or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "6 Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"6 Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History" - Page 3

post #81 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

I completely agree with all of that. But... If those policies were implemented, then i could also get behind TEMPORARY high tax rates to accelerate the elimination of our national debt.

Imagine the good that could be done with all that money that is currently being used to pay interest on the national debt. (Or just let the citizenry keep it and determine for themselves how to "spread the wealth".) ... Either way that's a LOT of money that is doing NOTHING to help people or the economy in the current situation.

Well as you note, it sounds like a good idea but this has been tried dozens of times and each time the spending rises to accommodate the new monies.

I think the only way it could be done again is to have triggers and targets and new votes after each is met. So suppose the economy is growing and a 2% increase in X is declared that it will lower the debt at Y rate (I wouldn't support it being used to lower just the yearly deficit.) It is implemented and expires biannually. If the target rate of reduction is being met as determined on an annual basis then it can be renewed for another two year term, if not then it should require an annual vote of something of that nature.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #82 of 683
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

I completely agree with all of that. But... If those policies were implemented, then i could also get behind TEMPORARY high tax rates to accelerate the elimination of our national debt.

Imagine the good that could be done with all that money that is currently being used to pay interest on the national debt. (Or just let the citizenry keep it and determine for themselves how to "spread the wealth".) ... Either way that's a LOT of money that is doing NOTHING to help people or the economy in the current situation.

I understand, but you can't get around the fact that higher taxes will depress economic activity. Screw temporary high taxes. Cut spending.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #83 of 683
Speaking of taxes, turns out the Obama administratino has "changed their tune" about health care mandates and what the costs of them happen to really be called.

Sorry about the source. Steve Jobs has let us know that they just make up bullshit, but sometimes you've still got to source them.

Quote:
When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the governments power to lay and collect taxes.

And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.

Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain minimum essential coverage starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums.

In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is a valid exercise of Congresss power to impose taxes.

Congress can use its taxing power even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.

While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.

For us to say that youve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase, the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program This Week.

When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, I absolutely reject that notion.

Perhaps we should all do some rejecting of certain people and their notions next November.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #84 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'll try to explain this to you as slowly as I can. You see, the 10% the tax bracket only applies to families making more than $250k per year so...ummm...ohh...wait...well, hang on a second.

No wait I've got it...this isn't really a tax increase it's simply eliminating a tax decrease to this isn't really raising taxes it's just...mmm...ohh...wait...well, hang on a second.

Yeah, sorry. I'm baffled. The "tax cuts for the 'rich'" are going to expire and, well, that will make things better. Or something.

The only thing I can come up with is that, to a Democrat, 'the rich' are anyone who makes any money.

Thank goodness I'm gainfully unemployed. Those of us who are small business owners can thank Washington for pushing us over the edge and destroying the economy, the dollar and any chance of a political future for them and their ilk.

And if anyone says "it's George Bush's fault", of course I agree, but it's also the current administration's fault and it will be the next administration's fault as well.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #85 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

I find myself somewhat split between Hands and SDW...and basically believng that the tax cuts are going through.

I realize that many conservatives are certain that Obama is going to shit-can his promises (as did Clinton). However, Clinton's priorites were different than is Obama's.

FIRST AND FOREMOST OBAMA DOES NOT REALLY CARE ABOUT THE LOOMING DEFICIT AS A FIRST PRIORITY, HE CARE's ABOUT HEALTHCARE/CAP AND TRADE/ETC. AND OTHER NEW COSTLY PROGRAMS AND HIS (AND HIS DEMOCRATIC SUPPORTERS) RE-ELECTION.

What my fellow conservatives and libertarians don't get is that the economic and fiscal health of the Republic is a much lower priority - regardless of what philosophy of taxation is thought to be best. Obama is using an old tactic to get his way (as I learned in my own public service) get as many debt programs passed and the politicians will HAVE to finance them later.

To a person who cared, his strategy would seem reckless. But actually is shrewd. If he only extends the middle and lowest class tax cuts, then he can keep a promise AND retain more Democrats in Congress. THEN they can pass lots of new programs after they return in 2011.

AND AFTER the agenda of massive new debt and entitlements is done, THEN Obama and the Democrats can roll back the extension and pass new rounds of tax increases...OR let the GOP deal with the crisis.

HERE IS MY PREDICTION: THE EXTENSION OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS, FOR MIDDLE INCOMISH AND LOWER WILL BE PASSED. ANY FAMILY WITH TWO WAGE EARNERS EARNING AN AVERAGE OF 125K EACH WILL FACE INCREASED TAXES IN EARNINGS AND DIVIDENDS
, AS WILL THOSE PAYING THE HEALTH REFORM TAX ON INVESTMENT INCOME.

IN 2011 MORE COSTLY PROGRAMS WILL BE PASSED (EG CAP AND TRADE) AND THEN THE GOVERNMENT WILL CRY 'CRISIS' AND OBAMA WILL ONLY THEN PUSH TO BALANCE THE BUDGET THROUGH MASSIVE NEW TAXES ON EVERY LEVEL (EXCEPT THE POOR AND LOWEST WORKING CLASS WHO WILL LIKELY GET MORE TAX REFUNDS).

Conservatives need to give this guy credit: he is the best grifter since FDR and LBJ.

You forgot the part where angry citizens descend on Washington with torches and pitchforks from all over the country... There are numerous schools of thought when it comes to the direction this country is heading. Some say we're tumbling toward pure "socialism", some believe the president is doing the right thing (despite his own party's support crumbling), but all of the talk and actions seem to be less about what's good for the country and more what's good for the people in Washington and their unholy alliance with unions, certain big businesses, and an expansion of government that's as bad as any cancer. Will our economy 'double-dip'? Will our currency collapse? Will our debt to China guarantee political subservience for the next 100 years? It's anyone's guess, but on the face of it, the numbers seem to indicate we're going to be in for a very rough time for the next decade or two.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #86 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'm sure this ( tax reform because that's what we're talking about except for the example of cooperation between parties ) would go really smooth if there was just one party running the show ( like the Republicans ). Uh huh.

Oh, heck no. Republicans and Democrats are both harming the country, it's just that with Democrats controlling everything right now, they are harming the country more.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #87 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Oh, heck no. Republicans and Democrats are both harming the country, it's just that with Democrats controlling everything right now, they are harming the country more.

Yes and I'm sure you'd like a 3rd party solution which wouldn't really be any different ( not that it could even happen ). As far as harming the country more yesterday on Meet The Press " two republican and Democrat senatorsa were on the show discussing the upcoming election. When the mmoderator asked the Republicans what they would do different they said a lot of things about what they didn't like about Obama but really didn't have an answer.

When asked if they would go back to the policies of George Bush ( as the Democrats will be campaigning on that point ) the reply was first " No " but things didn't do that bad under Bush but then he even used the phrase " We've got to get back to ...." . Which is almost the same thing as saying we've got nothing new and yes we've got to get back to those same policies which got us into this mess in the first place.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #88 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes and I'm sure you'd like a 3rd party solution which wouldn't really be any different ( not that it could even happen ). As far as harming the country more yesterday on Meet The Press " two republican and Democrat senatorsa were on the show discussing the upcoming election. When the mmoderator asked the Republicans what they would do different they said a lot of things about what they didn't like about Obama but really didn't have an answer.

When asked if they would go back to the policies of George Bush ( as the Democrats will be campaigning on that point ) the reply was first " No " but things didn't do that bad under Bush but then he even used the phrase " We've got to get back to ...." . Which is almost the same thing as saying we've got nothing new and yes we've got to get back to those same policies which got us into this mess in the first place.

Just because they (largely) have nothing new to offer, don't think they won't try!

One plus... Libertarians and so-called Tea Party activists are the only new blood the GOP's seen in decades, so like the president says, "change" is coming to America, like it or not.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #89 of 683
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes and I'm sure you'd like a 3rd party solution which wouldn't really be any different ( not that it could even happen ). As far as harming the country more yesterday on Meet The Press " two republican and Democrat senatorsa were on the show discussing the upcoming election. When the mmoderator asked the Republicans what they would do different they said a lot of things about what they didn't like about Obama but really didn't have an answer.

When asked if they would go back to the policies of George Bush ( as the Democrats will be campaigning on that point ) the reply was first " No " but things didn't do that bad under Bush but then he even used the phrase " We've got to get back to ...." . Which is almost the same thing as saying we've got nothing new and yes we've got to get back to those same policies which got us into this mess in the first place.

Thanks for that informed, well-written interpretation of something you saw on Meet the Press. Case closed.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #90 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

When the moderator asked the Republicans what they would do different they said a lot of things about what they didn't like about Obama but really didn't have an answer.

It is not hard to get a sense of "what the Republicans would do" in terms of the economy; take a look at all the candidates running for 2010 election at the state level... Citing some vague Meet The Press account does not do justice to their policy planks - at the state level - that significantly vary from Democrats. Since Republicans are generally ahead of Democrats in many of the state level campaigns, and offer significantly different economic advice, their answer seems to be the accepted one by Americans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

When asked if they would go back to the policies of George Bush ( as the Democrats will be campaigning on that point ) the reply was first " No " but things didn't do that bad under Bush but then he even used the phrase " We've got to get back to ...." . Which is almost the same thing as saying we've got nothing new and yes we've got to get back to those same policies which got us into this mess in the first place.

Obama & Co. have relied on the economic advice of a series of individuals that are both inept in economics and demonstrably failures based on our current economy! These individuals - Christine Romer, Timothy Geithner, and Peter Orszag - were not fit to run a lemonade stand yet Obama & Co. appointed them to run our economy. Take a look at what it yielded. Until Democrats manage a single success in balancing a budget, or creating jobs, they have no right to criticize Republicans on the economy... Analyze any segment of the economy that Obama has addressed with these individuals and it has become worse - not better - since Obama's inauguration. Thus, how do Democrats get off criticizing the GOP? The big Democrat plan was a $1 trillion dollar stimulus... what did it yield? Is 10% unemployment something for Democrats to brag about?
post #91 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

It is not hard to get a sense of "what the Republicans would do" in terms of the economy; take a look at all the candidates running for 2010 election at the state level... Citing some vague Meet The Press account does not do justice to their policy planks - at the state level - that significantly vary from Democrats. Since Republicans are generally ahead of Democrats in many of the state level campaigns, and offer significantly different economic advice, their answer seems to be the accepted one by Americans.



Obama & Co. have relied on the economic advice of a series of individuals that are both inept in economics and demonstrably failures based on our current economy! These individuals - Christine Romer, Timothy Geithner, and Peter Orszag - were not fit to run a lemonade stand yet Obama & Co. appointed them to run our economy. Take a look at what it yielded. Until Democrats manage a single success in balancing a budget, or creating jobs, they have no right to criticize Republicans on the economy... Analyze any segment of the economy that Obama has addressed with these individuals and it has become worse - not better - since Obama's inauguration. Thus, how do Democrats get off criticizing the GOP? The big Democrat plan was a $1 trillion dollar stimulus... what did it yield? Is 10% unemployment something for Democrats to brag about?

So tell me what have you seen or heard about what they ( the Republicans ) would do differently than the Bush administration. This can't be your take but something they actually said ( with corresponding link please ).
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #92 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Thanks for that informed, well-written interpretation of something you saw on Meet the Press. Case closed.

In other words you don't like to hear things like this.

Sorry but it really happened. Here's a sample :

Quote:
MR. GREGORY: Right. But, Congressman Van Hollen, here's the reality. In Newsweek, Howard Fineman in his column reports it out in terms of what Democrats are facing as a result of the president's policies. We'll put it on the screen. "Obama won over [male independent] voters in 2008, and they may be all that stands between Democrats and catastrophe this fall. ... The Democrats' support among that group has fallen to as low as 35 percent in some polls. And the reasons are clear. They do not believe that Obama's actions have produced results - and for these practical voters, nothing else matters. The $787 billion stimulus bill is widely regarded as an expensive, unfocused dud. ... Healthcare reform remains, for most voters, a 2,000-page, impenetrable, and largely irrelevant mystery. The BP oil spill has hurt Obama's ability to fend off GOP charges that he's ineffective as a leader. Democrats are hoping to win back this group with one strategy: attacking the Republicans, individually and as a group. ... The plan is not to blame George W. Bush ... but to warn that a return to the GOP brand ... would be a disaster." And we're hearing all this this morning.

REP. VAN HOLLEN: Well, what you're, what you're hearing is--as, as Bob said, look, we know that we have a long way to go on the economy. People are still hurting, that's absolutely clear. But we also know what the American people know, which is the day George Bush lost--left office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. And during the full eight years of the Bush administration we lost private sector jobs. We are now beginning to climb out. And what we are saying is yes, let's focus on the policies, because why in the world would we want to go back to the same economic agenda that created that mess, that, that lost jobs for eight years? And I think the challenge that our colleagues have here, Pete and John, is to say to the American people, how do you expect to do the same thing and get a different result? I mean, that, that's Einstein's definition of insanity, right?

MR. GREGORY: But, Congressman, is that fair? Is that what, is that what Republicans stand for today? Is it the party of George Bush? Is it the economic approach of George Bush?

REP. SESSIONS: First of all, it's not truthful. People had jobs when Republicans were, not only in charge, but George Bush was there. We doubled the size of the economy over 12 years. We did things that would empower the free enterprise system. Here's what the facts of the case are. There will be candidates who will be on the ballot back home facing the Democrats who have voted in the 90 percent realm with Nancy Pelosi to raise taxes and bigger government, and a healthcare plan which we cannot sustain and will quite likely bankrupt not only states, but business also. These candidates from top to bottom, whether we talk about Rick Berg and Kristi Noem, all the way down to David Rivera in Florida, are saying we must live within our own means, we cannot spend what we don't have, and we must be able to sustain what we're doing. That's why we're going to win.

MR. GREGORY: Well, so what is the message your candidates are going to send about President Obama? What has he done with government, to government?

Advertisement | ad info
REP. SESSIONS: Well, well, first of all, they're going to run against the, the person who's on the ballot with them. And that person has voted for more spending and big taxes and more of an agenda that's about empowering Washington, D.C., not back home. They are going to say we should read the bills before we vote on them, we should make sure we live within our means, and, perhaps most of all, get behind an agenda where the American people are, which began for us one year ago in August when Republicans would attend town hall meetings and hear about health care.

REP. VAN HOLLEN: Look,

REP. SESSIONS: Democrats fled.

REP. VAN HOLLEN: But, but, but, David, I mean, you heard the very beginning of the answer to your question, a defense of the George Bush economy and the George Bush years. And I don't think the American people see it that way, because they know we had a meltdown in the financial sector, they know we lost jobs. And so when they hear the Republican leader John Boehner say he wants to repeal the Wall Street reform bill, which is an effort to make sure that the American people and the whole economy are not again held hostage by bad debts on Wall Street, they recognize that they do, in fact, want to go back to those policies. They have, they have Joe Barton, the head of their energy committee--who, who would be the head of the energy committee, apologizing to BP. It's a, it's a big oil agenda. They've got, they've got the, the folks who oppose the legislation to try and remove the tax loopholes that help export U.S. jobs overseas. We want to shut those loopholes. They, they hear all this and they see that what they're going to get if you had, you know, Republicans in charge, is that economic agenda. And they, they can't answer that basic question: What, what are you going to get that's different?

MR. GREGORY: Well, Senator... what, what distinguish the Republican Party of today from the Republican Party under President Bush's rule with regard to spending, which is where it got out of control under Republican rule, that now conservatives are so upset about.

SEN. CORNYN: Well, let's look at a few facts. I, I, thank you for the opportunity because I wanted to respond to what Chris said. You know, in the last year that President Bush was in office, 2008, the deficit was 3.2 percent of the gross domestic product. Today it's 10 percent. Just--we just hit the $13 trillion cap on national debt, $2.3 trillion...

MR. GREGORY: Well, let me just stop you, Senator. Wait a minute.

SEN. CORNYN: ...since Obama...

MR. GREGORY: Where did some of that debt come from? The president of the United States was George Bush when they passed a, a huge TARP, which was to bail out the banks. I mean, that's what ran up a lot of debt, as well. You're saying that a Republican...

SEN. CORNYN: Well, you're ignoring...

MR. GREGORY: ...was, was somehow different.

Advertisement | ad infoSEN. CORNYN: You're ignoring the stimulus that was--failed according to the own, the president's own standards. He said it was supposed to keep unemployment to 8 percent. A $2.6 trillion healthcare bill, which I agree with, with Pete, will bankrupt not only the private sector but the states and the federal government creating a new entitlement program. My point is that, you know, unemployment was roughly 6.9 percent when President Obama was elected. Now it's 9.5 percent. The deficit was 3.2 percent the last year President Bush was in office. Now it's 10 percent. The debt was $2.3 trillion lower when--in 2008 than it is now because of runaway spending and debt.

MR. GREGORY: So my question is still...

SEN. CORNYN: Those are some of the policies people reacting to.

MR. GREGORY: ...what is the distinction of the Republican Party of today vs. the, the Bush record that you're defending?

SEN. CORNYN: Well, I think what people are looking for, David, are checks and balances. They've had single party government, and it's scaring the living daylights out of them. It's keeping job creators on the sidelines rather than investing and creating jobs. That's why the private sector isn't creating jobs.

MR. GREGORY: Well, can't you understand people will see that as a strategy of saying no rather than saying yes to something?

SEN. CORNYN: Well, my constituents in Texas, I have to tell you, to all the bad ideas that they hear coming out of Washington these days, no is a good start. And then they want us to replace it with commonsense policies that actually make sense. But the problem is, the, the--our friends on the Democratic side, including the president, have passed one unpopular policy measure after another and told the American people, "We don't care what you think, we're--we know what's, better than you do, what's good for you." And I think the birds are coming home to roost.

SEN. MENENDEZ: Well, David, if the check and balance is to go back to exactly the same policies that gave us a 72 percent increase in the national debt to nearly $9.8 trillion. If the check and check and balance is to take Bill Clinton's $230 billion surplus and make it a $1.5 trillion deficit, if the check and balance is the malaise of the Bush years in which incomes for families remained stagnant and jobs were lost, if the check and balance is to be with big oil, big insurance, and Wall Street against the average individual, then that's where the Republican Party is at.

MR. GREGORY: Let me, let me have--before we take a break and we'll come back and we'll talk about some particular issues where the two sides will debate, I want to ask one last question about the president's standing and, and to what extent it has an impact. Politico's piece on Thursday was very interesting, the headline "Why Obama loses even by winning." And this is what they reported. "Thursday's passage of financial reform just a couple of months after the passage of a comprehensive healthcare overhaul should decisively end the narrative that President Barack Obama represents a Jimmy Carter-style case of naive hope crushed by the inability to master Washington. Yet the mystery remains: Having moved swiftly toward achieving the very policy objectives he promised voters as a candidate, Obama is still widely perceived as flirting with a failed presidency."

Congressman Van Hollen, this is not 1994 where Democrats were having a difficult time achieving anything. There has been major achievement here, and yet, are Democrats reaping the rewards?

REP. VAN HOLLEN: There has...

Advertisement | ad infoMR. GREGORY: Reaping the benefits?

REP. VAN HOLLEN: There absolutely has been major achievement, and you've ticked some of those off; but the fact remains that the economy is soft. And when you have a soft economy, people, understandably, are anxious. And the question they're going to have on their minds when they go into that voting booth and face two different candidates is, who is going to best respond to the economy? And I have to say, we're some minutes into this discussion yet and we still have not heard from our colleagues what they would do differently than the Bush economic agenda which got us into this mess? We are now in positive job growth.

Let me make this point, we have the situation right now where our Republican colleagues are holding hostage an extension of middle class tax cuts. They've said we're only going support a continuation of middle class tax cuts, those for people under $250,000, if you also extend the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy. And by the way, that $700 billion over 10 years--you hear all this talk about deficit reduction--that they don't want to pay for, they want to leave that to children and grandchildren, we can make great progress today if our Republican colleagues here agreed to allow those middle class tax cuts to be extended without having to add $700 billion to the deficit that our grandchildren and children will have to pick up.

MR. GREGORY: But, Senator Menendez, Senator Bayh, another centrist Democrat that said raising taxes on wealthier Americans by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in January would be a real mistake in this economy. Is that wrong?

SEN. MENENDEZ: Well, the bottom line is what would be a mistake is to add $700 billion of debt to the next generation. You know, when, when the number two Republican in the Senate, Jon Kyl, says, "We don't have to pay for that. We don't have to pay for it," you know, I am tired of listening to the lectures about spending and debt when they wracked up record debt, when they are willing to put $700 billion of debt on the next generation, and when you don't have to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country, but you can't help working Americans trying to get a job who presently are unemployed.

MR. GREGORY: Final point before break, is President Obama an asset or a liability on the campaign trail?

REP. VAN HOLLEN: Oh, he's absolutely an asset.

MR. GREGORY: So he'll campaign across the country for Democrats?

REP. VAN HOLLEN: Absolutely. And he's been doing that. He was in Michigan the other day at, at a car battery factory. He's been around the country. He's an asset, and he's also very clearly drawing the distinctions here, what the choices are for voters going forward.

MR. GREGORY: We're going to take a break. We're going to come back. We're going to talk a little bit more about the Republicans, what the prescription is should they get the majority in the House. We'll be right back. More of our debate on Decision 2010 and the balance of power in Washington right here on MEET THE PRESS.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38281589...s-transcripts/


Your interpretation will be different of course. The way I see it full of blame short on actual ideas that differ from what Bush did.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #93 of 683
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

In other words you don't like to hear things like this.

Sorry but it really happened. Here's a sample :

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38281589...s-transcripts/

Your interpretation will be different of course. The way I see it full of blame short on actual ideas that differ from what Bush did.



What "really happened" happened in your mind and the minds of the blindly partisan Obamatrons. You would have seen the interview as the GOP having inadequate answers no matter what was said.

But you can't change facts, jimmac. The economy was strong for the majority of the Bush years, as was the employment picture. You can't change that Obama's deficits are far, FAR worse than the Bush deficits, as in 400% larger.

Blaming Bush at this point is just laughable, especially when you can't even identify which policies of his (and the GOP) got us into this financial situation.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #94 of 683
Obama's policies have raised the deficit temporarily in order to deal with a recession that most everyone agrees could have been another great depression. Republican policies are responsible for the longer-term deficit.



Article here.

And the even longer-term problem is heath costs, which Obama addressed this year with health reform.
post #95 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Obama's policies have raised the deficit temporarily in order to deal with a recession that most everyone agrees could have been another great depression. Republican policies are responsible for the longer-term deficit..

TRANSLATION =>

Since Obama has never held a private sector job or managed a company, he is addressing this economic situation in the completely wrong way by increasing the deficit, increasing taxes, and demonizing the private sector but wants to keep open the option of blaming his failures here on the prior president, as usual.
post #96 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

TRANSLATION =>

Since Obama has never held a private sector job or managed a company, he is addressing this economic situation in the completely wrong way by increasing the deficit, increasing taxes, and demonizing the private sector but wants to keep open the option of blaming his failures here on the prior president, as usual.

Translation: With no facts and only emotion, an ad hominem argument will have to suffice.
post #97 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post



What "really happened" happened in your mind and the minds of the blindly partisan Obamatrons. You would have seen the interview as the GOP having inadequate answers no matter what was said.

But you can't change facts, jimmac. The economy was strong for the majority of the Bush years, as was the employment picture. You can't change that Obama's deficits are far, FAR worse than the Bush deficits, as in 400% larger.

Blaming Bush at this point is just laughable, especially when you can't even identify which policies of his (and the GOP) got us into this financial situation.

I guess you didn't bother to read the transcript. Oh! And by the way about blaming Bush it's only been a little over a year and a half since the end of his term. We're clearly still feeling the effects ( and Obama is still having to deal with them ). Also if Republicans just want to go back ( which seems to be the case ) the same policies I think bringing up Bush is quite relevent.

Quote:
The economy was strong for the majority of the Bush years

Never mind the fact that at the end of all of his policy making it took a major dump!

Yeah! Let's not even bother to look at that.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #98 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

TRANSLATION =>

Since Obama has never held a private sector job or managed a company, he is addressing this economic situation in the completely wrong way by increasing the deficit, increasing taxes, and demonizing the private sector but wants to keep open the option of blaming his failures here on the prior president, as usual.

So if Bush isn't responsible for what happened during his term in office which makes up the previous 8 years before Obama's year and a half why did he even have the job? At the end of 4 or 8 years with Obama you'd want the same kind of taking assesment wouldn't you? Not looking at Bush since his time in office was so recent and clearly affects what's happening now ( it would have been nice to start with a surplus instead like Clinton to Bush instead of the worst economic downtrun since the Great Deprssion ).
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #99 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Obama's policies have raised the deficit temporarily in order to deal with a recession that most everyone agrees could have been another great depression. Republican policies are responsible for the longer-term deficit.



Article here.

And the even longer-term problem is heath costs, which Obama addressed this year with health reform.

The scary thing is they want to go back to those same policies that put us here!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #100 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The scary thing is they want to go back to those same policies that put us here!

Couple of questions (for you or anyone else that wants to chime in):

1. Do you assume that those who are opposed to Obama's policies (economic and otherwise, but especially economic) must want to return to the Bush economic policies?

2. Do you assume that just because some of Bush's economic policies may have been bad, Obama's economic policies are therefore good?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #101 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Obama's policies have raised the deficit temporarily in order to deal with a recession that most everyone agrees could have been another great depression. Republican policies are responsible for the longer-term deficit.



Article here.

And the even longer-term problem is heath costs, which Obama addressed this year with health reform.

Just so everyone is clear: What you've posted here is an analysis, a projection from a liberal budget policy group. Lest anyone take this chart as some kind of objective, indisputable, gospel truth.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #102 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Obama's policies have raised the deficit temporarily in order to deal with a recession that most everyone agrees could have been another great depression. Republican policies are responsible for the longer-term deficit.



Article here.

And the even longer-term problem is heath costs, which Obama addressed this year with health reform.

So supposing you are right BRussell, which would be interesting since none of that graph never discusses an actual reduction in spending, and presumes the labor of others is simply the government's to allocate as they desire, and lastly that people will continue to happily and to the best of their ability, work in the exact same manner with less return.

Why are we still labeling wars, tax cuts, etc as all Bush when the man will have been out of office two years this November and the Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006, almost four years ago? At what point do the Democrats actually assume responsibility for, you know, actually governing.

Obama passed his tax CUT (which I don't see on that chart by the way) and even made it retroactive. Are we to believe that President Bush and the Republican Congress have some magical voodoo powers that make it impossible to pass legislation to rescind those tax cuts?

Likewise those of us with more than half a brain remember the infamous 16 months promise. That passed two months ago of course and guess what, we still have at least 92,000 troops there using the best number I can find. Here's a list of others who have withdrawn since then and we all know Obama has doubled down on Afghanistan basically shifting the spending and troops instead of having a savings and bringing them home.

The Bush tax cuts were for 10 years to follow the Byrd rule in the Senate. That rule was needed because the Senate was split the first two years Bush was in office. The Republicans took control for the next four and then lost control for the last four of that ten year period. Republicans had the House for 6 of those ten years. They held the presidency itself for eight years.

I just don't see how folks like yourself justify such hypocrisy. How do you slap up a chart going until 2019, a timeframe that would have the tax cuts expired for NINE years, Obama out of office for THREE years presuming he was given a second term and still say it is the fault of Bush and Republicans who took action on that in the year 2000. It is ridiculous. The party governing has responsibility. They've not kept their promises. Hold them responsible. They ran on PAYGO and savings from ending the war and reform. They've not delivered.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #103 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Just so everyone is clear: What you've posted here is an analysis, a projection from a liberal budget policy group. Lest anyone take this chart as some kind of objective, indisputable, gospel truth.

Perhaps yopu could point out the untruths for us with factual linked back up.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #104 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Couple of questions (for you or anyone else that wants to chime in):

1. Do you assume that those who are opposed to Obama's policies (economic and otherwise, but especially economic) must want to return to the Bush economic policies?

2. Do you assume that just because some of Bush's economic policies may have been bad, Obama's economic policies are therefore good?

Quote:
. Do you assume that those who are opposed to Obama's policies (economic and otherwise, but especially economic) must want to return to the Bush economic policies?

The only ones that are viable are the Republicans and yes.

Quote:
2. Do you assume that just because some of Bush's economic policies may have been bad, Obama's economic policies are therefore good

Not automatically no. Jsut like I think it's foolish to assume automatically that the Republicans will get reelected because Obama's having a difficult time with Bush's legacy.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #105 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Perhaps yopu could point out the untruths for us with factual linked back up.

First, I didn't say it was necessarily untrue or wrong. Second, I have not had the time (or the source data and assumptions behind this chart) to make a detailed counter-analysis. I was merely pointing out an important fact that anyone viewing the chart should be made aware of.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #106 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Jsut like I think it's foolish to assume automatically that the Republicans will get reelected because Obama's having a difficult time with Bush's legacy.

You think this is foolish because you think the voters all see it as you see it. This is probably not true. At this point Bush is fading (quickly) into the past and out of people's consciousness. People are increasingly (though not entirely) beginning to hold Obama accountable and they are rightly, IMO, holding him accountable for the actions he's taken and the promises he's made and the effects of those things. Additionally I suspect independents are waking up to the fact that they were sold a bill of goods...a bait and switch in voting for Obama.

We'll see. I don't currently see anyone on the Republican side that is a reasonable alternative and some who could be a worst disaster than Obama (as hard as that is to imagine right now). But 2 years is a long time.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #107 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You think this is foolish because you think the voters all see it as you see it. This is probably not true. At this point Bush is fading (quickly) into the past and out of people's consciousness. People are increasingly (though not entirely) beginning to hold Obama accountable and they are rightly, IMO, holding him accountable for the actions he's taken and the promises he's made and the effects of those things. Additionally I suspect independents are waking up to the fact that they were sold a bill of goods...a bait and switch in voting for Obama.

We'll see. I don't currently see anyone on the Republican side that is a reasonable alternative and some who could be a worst disaster than Obama (as hard as that is to imagine right now). But 2 years is a long time.

Time poll from this month:
64% of Americans believe that the current economic situation is a result of the Bush administration policies.
29% believe it's Obamas policies.

You got your work cut out for you.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #108 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Time poll from this month:
64% of Americans believe that the current economic situation is a result of the Bush administration policies.
29% believe it's Obamas policies.

You got your work cut out for you.

No we don't because a Time push poll where the questions were probably formulated on the Jlist doesn't fix the unemployment rate or the disapproval numbers.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #109 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

First, I didn't say it was necessarily untrue or wrong. Second, I have not had the time (or the source data and assumptions behind this chart) to make a detailed counter-analysis. I was merely pointing out an important fact that anyone viewing the chart should be made aware of.

No you implied :
Quote:
Lest anyone take this chart as some kind of objective, indisputable, gospel truth.

In other words you can't stand behind your implications.

Glad we cleared that up.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #110 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You think this is foolish because you think the voters all see it as you see it. This is probably not true. At this point Bush is fading (quickly) into the past and out of people's consciousness. People are increasingly (though not entirely) beginning to hold Obama accountable and they are rightly, IMO, holding him accountable for the actions he's taken and the promises he's made and the effects of those things. Additionally I suspect independents are waking up to the fact that they were sold a bill of goods...a bait and switch in voting for Obama.

We'll see. I don't currently see anyone on the Republican side that is a reasonable alternative and some who could be a worst disaster than Obama (as hard as that is to imagine right now). But 2 years is a long time.

Quote:
At this point Bush is fading (quickly) into the past

You wish. And none of this means that the Republicans are getting significantly more favorable or that the voters will simply go running back to them because they don't like Obama's progress so far. I don't think Bush's memeory is fading at all. It's only been a year and a half. Get real.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #111 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So supposing you are right BRussell, which would be interesting since none of that graph never discusses an actual reduction in spending, and presumes the labor of others is simply the government's to allocate as they desire, and lastly that people will continue to happily and to the best of their ability, work in the exact same manner with less return.

I don't understand this sentence. But what I do understand is that Republicans took a surplus in 2000, increased spending and cut taxes, and left the Ds to clean up the mess. Same thing happened with Clinton cleaning up after Reagan-Bush. The R's since Reagan are in the grip of an economic philosophy - the philosophy that "deficits don't matter" - that is the fiscal equivalent of following a diet where you can eat anything you want. Politically it's a great crowd-pleaser, economically not so much.

Obama has tackled long-term deficits the only way possible, with health reform. Temporary spending and tax cuts don't harm the long-term picture, and are necessary during the economic downturn.

Republicans do exactly the opposite. They want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent without any offsets, thus increasing the deficits indefinitely, but they don't want temporary and immediate unemployment insurance unless it is paid for - or at least that's what they say; I'm sure they don't have any actual offsets, because they never have and they never did when they controlled the government.

Obviously I wish Bush had never sent us to Iraq, but Obama will have us mostly out of Iraq in a few months, and completely out in a year. Afghanistan was different because that's where al Qaeda was after 9/11, but we should be out of there too before Obama's first term is over. Along with tackling the long-term deficit, it shows that grownups like Obama do the right thing no matter who caused the problem.
post #112 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Obama has tackled long-term deficits the only way possible, with health reform...

Stimulus - Biggest Spending Bill In American History

Health Care - Largest Tax Increase in American History

Financial Reform - Largest Anti-Business Regulatory Bill in American History

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Along with tackling the long-term deficit, it shows that grownups like Obama do the right thing no matter who caused the problem.

You're kidding right?



Obama has increased the deficit more than every other president.... combined!
post #113 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I don't understand this sentence.

You don't understand how a human feels entitled to keep the benefits of their own labor? I guess we understand why Democrats had such issues with slavery then.


Quote:
But what I do understand is that Republicans took a surplus in 2000, increased spending and cut taxes, and left the Ds to clean up the mess. Same thing happened with Clinton cleaning up after Reagan-Bush. The R's since Reagan are in the grip of an economic philosophy - the philosophy that "deficits don't matter" - that is the fiscal equivalent of following a diet where you can eat anything you want. Politically it's a great crowd-pleaser, economically not so much.

Well I guess we just imagined those terrorist attacks didn't we. I also guess we imagined the stock market bubble popping and the recession that occurred from that as well.

Where is this magical world free from problems that George Bush had?

Let us not forget that the Republicans had to pass a balanced budget THREE TIMES to get Clinton to sign it and also shut down the government to get it signed as well. Clinton was against a balanced budget but was more than willing to take the credit later.

Why is it that with all the Bush spending on wars, tax cuts, you name it, the deficits under Republicans averaged $250 billion a year. Understand that when Democrats managed to topple them from power, it was because that was a scandalous number for which they were held accountable.

Quote:
Obama has tackled long-term deficits the only way possible, with health reform. Temporary spending and tax cuts don't harm the long-term picture, and are necessary during the economic downturn.

The budget deficit projections have exploded under Obama and his claim to halve the budget deficit still puts it at $100 billion dollars HIGHER than the worst budget under Bush.

Quote:
Republicans do exactly the opposite. They want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent without any offsets, thus increasing the deficits indefinitely, but they don't want temporary and immediate unemployment insurance unless it is paid for - or at least that's what they say; I'm sure they don't have any actual offsets, because they never have and they never did when they controlled the government.

What exactly have the Democrats paid for in their 4 years of in control of Congress? What cuts have been made? What taxes have been increased to bring us toward a more balanced budget? PAYGO was gone in the first weeks. Lobbyists are still everywhere. There isn't even a budget process in place this year. Are you claiming that Democrats want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent WITH offsets that they have proposed? Please name them.

Quote:
Obviously I wish Bush had never sent us to Iraq, but Obama will have us mostly out of Iraq in a few months, and completely out in a year. Afghanistan was different because that's where al Qaeda was after 9/11, but we should be out of there too before Obama's first term is over. Along with tackling the long-term deficit, it shows that grownups like Obama do the right thing no matter who caused the problem.

The final troops from the Obama surge aren't even due to arrive in Afghanistan until December of this year. You claim they will be mostly out in a few months. I still see stories of almost 100k troops in Iraq. He broke his promise not just on Iraq but also on Guantanamo. Democrats did nothing but demand timelines and now Obama gets excused from his own timelines? We have 189k+ troops fighting abroad. That is more than at the height of the Iraq war. Why does this get called change when it is absolutely more of the same. He needed 16 months to get those troops out and they are still there or shifted.

What TRUE change has Obama brought about? None. He could have rescinded the Bush Tax cuts on day one if he wanted to do so. He hasn't and there is no one else to blame about that other than Obama. Declaring he has to clean up the mess is fine if he does clean it up. But he hasn't cleaned it up by your reasoning. The cuts will expire, not be repealed.

BRussell how can you honestly keep feeding this nonsense about Bush being bad, but Obama needs to be 400% worse to "fix it"? Did Bush increase the deficit by a trillion dollars in four years while fighting two wars and fending off a recession. Sure. How does it take four trillion dollars to fix that supposed mistake? How if Bush had a total of 180k troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan does Obama "fix it" and bring about peace by deploying more than that (about 189k from what I have read) but in a slightly different manner?

See 180k troops fighting is a war monger but 189k troops fighting is peace.

No one is buying it. The tax cuts expire at the end of this year. If Democrats really thought they were hurting economic growth and the budget, they could have and should have addressed it four years ago with Bush and then two years ago with Obama. Republicans showed with Clinton they would take the hits to balance it. Democrats just had their deficits explode to an average of $400 billion a year under Bush and a trillion a year under Obama.

Democrats need to stop telling us that in order to fix the fact we didn't wear sunscreen and got burned, we need to stick our heads in a microwave.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #114 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

No you implied :

In other words you can't stand behind your implications.

Glad we cleared that up.

No. Apparently you inferred though. A common mistake.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #115 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Time poll from this month:
64% of Americans believe that the current economic situation is a result of the Bush administration policies.
29% believe it's Obamas policies.

You got your work cut out for you.

I suspect we need to square that up with this (and this, and this, and this, and this) now don't we. But I'm sure that a bunch of people don't think he deserves re-election because he's handling the economy so well and because everyone is enamored with his health care policies and so on.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #116 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

No. Apparently you inferred though. A common mistake.

You were trying to make people believe something when you don't really have anything to base that on.

None of your links above counter what Wormhole has said. The only one that comes close says that the voters want a republican congress as a check to the Democratic president. That's hardly a ringing endorsement.

A common mistake amongst today's conservatives.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #117 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Stimulus - Biggest Spending Bill In American History

Health Care - Largest Tax Increase in American History

Financial Reform - Largest Anti-Business Regulatory Bill in American History



You're kidding right?



Obama has increased the deficit more than every other president.... combined!

Hey Campy! What are the Republicans going to do that's different from Bush? You know the leader of the Republicans that was in charge when we got into our latest mess.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #118 of 683
Everyone seems to be of the same opinion... that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are any good at running the country/economy/government. People just seem to argue WHICH group is the lesser of two evils.

Unfortunately, honest, responsible adults either have no desire to "run" for those positions, or just don't have the money to waste in campaigning for them. And the only way to "reform" the entire campaign/electoral process... or to impose term-limits... is for the people who would be adversely affected by such reform to approve of it... never gonna happen.

Please tell me how it could be made to happen... within the current political structure. I just don't see how it could.

History will tell you where this is leading... it may be another hundred years before the general populace gets that fed up... but... "those who refuse to learn from the past are destined to repeat it."
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #119 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You were trying to make people believe something when you don't really have anything to base that on.

I was merely trying to make everyone aware t=of the potential for bias in the the analysis and chart that was posted. Nothing more.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

None of your links above counter what Wormhole has said. The only one that comes close says that the voters want a republican congress as a check to the Democratic president. That's hardly a ringing endorsement.

I realize that's how you interpret it. However, while not a direct refutation of Wormhole's (link-less) claim, it certain paints the picture to be a little different and shows that people are getting a bit restless and frustrated with how Obama & Co. are handling things.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #120 of 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

...that's different from Bush? You know the leader of the Republicans that was in charge when we got into our latest mess.

Blah blah blah. You have that permanently in your paste buffer don't you? Another hot key expansion macro or something?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "6 Months Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History"