.
Just out of curiosity, who the heck taught you that bizarre revisionist history?
@Ronald J. Ward:
Let me see if I understand you correctly, Ronald, because I sure wouldn’t want to mistake what any liberal is saying:
you leased a truck for almost $80,000 total lease cost, right? Now, I assume you did that because the entire cost of the lease was a deductible item. You gave the lease company an inflated rate of interest so that you could do that, instead of purchasing the truck outright, and depreciating it over a five year period, which would have saved you all lease fees. Then you were upset because once the lease costs were paid, you could no longer deduct that $1,300/mo?
Now, I don’t fully understand what you mean by “keeping only $400 a month” as even though you had already taken the deduction for the purchase cost of the truck, you could then continue to deduct your truck insurance, repairs on the truck, gasoline costs (separating any personal use from that) or taken the standard IRS mileage deduction which allows for insurance, gas, and repairs.
And then you purchased a new truck to save the estimated 25% you would have had to pay on an additional $1,300 a month that was now remaining in your bank account and not having to go to the lease company? You would rather spend $1,300/month than give the IRS $325.00? And then you went shopping for a new computer, and new office furniture, that you could have managed without, spending that money simply to avoid paying the taxes on the income side? No wonder you went out of business.
And how is what you did any different than any company who wants to take advantage of every tax deduction possible? You rail on large corporations for doing exactly what you did.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Ironically, Ronald, the two companies that have been in the news lately as having not paid any income tax into the federal coffers has been GE and Facebook (I think, I could be wrong about Facebook but I am not about GE), both large supporters of the Democrats.
@MataHarley: NAILED IT! ( Tipping hat ! )
@Nan G: I agree. I ADMIT I do not know it all, or have ever answer, or may not be as articulate in my words as others here….but, I CAN state I’m 100% sure, if COMMON SENSE was used, and the Constitution followed AS INTENDED, and Not as “some MADE UP INTERPRETATION” sees it…America would be thriving,
@retire05: TOUCHE’ and GOOD CATCH!! A Liberals Hypocrisy exposed once again! LOL !
@retire05: “”Ironically, Ronald, the two companies that have been in the news lately as having not paid any income tax into the federal coffers has been GE and Facebook (I think, I could be wrong about Facebook but I am not about GE), both large supporters of the Democrats. ”
DOUBLE TOUCHE’!! and Facebook is 100% in the DEM CORNER!!
@Hankster58: Here is the link that debunks the surplus myth. The debt increased every single year of the “surplus”. No one has yet to explain how that could happen without running deficits. More historical revisionism. The closest the debt came to decreasing, thereby showing a true surplus, was 1999-2000 meaning deficits were increasing before Bush took office since the 2001 budget would have been signed by Clinton unless of course Congress did what Reid and Pelosi did and didn’t pass a budget during Clinton’s last year in office. I can’t remember if that was the case.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
@MataHarley: Being a history buff, it’s always refreshing to see real history cited. A couple of links to go along with your history lesson.
http://www.boston-tea-party.org/timeline.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Boston_Tea_Party.aspx
MataHarley, hat tip for a well constructed rebuttal. Perhaps I’ll revisit the history books and respond back before this thread rolls off the page.
Hankster, blaming Dems for the economic downturn because they took over both chambers in 2006 is intellectually lazy. I challenge you to produce 1 just 1 legislation that they pushed and was passed from 2006 to 2008(actually 07-09) to justify that claim. And should you find that (which you won’t), please explain why GWB signed it.
Now let me explain why the EPA needs to be federally regulated and can’t be handed over for states to pick and choose. Obviously, some states would be stricter than others. So let’s say Ohio for example, chooses to be the most lenient or even chooses not to implement laws at all. Since I’ve mentioned toxic chemicals in rivers, what’s dumped in Cincinnati OH will flow to Louisville KY and then to Evansville IN and the to Saint Louis MO and on to other states. Sometimes, like it or not, the feds are needed to protect the well being of the country. And if I’m wrong, please explain how this could work.
Retire05, it always amuses me when someone responds with “let me see if I understand you correctly” and then proceeds to invent their own facts. You’re in the ballpark as the truck was close to $100K with a down payment. You’re incorrect about finance or leasing fees as both were competitive and the depreciation would have been about equivalent to the lease deductions. Truck insurance, repairs on the truck, gasoline costs is a non sequiter as those cost are already there and will remain there regardless of what’s owed or not owed on the truck. The end result would be an additional $15.6K income (based on previous years earnings) which would have put me in a higher bracket and there may have been other revenue issues and/or options that I didn’t disclose to you (which still doesn’t change the point I was making). You invent a conclusion “no wonder you went out of business” when the reality is that is was sold at a very nice profit and my time was consumed in other ventures. I challenge you to show me where I “rail on large corporations for doing exactly what you did”. But again, your argument seems to be more like trying to pick the white out of chicken shit as it has nothing to do with the point.
I gave you a link with around 30 Fortune 500 companies paying negative taxes and many paying way under 1 or 2%. You found 2 that are cozy with Democrats. Is that like your above tax rebuttal- more of an attempt to dodge the argument rather than confront it?
And this swings us back to Hankster. The Fair Tax/Flat Tax does has a nice warm and fuzzy feeling name to it but that’s about it. A “consumption tax” is more appropriate. Most every credible number cruncher that I’ve read predicts a 30% tax to achieve the needed revenue. And considering the middle class (or what’s left of them) are the real consumers, they will be the ones picking up that tab. And if you recall the presidential primaries, Newt, Cain, and Perry all laid out their “Fair Tax” plans. And when they were looked at and analyzed, they all reveled that the top 2% would be paying less than 2%. So understand that I’m not sold on your argument.
Ronald, do you know what the “CRA” WAS??? Fannie and Freddie were in CRISIS, for some time.. Barney Frank, was HEAD of the OVERSIGHT of both…. list.. all THE TIMES he WARNED US, of the impending CRASH!!!
Here, let me do it FOR YOU…. ZERO! NADA! NONE!!
What do you call it, when an elected Official, sits BY, and ALLOWS the Economy, to CRASH???
as to the Tax.. FINE, a SALES TAX then. Guess you’re too SMART.. to know the “FAIR TAX”.. IS a CONSUMPTION TAX PLAN!! DOH!!!
EPA?? good grief… States handle FEDERAL MANDATES every day.. on their own.. so WHAT is your problem?? if it doesn’t have NANNY STATE FED ENFORCED stamped on it, you’re SKEERED and Wet yourself???
OH, and as to your reply to Retire05…. I think you TOTALLY MISSED his point, that YOU, played the SAME TAX/NUMBERS GAMES.. you BITCH bigger CORPS do!! Pure Hypocrisy… have a nice day.. Done here… The WISE seem to have it.. you? Lost cause…
@another vet, that timeline link is especially detailed, as it shows the lead up to the Colonialists being fed up with the British control and taxes. Thanks.
Hankster, you dodged the fact that the sales tax throws 30% on the middle class and less than 2% on the upper class.
You dodged your claim that Dem’s 2006 takeover led to the economic meltdown.
You dodged the reality that toxins travel state to state in rivers. And let me throw in the fact that they’re airborne as well and that they seep through the soil.
And while we’re on to dodged arguments, no one seems to want to tackle the GOP’s historically unprecedented decision to lower taxes while starting 2 wars. They don’t want to address the fact that while the tax cuts have achieved the desire to make corporations more profitable, those businesses have not provided those promised jobs-after more than a decade.
And Hankster, that’s the second time you’ve said you’re done with me. Based on the quality of you’re rebuttals and your evasiveness in the responses, I’m hoping you’ll hold true to your word this time.
Hankster, you dodged the fact that the sales tax throws 30% on the middle class and less than 2% on the upper class.
>> BS…. Taxes on a Mercedes are LESS than on a CHEVY??? Taxes on a large ESTATE, are LESS, than on a regular 3 BR house?? Taxes on the food we buy, is HIGHER then what TRUMP would buy? Taxes on my Jeans, are HIGHER then on a Joseph Abboud Suit? PLEASE…. Rich ALWAYS pay/spend more… and, if they buy CHEAP, what business is it of YOURS?? It’s their FREE RIGHT.. to spend THEIR income as they see fit! You got a CLASS ENVY problem???
You dodged your claim that Dem’s 2006 takeover led to the economic meltdown.
>> Simply note the EXPLOSIVE spending level, from 2006 on… ( see google, that’s G O O G L E, for charts, graphs, maps, etc that prove my points) and the fact, they sit back, and LET the banks implode… I ASKED YOU, to LIST how many times, DEMOCRATS warned us it was coming…. the party in MAJORITY.. Controlls the Committees, thus KNOWS everything going on, in their daily briefings. You know, they type of briefings, Obama’s CHOOSES TO SKIP?? yes, THOSE….. and yet, they said zip, and LET IT BLOW….. FACT pal… OH, Google how many times BUSH, WARNED the libs, this was a possibility! Did they ACT? Nope…. so WHO is to blame?
You dodged the reality that toxins travel state to state in rivers. And let me throw in the fact that they’re airborne as well and that they seep through the soil.
>> I REPLIED, guess you cannot comprehend, that FED REGS, can be monitored by STATE agencies.. CLOSER to HOME, and FAR CHEAPER… are you telling us, a guy has to have a suit on, that says “I’M A FED” to be able to run a test analysis?? Gee, a DNR guy in Missouri, tests and sees Iowa water is coming in crappy, he calls the IOWA guys, and they deal with it. and REPORT back, and if they do not within a pre defined amount of days, the FED marshals can pay a visit…. have you EVER tried to think “outside the FED BOX”, even for once? Some have a CAN DO attitude.. You have a “I can’t do SHITE” on my (our) own one…… pathetic.
And while we’re on to dodged arguments, no one seems to want to tackle the GOP’s historically unprecedented decision to lower taxes while starting 2 wars. They don’t want to address the fact that while the tax cuts have achieved the desire to make corporations more profitable, those businesses have not provided those promised jobs-after more than a decade.
>>JFK did the SAME THING….. it worked….. REAGAN did the SAME THING… it worked….. Unfortunate Bush…. the Democrats could not keep the check book in their pockets. GOOGLE TIME again… part of the CUT DEAL, was the Congress, was to CUT SPENDING… this time, BOTH REPUBS, and then LIBS FAILED to keep their word. in 2006 on… the Libs not only failed to trim… they greatly EXPANDED SPENDING LEVELS….another FACT… GOOGLE IT… So, it didn’t work near as well…. TAX LAWS.. have made corporations “profitable”.
So tell us… RONALD… when the DEMOCRATS… had BOTH HOUSES… AND the WHITE HOUSE …. why did THEY NOT FIX THESE “awful, unfair evil” Republican sins?? HUH??? NO ANSWER??? DUH!!!
They had over TWO YEARS to do something.. and…. they sat on their butts and did NOTHING!! So, STUFF IT… YOUR GUYS had plenty of time, and left things JUST as WE had em…. so THEY must have thought it as A-OK….. right? LOL!!
OH, as to WARS?? Um.. Obama said he’d have us out of the mid east just as soon as…….it was a campaign pledge!! but, WAIT! 5 years later.. we’re STILL THERE… PLUS we did LIBYA… and we’re prepping to DO SYRIA… and we UPPED AFGHANISTAN?!?!?! and all this, while things NOW, are FAR WORSE, Fiscally, debt and budget wise…..than when BUSH did them??? My, you’re just a mite HYPOCRITICAL aren’t you!
And Hankster, that’s the second time you’ve said you’re done with me.
>>Then why do you keep responding and asking me to ANSWER MORE QUESTIONS??? LOL!!! But, I’ll leave you be from now on. It’s quite obvious, you have a “ONLY FEDS can FEED ME, and WIPE MY $#$” Complex! You cannot even CONSIDER… in your meager, one track mind, how it’s possible, for LOCAL CONTROL, to do a BETTER, and more COST EFFECTIVE, as well as be easier to keep an EYE ON…and to be more RESPONSIVE to the LOCALS kind of job. You NEED “big brother FED” to mollycoddle you…. Don’t ya. Guess you have ZERO CONCEPT… of what the 10th amendment means. Try getting some schooling…. and try to see a shrink, so you can deal with your need for a nanny issues….
Based on the quality of you’re rebuttals and your evasiveness in the responses,
>> I think I touched on most of this, in post 33 & 45…. Sorry, i did not realize, I needed to draw pictures, show photos and connect dots with a crayon for you etc, thought you could get the gist on your own….. did you get it THIS TIME?? If not. someone else will have to draw the pictures for you….
I’m hoping you’ll hold true to your word this time.
>>> And now, I AM done. Feel free to FLAME me now…. I’ll sit back and LAUGH at cha.. like I have been!! Have a NICE day! I will. Bye Bye….
Nu voel je vrij om uw hoofd terug omhoog uw ezel spullen en stik je dom jackkont
@Ronald J. Ward: #30
Which billionaires bankrolled the Tea Party? Each Tea Party is a separate entity, started by someone who was tired of the increasing taxes and government regulations. Each one has to raise their own money, and pay their own bills, unlike the liberals who have to resort to busing the homeless and anyone else who will ride the buses and get free meals. Each Tea Party member pays our own expenses.
I’m sure that, even though Rupert Murdoch is a liberal, he could see that taxes and government regulations were increasing. The other news media are owned by corporations who are known to be liberal, and have to write the news the way corporate tells them, or they loose their job. Some of them have lost their job for not reporting the way they were supposed to. Some of those have been hired by Fox News.
If you really believe that, then the propaganda media has done their job in brainwashing you, and you will believe your king no matter what. Your statement tells me that you are completely brainwashed into liberalism, or you are just trying to sway people away from conservatism by the same tactics the propaganda media uses: Make up stuff, and don’t worry about facts. Please tell your handler that to sway most conservatives, you need facts, not made up stuff that can be checked out.
Did you go to an American school? My schools taught me that the original Boston Tea Party came about because King George III added another tax on tea, and the colonists thought that they were TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY. Even the propaganda media tells that story. It is just about the only story about the Tea Party they got right.
If you don’t know what our exact policies are, you haven’t gone to their web site to find out, and you have never been to a Tea Party rally.
http://teapartyexpress.org/index.html
Which of our policies are not exact enough for you. I will be glad to explain them, if I can.
We don’t stand up to the propaganda media’s scrutiny. I was at the first Tea Party rally, and the highest number the propaganda media said was there was 300,000 of us. Eventually, the ones who specialize in estimating crowd size said there were between 1-2,000,000,000 of us there, but you never heard the propaganda media report that. Can you name one positive thing the propaganda media has said about us?
The corporations who are not paying any federal taxes, and even getting a tax refund, are the ones donating heavily to both parties, so that no matter which side wins, they get what they want, and they want the tax and regulatory laws to be so complicated, and cost so much, that small businesses have a hard time starting up, and an even harder time staying in business because of all of the new regulations that are created each year. The fewer businesses that start up, the more customers the large corporations can keep. They can afford the tax accountants and tax lawyers to take care of the paperwork they created.
This is new to me. Give me a link to that information. We want to reduce the way the EPA is used to get what politicians want. We do want to get rid of the IRS and the Department of Education.
The Tea Party has been saying that for years.
@Hankster58: #31
Clinton reduced spending by:
(1) Not giving military personnel pay raises. One time when talking with my son, he said he hadn’t gotten a pay raise in three years.
(2) Reducing the size of the military. When Bush took over, the military was the lowest it had been in many years, and he had to build it back up.
(3) Reducing funding for the intelligence gathering agencies. We had to bring home a lot of agents we had around the world. Two of them were in Iraq. They were brought home. We then had to rely on other countries for intelligence.