Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

DEBT: Quit spending what we don’t have

Letter by Lyle Laws, Puyallup on July 29, 2011 at 12:41 pm with 214 Comments »
August 1, 2011 2:37 pm

So why is the richest and most powerful country in the history of the world teetering on the brink of possible financial disaster?

As with all complicated problems there is no one simple solution. But if the current financial impasse tells us anything, it is that far too many politicians can no more control their urge to try to please voters by approving uncontrolled spending than final-stage drug addicts can control themselves.

A balanced budget amendment might not be a perfect solution, but may well be the only way we can avoid the disaster that will almost certainly occur if we don’t stop spending money that we don’t have like junior high school kids with unlimited credit cards.

In truth, unless we put our country on something like a long-term wartime footing, forcing everyone to share in the sacrifice of paying off our debt, it will not happen. (Good luck with that.)

The nearly $1 billion a day we are now paying for interest on the national debt would be far better spent on replacing roads and bridges here in America rather than in China.

Term limits anyone?

Tags:
,
Leave a comment Comments → 214
  1. BlaineCGarver says:

    Good letter and good points. It’s time to decide if we want our pols buying votes with our future.

  2. taxedenoughintacoma says:

    We need the 51% of the people not paying fed. income tax to start paying their share. We all need skin in the game.

    If the poor can afford 50″ HDTV’s and Iphones they can afford to pay income tax.

    How many in Tacoma’s affordable housing are paying income tax. NONE!!!!!!!!! Look at the cars and SUV’s they drive. The days of the welfare Caddy are back.

  3. I sure missed this letter during the Bush Administration when the majority of our debt was spent.

    http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/20/5145120-chart-national-debt-by-president

    Rick Seaman of Portland, Oregon, made this chart from data he found on TreasuryDirect.gov.

  4. Having worked with poor people, I have to say I’ve never seen one of them with a new car or a 50 inch TV.

    The poor that I know must be Democrats.

  5. LarryFine says:

    Then you never looked.

  6. aislander says:

    Careful with this letter. The writer is hinting that he wants public-works spending as another “stimulus,” along with “shared sacrifice,” PC for a tax increase. Didn’t work in the ’30s and won’t work now.

  7. Having worked with poor people, I have to say I’ve never seen one of them with a new car or a 50 inch TV.

    1 The typical poor household, as defined by the government, has a car and air conditioning, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there are children, especially boys, the family has a game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.

    2 In the kitchen, the household has a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences include a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

    3 The home of the typical poor family is in good repair and is not overcrowded. In fact, the typical average poor American has more living space in his home than the average (non-poor) European has.

    4 By its own report, the typical poor family was not hungry, was able to obtain medical care when needed, and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

    Since we are heading to the extremes with sources karnos…

    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/07/What-is-Poverty

  8. crusader says:

    Maggie Thatcher, “the problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of other peoples’ money….”

    Looks like we’re just about there.

  9. Parkland says:

    Good letter, and it’s true, we simply spend too much. You can take all the cute little proggie talking points intended to make lazy people mad at motivated people, but it doesn’t matter. If you close “corporate jet” loopholes, (what a dumb talking point) if you stick it to the CEO’s of hated big oil,if you tax the living crap out of people that make over 200k, it simply doesn’t change the fact that the federal government spends too much. And the stupid “baseline” budgeting on a floating baseline might fool some of the dumb union mooks, but increasing spending by 5 trillion when the projected increase was 7 trillion is not a 2 trillion dollar cut. It’s like saying I expected to gain fifty pounds, but I only gained forty, so i actually lost ten pounds.

    I heard a junior senator outline a budget plan, providing numbers and statistics, and the panel on the business network that he was on could find no glaring flaws. Decrease _real_ spending by 1% every year. Within seven years, the budget is completely balanced. Surely the idiots in DC can find a way to cut 1%.

  10. the3rdpigshouse says:

    Time to send the socialist democrats (progressives) packing – get them out of government ASAP – the nation’s survival depends upon it!!

  11. aislander says:

    Parkland writes: “Surely the idiots in DC can find a way to cut 1%.”

    But do they want to? With baseline budgeting a 1% cut will be demagogued as a 9% slash. Good to see you again, Parkland…

  12. ItalianSpring says:

    As usual, aislander is correct.

  13. Parkland says:

    aislander, thanks a lot, and you’re probably right about “.. do they want to?” Years ago it was obvious that “entitlement” spending would need to be addressed, and (I thought) people my age simply accepted that we would be the generation that would have to take one for the team. I’m in my 50’s now, middle class, (as long as we both keep our jobs) however, I expect that I’m going to have to work until at least my late sixties or early seventies. What I didn’t know in my naivete was that elsewhere in the country stupid people were being convinced that the only reason the only job they can find is cleaning toilets is because “the man” is oppressing them, and they deserve their money more than they do. Where did this mentality come from? Where do these people come from? I grew up in a run of the mill neighborhood in South Tacoma, Park Avenue School, Baker Jr. High, Mount Tahoma, I never knew this. My dad was a hardened union guy, but he’s probably spinning in his grave at what we’ve come to.

  14. Palin 2012.

  15. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    KARDNOS says:

    Having worked with poor people, I have to say I’ve never seen one of them with a new car or a 50 inch TV.

    You ”worked” with poor people? I volunteer as a needs assessor (site reviewer) for a well-known local 401C3. I am tasked, specifically, with determining who actually needs the services we provide, and who is simply gaming… scamming the system. Part of my criteria when judging – the easy part – is simply noting the personal possessions of the applicant. I say it is the easy part because most of them proudly display their SUV, big screen TV, computer w/ high-speed internet connection, etc.

    To say that you ”work” (indicating you are also likely ”paid” to do so) with the poor, and yet have never see one with a new car or big screen tells me you are either blind, or simply not telling the truth here.

    Even the most truly needy of our applicants have one or more of the possessions I mentioned. And the fact they do does not disqualify them from receiving assistance – everyone is capable of making bad choices.

    But to make such a flat-out ridiculous assertion as yours just ticks your BS meter up a few more notches.

  16. yabetchya says:

    We need earmark reform, and when I’m President, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.
    Barack Obama

    What do you think a stimulus is? It’s spending – that’s the whole point! Seriously.
    Barack Obama

    It’s time to fundamentally change the way that we do business in Washington. To help build a new foundation for the 21st century, we need to reform our government so that it is more efficient, more transparent, and more creative. That will demand new thinking and a new sense of responsibility for every dollar that is spent.
    Barack Obama

    I just miss – I miss being anonymous.
    Barack Obama

    Why can’t I just eat my waffle?
    Barack Obama

  17. “Rick Seaman of Portland, Oregon, made this chart from data he found on TreasuryDirect.gov.”

    I forgot…..anything from Portland, OR is extreme

  18. As far as my work with poor people…..take it or leave it…..I don’t care…

    All this horsemalarky about electronics and new cars to people who can barely scrape together a meal is ridiculous. They can’t pay cash and don’t qualify to purchase on credit. Unless you count a “rent to own”…….

  19. “pgroup says:
    July 30, 2011 at 6:11 am
    Palin 2012.

    Then she would quit by 2014?

    How about that latest movie, huh?

  20. “aislander says:
    July 29, 2011 at 6:08 pm
    Careful with this letter. The writer is hinting that he wants public-works spending as another “stimulus,” along with “shared sacrifice,” PC for a tax increase. Didn’t work in the ’30s and won’t work now.”

    Didn’t work in the 30s???? I’m going to sue Tacoma Public Schools for the misrepented history courses they presented in the 1950s and 1960s

    As long as we are talking about what didn’t work….what took us to the point we are now? Bush spending. Two unfunded wars and tax cuts.

  21. Some of the lack of success by the WPA:

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

  22. aislander says:

    KARDNOS writes: “I’m going to sue Tacoma Public Schools for the misrepented history courses they presented in the 1950s and 1960s…”

    You’re exactly correct, KARD: You and they SHOULD repent for those courses. But don’t “misrepent.” Do it properly…

  23. championrd says:

    #1 – Poor people aren’t poor because electronics are cheap? Is that the argument? The fact is that over the past 50 years, televisions have gotten a lot cheaper, while college and health care has gotten a lot more expensive. Consequently, even a low income person can reliably obtain a level of television-based entertainment that would blow the mind of a millionaire from 1961. What hurts the poor isn’t the access to affordable entertainment, but affordable healthcare and affordable education. By the way, the next time you read a “study” from the Heritage Foundation keep in mind that the argument behind all of it is that their billionaire doners

  24. SadujTogracse says:

    Kardnos using Maddow as a source??? This is the woman who frequently makes fun of Rick Santorum’s last name (I can’t even go into why on a family newspaper). This so called educated and mature woman thinks making fun of someone’s last name (like they do on an elementary school playground) is worthy of mentioning on her program. No wonder nobody watches it except Kardnos!

  25. Nice catch Islander. My hands have caught up with my brain yet….late night.

    Now….back to the subject…..what “failed” with the WPA

  26. Oh…there is another…make that “haven’t”

  27. “SadujTogracse says:
    July 30, 2011 at 10:43 am
    Kardnos using Maddow as a source???”

    Uh…NO…..get a new pair of glasses.

    “Rick Seaman of Portland, Oregon, made this chart from data he found on TreasuryDirect.gov.”

    The source was a citizen in Portland who took the information from TreasuryDirect.gov.

    Get it that time?

  28. “This is the woman who frequently makes fun of Rick Santorum’s last name”

    Uh…NO. Acually, Maddow is making reference to Dan Savage’s googlebomb of Santorum’s name for his comment of “man on dog”.

    If Santorum can say it in a public arena, I’d think it can be posted on a family newspaper.

    By the way…..google “santorum”

  29. championrd says:

    funders shouldn’t be taxed.

    #2 – yes, about half of the people don’t pay federal income tax, but they still pay payroll, property, and sales as well as all the tolls and fees that Republicans implement so they can pretend that they didn’t, in fact, raise taxes. As shown hear http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/zombie-tax-lies/ your taxes roughly reflect how much income you receive, except for the lowest on the economic ladder. But, even they hardly pay “nothing.” Also, its important to keep in mind that it was Ronald Reagan that increased payroll taxes by ~50%, in a deal brokered by Alan Greenspan, so he could hide the cost of his massive federal income tax cut on the wealthy, with a smaller cut for the poor and middle class. Also, it was the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts that really increased the percentage of poor and middle class that don’t pay federal income tax. So if you’re going to blame anyone for that fact, blame Republicans.

  30. “might fool some of the dumb union mooks”

    “My dad was a hardened union guy”

    You just have to wonder about Parkland sometimes……

  31. SadujTogracse says:

    Oh Maddow makes sure that the few people who watch her show Google santorum, that’s the point. Only an immature mental midget would keep advertising something sick.

  32. Possibly….if Santorum would just shut up, his problems would be solved….

  33. “Only an immature mental midget would keep advertising something sick.”

    But it takes mental genuis to create a racist faux waffle mix package…..

  34. SadujTogracse says:

    So he needs to shut up and then she will stop making the sick reference? Nice to know Democrats are dealing in blackmail now, not surprising though.

  35. On second thought……Santorum…like Bachmann and Palin….should keep talking

    Tell the voters about a dog urinating on your leg, Rick. It’s a vote getter….

  36. blackmail….

    If you don’t shut up, Rick, we are going to tell people what you say…..LOL

  37. championrd says:

    #3 – Yes, the public works projects under FDR were effective in significantly reducing the amount of unemployed, but weren’t able to end the Depression. As Republicans like to say, “It was only WWII that ended the Depression, not the New Deal.” Yes, and why is that? Is it because a fairy visits your nation during wartime to make sure everyone’s employed? Of course not. Its because that the “military-industrial complex” built up during WWII greatly outstripped the New Deal in terms of money spent and debt built up, as a simple graph shows: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?chart=H0-state_H0-local_H0-fed&year=1900_2016&units=p . It was the much greater scale of public works spending in building tanks, aircraft carriers, and bombs during WWII vs. the public works spending of building bridges, roads and dams during the New Deal that ended the Depression. Therefore, obviously, FDR and the New Deal weren’t aggressive enough in tackling unemployment. Take your revisionism elsewhere.

  38. :::::puts forum back on rails::::::

    “aislander says:
    July 29, 2011 at 6:08 pm
    Careful with this letter. The writer is hinting that he wants public-works spending as another “stimulus,” along with “shared sacrifice,” PC for a tax increase. Didn’t work in the ’30s and won’t work now.”

    Careful with this quote. Islander is trying to make Lyle Laws into a progressive.

  39. champion – thanks for the facts that took us on the little walk down reality lane.

    I can’t wait to see the Conservatives with their answer of….

    “YOUR a socialist”

  40. Parkland says:

    kardnos, if you’re incapable of following a timeline, you shouldn’t advertise your disability by making dumb comments.

    Also, are you one of those penny-a-post dudes that the dem underground pays to filibuster comment sections of blogs and newspapers?

  41. Aislander,

    No, I was not hinting that we should borrow another trillion or so from China to fund another stimulus.

    Quite to the contrary I was just pointing out that if our national debt was paid off we could be spending much needed billions repairing and replacing much of our aging infrastructure without borrowing.

  42. Parkland….calling your dad a mook??????

  43. Lyle…I couldn’t agree more with you on this letter. We need to not run up bills on things that go “BOOM”.

    Put our money into domestic needs and put our people to work. It’s a win-win

  44. Lyle….there is one slight challenge…..we cannot put infrastructure in a holding pattern until such time we pay off the debt for war games. Ask the people of Minnesota how that works.

  45. “Parkland says:
    July 30, 2011 at 11:11 am
    Also, are you one of those penny-a-post dudes that the dem underground pays to filibuster comment sections of blogs and newspapers?

    This one is free….

    KARDNOS says:
    July 30, 2011 at 10:51 am
    “might fool some of the dumb union mooks”

    “My dad was a hardened union guy”

    You just have to wonder about Parkland sometimes……

    Read more: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/letters/2011/07/29/quit-spending-what-we-dont-havw/#ixzz1Tc8saPEj

  46. Parkland says:

    kardnos, this is 2011. My dad has long since passed. And as I said, he’s probably spinning. And yes, you’re a mook.

  47. championrd says:

    #4 – Yes, spending has increased, but that’s entirely because of the amount paid to Medicaid and employment security has increased, as shown thusly: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/john-taylor-and-the-zombies/?gwh=8F25E9420AFD0DAE32E8872D3EA7D983 While that’s driving up government spending, tax revenue is at a 60 year low. Typically, revenues are in the 20-21% of GDP range, but now are in the 14-15% range. We clearly have both are spending AND revenue problem. Now, only the heartless would state that we should stop providing medical services to the poor and the unemployed OR to end the unemployment checks. I know there’s this notion on the right that such safety nets become a hammock, but its ludicrous to think that about 5% of people, 1 in 20, decided in late 2008 and 2009 to become lazy all of a sudden. You know, the easiest way to balance the budget would have been for the Congress in December 2010 to have done nothing on the Bush tax cuts, as shown here: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/chart-of-the-day-if-congress-does-nothing-the-deficit-will-disappear.php?ref=fpb . Yes, that would have seen rates go up on everyone, but if we look back into the not too distant past during the Clinton years, I think that those tax rates were hardly oppressive to people or business.

  48. aislander says:

    So…why was the depression the “Great Depression” only in the United States, and why did it last longer here than in any other industrialized nation, and why was it our longest-lasting economic contraction by far, and why did unemployment WORSEN after all the make-work projects had shot their wads? For starters…

  49. aislander says:

    Is…LuckyCharm…back?

  50. aislander says:

    Oh, and champion…what were the tax rates in other advanced nations during those Clinton years? And what are they now? Conditions DO change, you know…

  51. aislander says:

    Oh, and why did the sharper contraction of the depression of 1920-’21 last a fewer number of MONTHS than the Roosev…er I mean “Great”…depression lasted YEARS, since Harding and Coolidge did everything wrong by cutting taxes and spending?

  52. championrd says:

    If only there was only a Great Depression in the US, then the world, at that time, would have been in a better place. Fact is, it was a worldwide panic. Unemployment hit 29% in Australia in 1932, Canada’s GDP was more than halved, in Britain exports fell by 50% and unemployment went over 20%. And, perhaps the best example, is Germany where unemployment hit 30% in 1932. It was this mass unemployment that caused the strife that helped bring about Hitler and the Third Reich. Hitler’s economic minister, Hjalmar Schacht, instituted massive public works projects, including building of the Autobahn, construction employment tripled. This was Keynesian deficit spending. Later in the decade, this supplemented by massive arms and armament buildup for the eventual Second World War. Such that unemployment by 1938 in Germany was essentially negligible. So, there was a Great Depression worldwide. And not every nation, like Britain, recovered from it before WWII. So, you’re wrong on both those points. So, why did the US Great Depression last so long. Well, I’m not your history professor, but if you had stayed awake in high school, you would have known that it was Wall Street – the US – that was the source of so much financial speculation, that created a bubble that burst in 1929 – sound familiar? – so the American economy was hit especially hard. Also, unlike most European nations, the US did not at that point have an established social safety net or welfare state at that point, meaning the recession was allowed to fester from 1929 to 1933 without any aggressive action taken. On top of that, our, like Britain’s, economy was heavily dependent upon trade and exports, so while other countries are recovering and becoming, for a while, self-sufficient, our economy was doubly hurt. And on top of all of that, there were environmental/climate reasons for reduced agricultural output – do you remember the term “Dust Bowl” ? All in all, you really should stop reading blog posts from right-wing websites to educate yourself and, instead, go back to college and read out of a textbook.

  53. Vox claims – “I volunteer as a needs assessor (site reviewer) for a well-known local 401C3.”

    Section 401 deals with pension plans and profit-sharing and the like, and subsection (C) is merely the definitions used in section 401.

    So, let me see if I have this right. Vox does “needs assessment” for a nonprofit that deals with pension and profit sharing plans.

    Someone tell me how the poor get involved in pensions and profit sharing and why there would be a “needs assessment” for your own money. Or a “site review” for that matter…..

    Something smells like the BS meter that Vox was howling about…..

  54. Islander…..you’d better stop now, while you still have some lunch to eat….

    otherwise….YOU GO HUNGRY…..

  55. aislander says:

    So…champ…if you spent so much time with your nose in textbooks, you would know that the “aggressive” government intervention began during the Hoover admin (so nothing was allowed to “fester”–it would have been better if it had). Roosevelt criticized Hoover for his big-spending ways during the election of 1932, and for good reason.

    As for America’s dependency on foreign trade, well, you HAVE heard of Smoot-Hawley, have you not? That law ruined our trade situation AND deepened and prolonged the depression.

    So, given what you left out of your exposition above, I would have to believe your education was not as complete as you present it to be or your professors had a left-leaning agenda. Or you do. (That last part was my little joke–I have no doubt what your agenda is)…

  56. aislander says:

    KARDNOS writes: “…we cannot put infrastructure in a holding pattern until such time we pay off the debt for war games. Ask the people of Minnesota how that works.”

    I can’t believe you’re hauling this old chestnut of the pantry after it’s been so thoroughly debunked (as I know you are aware). The conclusion of the investigation into the cause of the tragedy was that it was proved to be a design flaw and NOT deferred maintenance…

  57. championrd says:

    #1 – The true title of the Smoot-Hawley Act was The Tariff Act of 1930. Being that FDR was elected in 1932 and took office 1933. So how you could hang that on FDR is highly questionable.

    #2 – Hoover did enact some extremely mild measures to combat unemployment, but to say that he tackles the problem aggressively is not supported by the facts shown here: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/herbert-hoover-was-hooveresque/?gwh=080C84B93251D3DB94B2309FDBCFBFB5 . US debt barely inched up during Hoover presidency. And I don’t care what FDR ran on in 1932. I care more what he did. Similarly, I don’t care that Clinton in 1992 ran against GHWB’s tax deal and said that he’d enact a middle class tax cut, but for him only to end up not doing that and instead raise taxes on the wealthy and set up on a course toward balanced budgets.

  58. aislander says:

    I didn’t say that Smoot-Hawley was done BY Roosevelt (or FOR him, by Congress), but you can’t say that it was not Rooseveltian in concept. And when was it fully repealed, again? In any case, that was a progressive era and Hoover was a progressive president, as was, of course, Roosevelt.

    Hoover’s measures seemed mild by later comparison, but were the most extreme since the Wilson admin, from which America had recoiled in horror. But like the Roosevelt era, we still have artifacts left from THAT…

  59. aislander says:

    Gee…champ…I was just looking at the revenue trajectory through the ’90s, and don’t see anything dramatic until, perhaps, the year 2000. Then I looked at expenditures, and that trajectory didn’t change dramatically until 1995. What happened that year? Hmm–guess it slipped my mind. So if revenues didn’t change their trajectory, but deficits moved to surpluses–what changed? what changed?

  60. aislander says:

    Sorry, Lyle: didn’t mean to misconstrue. It’s just that there is so much cloaked language in politics (and what we do here is a backwater of politics) that I am perhaps overly suspicious. But when I see “share” and “sacrifice” in the same sentence, a chill goes down my spine…

  61. aislander says:

    LarryFine: I have asked a couple of questions of the lefties on this panel, but none seem to want to take them on, and I sincerely want to know what people think about these things. Perhaps championrd will help me.

    I asked Polago specifically (but any left-of-center person is welcome to respond) how he squares his avowed desire for good manufacturing jobs to remain and be created in America with the expressed wishes of other members of the coalition of the left for the economy to remain at zero or even negative growth out of concern for the environment and for “fairness…”

    I also asked leftes (ANY lefties) on this forum if they believed people should be able to become rich in America.

  62. aislander says:

    That should have read, “…none SEEMS to want…” Still wish we could edit…

  63. Islander….why is manufacturing mutually exclusive from environmental concerns?

    You speak as if environmental destruction is required as a part of the manufacturing process.

    As to your assertion that good environments require low growth, why don’t you provide a link that demonstrates where a valid source makes that claim?

    As to the sophomoric question about “rich”….there is no problem with becoming “rich” and being responsible to your fellow man. Fascinating concept, huh?

  64. “aislander says:
    July 30, 2011 at 3:20 pm
    But when I see “share” and “sacrifice” in the same sentence, a chill goes down my spine…

    There is the problem.

  65. aislander says:

    KARDNOS writes: “Islander….why is manufacturing mutually exclusive from environmental concerns?”

    I think we can have a robust economy and still be good stewards of the environment, but numerous members of the environmental left disagree, most recently Peter Bohmer in his apologia for anarchism.

    and “…your assertion that good environments require low growth…”

    Not MY assertion, but you should know your OWN coalition well enough to have heard that view expressed within it

    So…if I am correct about the environmental left–and I am–where does KARDNOS come down on it: pristine environment, but no jobs, or okay environment with a booming economy?

  66. aislander says:

    Okay: so…KARD…if you believe there is “no problem with becoming ‘rich,'” why do you support policies that make that next to impossible to do in a way that once was common in America?

  67. “aislander says:
    July 30, 2011 at 5:43 pm
    Okay: so…KARD…if you believe there is “no problem with becoming ‘rich,'” why do you support policies that make that next to impossible to do in a way that once was common in America?”

    Pure unadulterated hyperbole

  68. “okay environment with a booming economy?”

    “OK”?????? What the hell is that????

    Sounds like hedging to me.

    When an oil company can foul pristine waters and not be responsible for total clean up…..is that “OK”????

  69. “Not MY assertion, but you should know your OWN coalition well enough to have heard that view expressed within it”

    I google your statement and it talks about population growth, not manufacturing growth.

    You’d better try again.

  70. OH…and then there is “fracking”……

  71. championrd says:

    I represent only myself and not any others who post here and certainly not any Democrats in Congress. In my opinion, far, far too many of them are free-traders in the same way nearly all Republicans are. In my opinion, it is the job of government to increase the most “value” to the largest number of people. Having an army that protects our borders and gives people piece of mind is of “value.” Having non-corrupt courts that judiciously moderate criminal, civil, and business disputes, including issues such as patents is of “value.” Building a dam that provides electrical power as well as fresh water for drinking and agriculture is of “value.” Government funded, therefore taxpayer-funded, immunization programs add value to society.

    So, when it comes to the issue of manufacturing jobs, the environment and trade it is not as simple as the strawman you set up. The world is not black or white, either this or that. In terms of trade, I believe it should be “equal” or as near to it as possible. Tariffs on goods coming INTO China are over 20% – I think 22%, but don’t quote me – and for India its nearer to 40%, while our tariffs are around 2% or less, depending upon the industry. That’s not equal. If China wants to protect their industries from being pushed out by American ones, then we shouldn’t at the same time allow them to export to the US at virtually no extra cost. If its 2% or 20% both ways, so be it, but that’s fair. I understand that products originating from third-world countries are going to be made more cheaply than here, but with the cost of shipping as well as reasonable tariffs should put American companies at an equal footing, especially with American workers being far, far more productive that those from third-world nations.

    That comes to the other point. You and many believe that it is the oppressive environmental regulations that are holding our manufacturing sector back. I’d say its the result of one-sided low trade barrier agreements as well as tax policies that actually benefit companies that outsource jobs. This brings me back to where I started. What adds the most value. Yes, it is more “profitable” for a mill to simply dump all of its wastewater into a nearby river, what’s known as ‘externalizing’ a cost – they don’t pay for it, some external group to the corporation does. By making the wastewater an externality they cause government to pick up the cost of purifying that water, or even worse, pay, or in the worst case, don’t pay, for all of the health maladies that that polluted river would cause to citizens. Now a corporation wouldn’t do that to be evil, but because its simply cheaper. Corporations aren’t, typically, good or evil, but amoral profit-making machines. So, as a country, what adds the most value to the most people? Having clean air, clean water, products that don’t kill you or makes you sick, while not saddling everyone with the cost of cleaning up messes caused by specific companies. I’m not saying, in the example I set up, it water need be purified to level of drinking water, only that doesn’t make people sick or make a significant impact on the environment. It is not a simple either/or proposition. While lax, even China has environmental regulations and they’ve had 8+% growth for decades, so this strawman of either all or nothing doesn’t exist. Even Germany is growing faster than the US now and they have stronger environmental regulations than we do. They profiting from smart “government-directed” industrial policies, including linked education and training programs, that focus on key industries they want to nurture as well as our extremely low tariffs. Those are my thoughts on your first question.

  72. aislander says:

    So, obviously you are against economic growth, and well-paying jobs for union members and others…

    As for pure hyperbole, calling someone who makes $200K a year “rich” is exactly that, and then taxing his marginal income at over 50% in some places in the US DOES prevent his becoming TRULY rich in that traditional way. And I take it you support such levels of taxation…

  73. aislander says:

    championrd: Speaking of straw men: I am not in favor of wholesale pollution. What I said was that some segments of the environmental left wish to deindustrialize the world, starting with America (in expiation for our numerous sins against the oppressed, I’m sure), and that’s the truth. So the question becomes: which is more important, if it came down to sacrificing one or the other: jobs or the environment? I’m sure you’ll tell me we can have our cake and eat it, but that’s not the choice at hand. I want to find out about you guys, not the technical niceties of environmental science…

  74. aislander says:

    For the recently “educated,” the word “niceties” refers to the small details of a thing, not things that are pleasant…

  75. Islander…..you make up a childish scenario and then assume you know my answer.

    when you “assume”…..

    As to “taxation”…..the “good old days” that you yearn for had higher tax rates.
    (once was common in America)

  76. Champion – as to dumping, one need not go further than Commencement Bay for an example of dumping of yesteryear.

  77. “US DOES prevent his becoming TRULY rich”

    I love how you make up meter and scale….

    “OK environment”

    “Truly rich”

  78. aislander says:

    Wrong answer, KARD! We didn’t HAVE oppressive taxation on productive activity until the advent of progressivism. You should do the math and see for yourself the difference in return when an investment is reduced by half and the return is then reduced by half, as opposed to what one would realize were he free of that burden. So those policies very much prevent people from becoming rich.

    But I’m not really interested in where YOU stand on either question, so you can relax about that. My REAL question is: how do you feel about people on your side of the aisle who stand opposite you on those questions? You want well-paying jobs? There are lefties who wish to deindustrialize America. You want a pristine environment? There are lefties who want union members out there fracking. You want people to be able to become rich (really?), there are lefties who HATE that idea.

    So, in the end, how can you work in concert with someone who is working against what you say you want?

  79. LarryFine says:

    So Kardnos won’t answer your question Ai.

  80. LarryFine says:

    … make that questions.

  81. championrd says:

    I would say that the actual percent of people wishing to ACTUALLY deindustrialize the world is somewhere far below 1%. I’m sure right-wing blogs have inflamed you enough to believe its somewhere around 80% of those that reliably vote for the Democratic party. There is an immense chasm between Al Gore and Ted Kaczynski, even though you may not be willing to believe that. ‘The left’, as you put it, does not en masse wish to do away with electrical devices, automobiles, and medicine – which is industrially produced. I’d say that the vast majority of them want to progressively – uh oh, that word – move toward industries and their products having an ever-decreasing environmental impact, because you can’t really reach zero. Even wind turbines kill thousands of birds, but then again, there are billions and billions of birds so the actual environmental impact isn’t that great.

    As to whether good industrial policies can be combined with good environmental policies I’d return to the example of Germany. While they are a smaller nation, it is more than a quarter of our size and one that depends strongly on manufacturing. How did they do it? I’d direct you to a piece written by the very centrist, sometimes frustratingly so for my taste on other matters, Fareed Zakaria http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/fareed-zakaria-learning-example-germa .

    As to whether its a choice between jobs and the environment its always a balancing act. For me, what adds the most value having a clean river has value, but so does having hundreds of people at my hypothetical mill. I think that putting TOO MUCH of an emphasis on jobs and not enough on the environment, generally speaking, makes a trade of short and near term benefits for long-term pain – and costs, because, as with almost all things, the longer you wait to clean something up the more it costs down the road. Largely speaking, I believe it is the immensity of the environment with lends a certain degree of abstractness to it that makes it harder for people to conceptualize the benefits of smart regulations. When you, on the other hand, look at regulations concerning worker safety it is much easier for people to understand their benefits. When you see something like the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist fire where 146 people perished, mostly young immigrant women with many jumping to their deaths to avoid the fire, in a completely preventable industrial fire it is easy for people to understand the benefits of fire codes. When the life expectancy for electricians a century ago was somewhere their 30’s its easy to conceptualize the need and benefits of safety regulations. For the environment, its harder to see the benefit and that’s why I think people more slowly come to understand the benefit of prudent regulations.

  82. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    KARDNOS says:

    Vox claims – “I volunteer as a needs assessor (site reviewer) for a well-known local 401C3.”

    Section 401 deals with pension plans and profit-sharing and the like, and subsection (C) is merely the definitions used in section 401.

    Obviously I committed a typo – should have been 501(c)(3). That better?

    So what’s your excuse? Because obviously you are dodging my question(s).

    No surprise there.

    But then again, your insinuation is probably right; I’m just making it all up. You should know.

  83. championrd says:

    As to the second question, its just another strawman. To be in opposition to your hoped for economic policies does not mean that someone hopes that no one becomes wealthy or, more importantly, if implemented the opposition’s policies would not mean that no one is rich. Fact is the rich are richer than ever. We have the greatest wealth disparity since 1928, right before the Crash of 1929. In fact, wages of increased only about 1% since 1980 – adjusted for inflation – while there has been strong increases in worker productivity – the value of your work. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?gwh=46517B624F3E4073F11E62CBAD755308 So where did all that value of that increased productivity go? To the wealthiest, of course, which has help spur this colossal wealth disparity. How has this happened? Largely by reducing taxes on the wealthy. In a great analysis here: http://toomuchonline.org/the-rights-pushback-against-taxing-the-rich/ you can see that the EFFECTIVE tax rates on millionaires 50 years ago was 43%, while now its only about 23%. If your hypothetical were true, that would mean that there were no rich people during that era. Of course that’s not true. Or you could claim that those higher taxes hurt economic growth, but that’d be false too as the post war decades represented the greatest growth in wealth our nation has ever seen.

    So when you say “Why do you support policies that make that (becoming rich) next to impossible to do in a way that once was common in America?” What era are you referring to? The 19th century? Because I suspect the era which you refer to had the wealthy pay a far greater share in taxes than they do today. But I think you might have unexpectedly answered your own question. Fact is, now even many “old” European nations, like Britain, have greater social mobility – the amount progressing from one economic strata to another – than the US. Much of how they’re doing it is through free or very cheap education, including college, which college in the US has become prohibitively expensive. Though it wasn’t always this way. Back in the decades after WWII, we subsidized college to much greater degree as well as paid for the GI bill. But that was in the era of higher taxes on the wealthy that made that possible.

  84. aislander says:

    champ writes: “‘The left’, as you put it, does not en masse wish to do away with…”

    Precisely my point. You find yourself in bed with people who hold opposing views on central issues. How do you reconcile that?

    And where do you get the one percent number? If you Google “deindustrialization” with “environmentalism,” you get 12,600 results. “Deindustrialization” alone nets 342,000…

  85. “aislander says:
    July 30, 2011 at 6:25 pm
    Wrong answer, KARD! We didn’t HAVE oppressive taxation on productive activity until the advent of progressivism.”

    More hyperbole…. “Oppressive taxation”

  86. This is called hitting the nail on the head….

    “championrd says:
    July 30, 2011 at 7:38 pm
    As to the second question, its just another strawman.”

    Champion, you have Islander’s number.

  87. “There are lefties who wish to deindustrialize America.”

    Beyond Strawman…….Hyperbolic Strawman

  88. aislander says:

    THAT was one ugly mishmash, champ! I think your strategy is to bog everyone down trying to confirm or refute your assertions. You wrote “the fact is the rich are richer than ever.” That may be true or not, but I am not talking about that: I am saying that governmental policies make it difficult to BECOME rich, and that’s true, too. So is that the intended effect of those policies, or an unintended consequence? If it’s intended, we know who the left is; if unintended we know the left isn’t smart enough to run everyone’s life as they would seem to like to.

    YOU know the very richest aren’t subject to income tax, so why are you concentrating your firepower on that? THAT’S not going to do anything about the wealth “disparity” that concerns you so greatly; it’s only going to make it difficult for those dependent on their earning power to accumulate wealth. I think THAT’S what you guys want, though.

    Finally, show me how the rich in the 19th Century paid a higher percentage in taxes than do today’s rich.

    There were lots of other howlers in your post, but my fingers are getting tired…

  89. championrd says:

    The very richest ARE subject to income tax. Its absurd to claim otherwise. I think your confusing income tax with capital gains taxes, but capital gains taxes are under the umbrella of income taxes, definitionally speaking, so when I state effective tax rates that includes capital gains. To say that income taxes “only going to make it difficult for those dependent on their earning power to accumulate wealth.” I already refuted by showing that we had higher growth in the post-war decades while having higher taxes. And when I mentioned the 19th century, that was said sarcastically as that was the last era I could think of when we didn’t have income taxes – excluding the Civil War. I suspected that you meant the post WWII era when you said it used to be easier to become rich, but only you know if that’s true.

  90. “aislander says:
    July 30, 2011 at 7:53 pm
    THAT was one ugly mishmash, champ! I think your strategy is to bog everyone down trying to confirm or refute your assertions.”

    Deflection

  91. championrd says:

    But it is true that the VERY richest do pay far less in taxes, as effective tax rates on the 400 wealthiest families has decreased about 40% in the last 15 years http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/04/18/159261/tax-disparity-chart/ while their incomes have nearly quadrupled. So clearly the rich are getting richer while their taxes are being reduced. The problem is that that loss in tax revenue makes is harder to pay for programs, particularly education programs, that allow for those not fortunate enough to already be rich to become so. Hence, the reduced social mobility. So if you’re in favor of a ruling plutocracy, then you should love current policies.

  92. aislander says:

    You refuted nothing because you fell into the trap of implying a logical fallacy, as did one of your fellows. You are implying that growth occurred BECAUSE tax rates (but not tax revenues) were higher, and that is attributing causation to coincidence. There was a plethora of other factors at play, not the least of which was our status as being the only major industrial power the infrastructure of which was not terribly depleted by war.

    Revenues run in a very narrow range as a percentage of GDP, regardless of rates, so the enthusiasm of the left for raising rates must have another animus. What do YOU think that might be? Are you in the camp of Obama, who wishes to raise capital gains tax rates even if the effect on revenues is negative?

  93. aislander says:

    Sorry, but left-wing tax policy on those on the cusp of becoming rich has far more to do with reducing social mobility than anything regarding the already rich. We’ve never had a wealth tax in this country so far as I know, and, even if we did, I fail to understand how taking that money and sending it to Washington is going to make anybody but the politicians rich. I know, I know. We can use the money for education, but that would further inflate its cost. Education is already inundated with dollars, fueling a rate of inflation in excess of that of health care…

  94. aislander says:

    By the way, KARD, I have two definitions of “rich.” The first is to have accumulated enough wealth that one can, if he so chooses, live on its proceeds without invading capital. The second is to have enough money to have a built-in resistance to being pushed around by s***ts. Being “comfortable” is not to have to depend on the government for anything regarding one’s personal situation. Roads, bridges, police, national defense, etc., yes. Income, education, health care, retirement, etc., no. The object is to render governmental efforts superfluous in the latter regard…

  95. alindasue says:

    aislander said, “And where do you get the one percent number? If you Google “deindustrialization” with “environmentalism,” you get 12,600 results. “Deindustrialization” alone nets 342,000…”

    One thing I’ve found is that information spreads fast over the internet. Misinformation spreads twice as fast.

    Asking where he got the one percent figure is a legitimate question, but basing your assumptions about his figures on the number of Google results a couple words receive is about as reliable as using Wikipedia as your main info source for a college paper.

    Knowing the source of information can make all the difference in how it is interpolated.

  96. aislander says:

    And the last post to KARD kind of closes the circle about tax policy and frustration of upward mobility. My first definition of “rich” has to do with living off the income from accumulated wealth. A middle-class person (and a family of four with an income of $200K IS middle class) should be able to accumulate that critical mass of capital if they are prudent with spending and investments, in spite of the damage done to the markets by governmental intrusions (but that is another subject for another time), except for one thing: taxes. Such a person living in New York, Philadelphia, of Los Angeles, for example would be paying OVER half of anything over that in taxes, and a substantial percentage of the amount below that threshold. That dramatically limits his ability to invest, and his return on that investment would be subject to the over 50% rate. THAT is onerous, and makes it very difficult to go from “earning a salary,” to “living off principle…”

  97. aislander says:

    Fair enough, alindasue…

  98. Hey folks,

    Unless I overlooked it, there has been little or no discussion about the balanced budget amendment or the term limits I mentioned in my letter.

    So what do you think?

  99. aislander says:

    championrd writes: “I suspected that you meant the post WWII era when you said it used to be easier to become rich, but only you know if that’s true.”

    It’s true that there were far more strategies available for avoiding (legally) the higher rates nominally in effect in the post-war period, but I meant since the income tax itself was put into place. What started as a 7% tax on millionaires metastasized into much higher percentages for much more modest incomes. When first instituted, it really had no effect on “entry level” rich people, and that was the case for decades thereafter…

  100. LarryFine says:

    “deflection” so sayeth the “diddo”…

  101. aislander says:

    It has to be done, Lyle, but many here think raising taxes will narrow the deficit, but others (such as myself) believe doing that will have exactly the opposite effect. The discussion then became about cutting spending versus raising taxes, and then spun off into other right v. left issues. I think this thread didn’t drift as much as some others have (except for a little personal byplay here and there)…

  102. aislander says:

    I am getting a little rummy, LarryFine. Your last post caused me to visualize a diddo thrusting through space with its deflector shields up, fending off reason in every galaxy, charting its course unaffected and undeterred by reality, a prosthetic juggernaut of progressivism…

  103. aislander says:

    The deflector shields prevent pregnancy AND disease, but I’m not certain why a diddo would need them…

  104. Lyle,
    IMO: Your balanced budget idea is flat stupid.

    On a personal level, could you have bought you home, your cars, or pay for college without incurring debt?

    As to term limits: we the votes can vote any one out at any election.

    IMO: What we need is to limit the campaigns to registered human voters only, with all donations over a set amount be made public.

    Islander,
    Lowered tax revenues are one reason we are so far in debt.

    Lowered tax revenues means the Government has to borrow more.

    Raising tax revenues means the Governments have to borrow.

    And don’t start whining about D’s being big spenders, The R’s are just as guilty.

  105. aislander says:

    Not an R, so don’t care about their honor as fiscal conservatives. They seem far more redeemable than Dems though,But where exactly have revenues dropped anywhere close to the increase in deficits?

  106. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    championrd says:

    By the way, the next time you read a “study” from the Heritage Foundation keep in mind that the argument behind all of it is that their billionaire doners

    LOLZ, sez the person who, in this very thread, has sited such unbiased sources as:

    Paul Krugman (thrice)
    New York times (four times)
    Talking Points Memo
    Think Progress
    CrooksandLiars
    toomuchonline.org

    In fact, out of the 11 links you have provided, only one (usgovernmentspending.com) could be considered unbiased.

    Making you case from left field?

    I think Larry may be right – this smells of an LC return.

    We can cut through the myth of the post war boom having been a result of the higher tax rates by quickly reviewing Hauser’s Law.

    And Islander is quite right with regards to the amount of deductions available to top marginal tax rates during the period in question – the real top rate was in the neighborhood of 40%, after deductions. But the biggest reason for the growth from 1945 to 1971 was the fact that WW2 had wiped-out any economic competition in the world. Not the case these days.

  107. Roncella says:

    Come folks lets keep it simple. Its jobs and the economy Stupid.

    President Obama wasted his first two years forcing a very unpopular and terrible Obamacare scheme on all Americans. Its bankrupt, it is destined for failure, just as Obamas stimulus packages all failed but spent trillions of dollars in the process.

    now the very people that caused this big Mess we are all in are blaming the Tea Party folks and Conservative Republicans for all the trouble we are in. Tune in to all the far left cable channel, CNN, MSNBC and all the rest to hear the lies and distortions as the Lame Stream Media continue to serve as a wing of the Democratic Party.

    The folks responsibile for this mess are from the top down, President Obama, VP. Biden, Reid, Pelosi, democrats in the Congress and establishment republicans.

  108. Islander,
    “where have revenues drooped anywhere close to the increase in deficits?”
    Open your other eye and look at the 2 ruinously expensive wars and social engineering projects Bush2 got us into.

    (FYI – that would be Afghanistan and Iraq.

    VOX and Islander.
    I doubt if there were as many deductions and loopholes available during the post WW2 era as you two think. So you will have to offer some proof.

    One way the rich avoided the higher tax brackets was by not taking profits out as personal income, but using the funds for research and development, plant expansion, and higher wages and benefits for workers.

    L_F and Islander,
    Are you aware that ‘diddo’ is an alternative spelling for ‘ditto’ and that both are used to mean ‘I agree with the previous statement’

  109. aislander says:

    diddo
    – no dictionary results

  110. aislander says:

    I wrote “drooped,” with respect to revenues? Really? You’re wandering perilously near to diddo territory, xring.

  111. xring,

    The last national poll I saw indicated that 75% of the people favor a balanced budget amendment.

    And, on a personal or family level, having a balanced budget wouldn’t mean that someone couldn’t purchase a home or an automobile over a span of time. It would simply mean that the monthly or yearly income would have to be great enough to pay the principal and interest on the purchase.

  112. LarryFine says:

    xring, I am aware that the left is known for co-opting words and creating new meanings to support their own agenda.
    Too bad you missed the post by “Kardma” before he flagged it. It truely was a knee slapper as he was admonishing (once again) someone else for spelling error(s) and he summed it up with “diddo for aislander” and aislander came back with “You have to use a diddo?!!! ”
    Surley the double entendre wasn’t over your head too.

  113. aislander says:

    xring: The Urban Dictionary, huh? KARD doesn’t strike me as an Urban Dictionary kind of guy–although I’m certain he’d like to be, so he could glom some of that Earl of Shaftesbury type of cred…

  114. LarryFine says:

    … like birfday is an alternate spelling for birthday.

  115. aislander says:

    According to the Aislander Dictionary, “socialist” is an alternative spelling for “Democrat…”

  116. LarryFine says:

    LOL …

  117. aislander says:

    xring writes: “Open your other eye and look at the 2 ruinously expensive wars and social engineering projects Bush2 got us into.”

    Hey, I’ve always said it’s a spending problem. Thanks for coming on board…

  118. aislander says:

    I SHOULD have written “a prosthetic projectile of progressivism.” Hate it when I miss a chance to alliterate…

  119. Lyle – balanced budget.

    What does the government do when a crisis occurs and additional funds are needed and the Conservatives have a fit over tax increases?

    Balanced budget is rhetoric for CUT programs

    When does the military have to live with a balanced budget?

  120. “Too bad you missed the post by “Kardma” before he flagged it. It truely was a knee slapper as he was admonishing (once again) someone else for spelling error(s) and he summed it up with “diddo for aislander” and aislander came back with “You have to use a diddo?!!! ”

    NOW the truth.

    I flagged nothing. But I did post “sarcasm wasted” before the ranter about my “diddo” flagged the comment for being embarrassed that he didn’t get the sarcasm.

  121. “Roncella says:
    July 31, 2011 at 10:59 am
    Come folks lets keep it simple. Its jobs and the economy Stupid.”

    yeah…..back to the 2010 campaign speeches. Did the Republicans follow through with their promises of jobs? Sadly, no. Did they improve the economy? Sadly, no.

    They fretted about NPR and Planned Parenthood.

    By the way, I was listening to NPR while traveling Friday evening and they interviewed nothing but Republicans for about 30 minutes of a political segment.

    Sort of ruins the whole “liberal NPR” slogan, doesn’t it?

  122. aislander says:

    I don’t believe that “sarcasm” that is recognized ex post facto earns any points for cleverness. I know I didn’t flag KARD’s comment, and I’m sure LF didn’t (it would have been out of character), so that leaves…

  123. Roncella says:

    KARDNOS, Come on now you should know better when describing NPR.

    It can hardly stand up straight its so farrrrrr left. There is not one conservative on their staff of reporters, not a one.

    Another odd thing to consider is there is not one black on their staff of reporters either, and their a bunch on liberals/progressives running NPR. Shame Shame….

  124. Islander,
    From http://www.urbandictonary.com

    Diddo: incorrect way to spell ‘ditto’ meaning
    1.I agree with the previous statement.
    2.I agree or me too.
    3.I did do it (when asked a question).

    There are two other meanings not suitable for this blog.

    Lyle,
    The only polls you ever see are from Fox (we can lie if we want to) Entertainment.

    L_F,
    Right wing new-speak (aka lutzisms) far outpaces anything on the left where we realize we all need a common set of terms to discuss issues.

    For a double entendre to work you have to use the proper term. So unless you were referring to a hot daddy you blew it.

    Islander,
    It is a spending problem coupled with lowered revenue which forced the fiscally conservative Rcons to borrow money from China and elsewhere; which upped the spending more by adding principle and interest payments to the debt.

    KARDONS,
    Actually balanced budget is right-wing real speak for cutting programs for everyone who is not in the top 2% of wage earners or who does not have INC after their name.

    K. I think Islander just accused your (in a plausibly deniable way) of flagging your own comment.

  125. aislander says:

    So…xring…how MUCH was revenue reduced?

  126. aislander says:

    ….and I could give a rip less about the Urban Dictionary…

  127. “K. I think Islander just accused your (in a plausibly deniable way) of flagging your own comment.”

    Yep. Since I flag none, it’s just another in a long line of baseless assertions from that source.

  128. “Roncella says:
    July 31, 2011 at 3:07 pm
    KARDNOS, Come on now you should know better when describing NPR.

    It can hardly stand up straight its so farrrrrr left. There is not one conservative on their staff of reporters, not a one.”

    Spoken as a person that doesn’t know the NPR station in this market

  129. xring – the Republicans want balanced budget until you have to raise taxes to balance the budget.

    Sort of like “term limits”…..they don’t want term limits on McConnell, Boehner, etc

  130. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brooks_(journalist)

    One of NPR’s commentators. You can look up the rest, Roncella, if you can spell NPR.

    Which brings me to a funny aside from a video….a bunch of rednecks were ‘stunt driving” in a farm and a guy tried to put air under an old motorhome. He was ejected because he didn’t have a seat belt on…..he had suspenders (no shirt)…..

    When his groupies decided he needed medical help, one of the women asked:

    “What is the phone number for 911?”

  131. Roncella says:

    KARDNOS, Come on now you and I being political junkies both know David Brooks is hardly or just slightly Conservative. Is that all you could come up with , howcome no Blacks on the staff of NPR, a very far left organization ?? Shame Shame…

    David Brooks is certainly very far from being considered a true Conservative or even Conservative by many Conservatives.

    KARDNOS, Its really not necessary to raise taxes on the top 2% to help balance the budget.

    It is necessary to stop the out of control spending by President obama and Reid, Pelosi and the dems and establishment republicans in the Congress to get to a balanced budget.

  132. “Roncella says:
    July 31, 2011 at 4:15 pm
    KARDNOS, Come on now you and I being political junkies both know David Brooks is hardly or just slightly Conservative. Is that all you could come up with , howcome no Blacks on the staff of NPR, a very far left organization ?? Shame Shame…

    You can see people on NPR??????

    Is “hardly or just slightly Conservative” like “not really Christian”?

  133. aislander says:

    The one thing I know for sure is that I didn’t flag KARD or anyone else, for some time. I don’t think I’ve EVER flagged KARD. There’s really been no need to. What I was going to say, following the ellipses, was that it must have been someone who REALLY doesn’t like KARDNOS, and that could have been anyone, even…

  134. aislander…..I don’t particularily like you, but I respect free speech and believe that everyone – even you – has the right to sound as ignorant as they wish. The only thing I would report would be violations of privacy.

    Having been around this “blogging” game for awhile (and chats on AOL) I know that Conservatives are notorious for reporting people.

  135. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Public_Radio_personnel

    Roncella….

    This is so that you don’t have to keep sounding ignorant.

    What is next? “So and so isn’t really THAT black”?

  136. “It is necessary to stop the out of control spending by President obama and Reid, Pelosi and the dems and establishment republicans in the Congress to get to a balanced budget.”

    Only one problem. Obama’s spending doesn’t even come close to that which Bush did.

    Try again, Roncella. Use this:

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov

    So that you won’t continue to look so silly.

  137. An unblack person on NPR…

    http://www.farai.com/

  138. aislander says:

    KARD writes: “…I know that Conservatives are notorious for reporting people.”

    You’re not making a broad generalization–nay, stereotyping!–based on limited anecdotal experience, are you? Such judgementalism wounds me deeply and assaults my sensibilities. Oh, wait–that’s what lefties say when conservatives reach reasonable conclusions based on experience. I don’t care what you think of me, KARD. If you like me, I haven’t been doing my job.

    All that aside, I’ve flagged only one poster on this forum in the recent past, and it ain’t you…

  139. aislander……did I say you did something? Why all the denial?

  140. When Conservatives started bombarding the “From the Left” chat on AOL and suddenly, Progressives were reported for responding to their taunts…..well, you’ll just have to add that one up for yourself.

    Same song for the Atheist chat in dealing with “Christian Conservatives”

    Presently, there is a newpaper in the South Sound that is again getting a rash of reports on Progressives. It usually ends up with threads being closed. In December of 2009, it was so bad that we started a blog that lives today.

    Stick to the denial. It gives you a lock on being a Conservative.

  141. kardnos,

    As I said in a prior letter I would be fine with 5% income tax increase on the rich as long as there was a 5% cut in all federal spending, and if the tax increase and the money saved by the spending cuts would be used to reduce our national debt.

  142. Only one problem. Obama’s spending doesn’t even come close to that which Bush did.

    Please karnos, Bush never got over 2.8t, Obama is 3.5t in each of his last fiscal years…. this years will be 3+t…

    just lay one and hope nobody notices why don’t ya…

  143. lylelaws says:
    July 31, 2011 at 5:45 pm
    kardnos,

    As I said in a prior letter I would be fine with 5% income tax increase on the rich as long as there was a 5% cut in all federal spending

    Cut what? Cut domestic programs that help our people? Cut military?

    Cutting for the sake of cutting makes no sense to me. We’ve already watched a circus that went after Planned Parenthood and NPR – both of which are small ticket and are a hell of a lot more useful than more weaponry.

  144. xx….I’ve already submitted evidence that proves Bush spent the majority of the debt. You don’t like the source. Here is another source that shows the same thing:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/obamas-and-bushs-effect-on-the-deficit-in-one-graph/2011/07/25/gIQAELOrYI_blog.html

    Now I’ll be waiting for your demonization of Ezra and the Washington Post.

  145. no demonization just typical DC accounting….

    Tax revenues were up… 1.8t??? please…

    For Barack I’ll even say the same… what were the specific tax cuts proposed and what was the revenue from those cuts. (425b, I submit shouldn’t be on the chart as the 1.8t should not be… chekc revenue though)

    Health reform… 152b… stop please, this is not credible.

    Total Cost of NEW Policies… How do you compare the NEW policies of a current president that has been in office for 2 1/2 years to the new policies of a president in office for 8 years?

    The comparisons are… well… you can’t

  146. it appears that I got tapped by the TNT board for name-calling and personal insults…???

    I think that with all this “diddoing”…

    I don’t have a problem getting called out… if I did something!?

    I’ll make nice… karnos, xring… I love you man(s). :* ;)

  147. LarryFine says:

    Wow… lots to skip since my last brief encounter…
    …so an illustration of the current moniker “KARDMA” (diddo)’s “deflective” denials… many monikers ago when he was “toyotaman” and he slipped with the 3rd person (oops)/ self congratulatory post….
    .
    Toyotaman84 wrote on 12/18/2009 06:34:57 PM:
    I like what Tman said to you previously, it was Bush at the wheel

    Toyotaman84 wrote on 12/18/2009 06:36:10 PM:
    Now I know I’m going crazy… I’m referring to myself in the 3rd person.

    RoFLMAO… not the 1st nor the last for sure !!!

  148. xx – welcome to the club. I got the same finger wagging when Ronc…..uh someone complained that I posted “shut the …….” when they were trying to tell me who my County Assessor was (Ronc….uh…”they” didn’t know where I live).

    Frankly, you haven’t said anything to me that has upset me and if you did, I’d be more likely to respond, as opposed to complain.

    Maybe we have someone that got the hook and is going to “get even” with everyone that had nothing to do with their “hooking”

    Uh….and LarryFine……you are creating an alterego for me that I’m unaware of, but enjoy your delusion. Meanwhile, I caught you red handed a couple days back using two monikers and answering me with the wrong one…..

    Now, back to the subject at hand…..xx……you claim this and that to not be credible, yet in both cases that I’ve submitted, reliable sources have provided the mathmatics. I guess you’ll either have to put up a source for us or accept the sources we submit.

  149. aislander says:

    Whatever, KARD, if you’re satisfied then you’re satisfied…

  150. aislander says:

    KARD writes: “Cut what? Cut domestic programs that help our people? Cut military?”

    Interesting juxtaposition, KARD. So…there are NO domestic programs that deserve cutting–even if the nation is not only out of money, but in the hole–and I KNOW you’d chafe over any cuts to the military, but how about a little perspective?

    We hear much about “shared sacrifice” (code words for “bend over and the lefties will drive”) but who is sacrificing what?

    Our military people are sacrificing opportunity, and time with their families, and their safety and health, and their limbs and their lives, and for what? Most that I’ve talked to say they sacrifice for a country they love, a country that has freedom for its people, and opportunity, too.

    And KARDNOS is saying that, compared to what our soldiers are giving, clients of Democrats can’t give up their free rides. WHAT “shared sacrifice?”

  151. aislander says:

    By the way, I know about Ezra Klein, the left’s new pet columnist–hardly an unbiased source–and I expect this load of manure will be debunked in the near future. But, while we’re waiting for that to happen, one question: WHERE did Ezra pull the number of 1.812 trillion for the cost of the Bush tax cuts? Is that the same accounting method that enumerates jobs “saved or created?” The left will soon be out goats from which to remove entrails…

    …and don’t forget that Obama was able to raise by 8% the baseline for the last Bush budget, and that may have SOME bearing on Ezra’s numbers…

    I DO admire the effort and razzle-dazzle to make Obama look good, though. Shows initiative, don’t you know…

  152. I have never, nor will I ever, flag someone elses posts – I don’t support censorship.
    I have flagged a couple of my posts when I accidently post to the wrong thread.

  153. aislander….that was the best twist and shout I’ve seen you do.

    You take the soldiers and pit them against the impoverished of the United States. How Conservative of you!

    First of all….military cuts need not come on the backs of the personnel (but of course, you know that).

    We hear all this talk about “misspending” on social programs, and no one wants to address the military industrial complex and their assorted vendors. I had a local troop that lived in my neighborhood after returning from the Middle East (wounded and waiting for medical care) tell me about who is making the real serious money on the war – KBR. I can’t wait for your attack on this troop who put his life on the line and makes the mistake of telling the truth.

    It’s fascinating no matter where I come up with the numbers, it’s the “newest pet” of the Democrats, yet I don’t see you pulling out any reports that can really address the numbers that are being delivered by these sources.

  154. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/24/paul-krugman/bush-tax-cuts-health-care-probably/

    Now, before you jump to the attack on Paul Krugman, you need to realize that Politifact is the source that is rating Krugman’s math.

    I’m guessing that Klein, Krugman and the man in Portland all did the same math.

  155. aislander says:

    Hey, if the poverty rate is VERY close to what it was in 1965, it’s pretty obvious we’ve been wasting our money. If we can get the same rate WITHOUT the dependency…I know! Let’s just raise the income tax rates of the successful and punish their success, and then we can give free money to reward pathological behavior. THAT’S the ticket!

    But I wasn’t “pitting the soldiers against the…er…impoverished,” I was addressing your trope that there should be “shared sacrifice…”

    So where is the “shared sacrifice” of those with their hands out?

  156. This is why these sort of discussion are tedious. The “fact checkers” themselves are at least cognizant enough to know that they are fact checking something that might not happen. How the hell do you account for that… ouiji board?

    From your own source karnos:

    “Keep in mind, we’re talking about estimating something that didn’t happen: How much in revenues didn’t the government collect? Economic conditions change over time, and changes in tax code can affect that. So it’s not a straight-up calculation.”

  157. I am not attacking anyone. my premise will always be RTFA… read the friggin’ article…. parse it and you will see the bias and in most cases, coupled with crappy logic.

    The bias I can deal with, but when you couple that with crappy logic then… jeeze how do these people actually make money on what they write?

  158. aislander says:

    xx98411 writes: “…jeeze how do these people actually make money on what they write?”

    You’ve seen the will to believe. That’s something the left has counted on as long as there’s been a left, which is one thing that makes liberalism and government a substitute religion…

  159. xx98411 says:

    Amen!

  160. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    KARDNOS says:

    ”Lyle – balanced budget.

    What does the government do when a crisis occurs and additional funds are needed and the Conservatives have a fit over tax increases?”

    Oh, I dunno… maybe read the bill (this one is a lot shorter that 2000+ pages, HTH).

    ‘Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

    ‘Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of economic output of the United States, unless two-thirds of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific increase of outlays above this amount.

    ‘Section 3. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.

    ‘Section 4. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

    ‘Section 5. A bill to increase revenue shall not become law unless two-thirds of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.

    ‘Section 6. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.

    ‘Section 7. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.

    ‘Section 8. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.

    ‘Section 9. This article shall take effect beginning with the later of the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2016.’.

    And, for the math challenged, three fifths (60%) is less than two thirds (66.666%).

  161. LarryFine says:

    Always good for a chuckle…

  162. LarryFine says:

    btw, toyotaman, if you have the link where you claim to have caught me co-opting your m.o. please share it.

  163. KARDNOS says:

    “But I wasn’t “pitting the soldiers against the…er…impoverished,” I was addressing your trope that there should be “shared sacrifice…”

    LIE….I never used the words “shared sacrifice” except for quoting the letter writer.

    My question is “what do you cut?”

    Cutting Planned Parenthood and NPR does relatively nothing for the budget when the majority of spending is in military.

  164. KARDNOS says:

    As to Vox’s “encyclopedic” post…..

    What garners a 65% vote as an “emergency”? There are those that say we should have let the banks and auto manufacturing fail…..and they were proven wrong.

  165. KARDNOS says:

    or 60% for that matter……it’s all rhetoric….

  166. aislander says:

    Actually…KARD…I’m pretty sure you spoke up in favor of “shared sacrifice” when I posted that the words made a chill go up my spine. THAT’S what I was referring to. And if it WASN’T you, that’s not really relevant to me. You guys all kind of meld together in my mind…

  167. xx98411 says:

    Cutting Planned Parenthood and NPR does relatively nothing for the budget when the majority of spending is in military.

    consider it an appetizer to a full fledge fat cutting meal and a damn good start.

  168. aislander says:

    Nancy Pelosi just said she is “undecided” about the debt ceiling rise because, she says, “details are important.” You mean they DON’T have to pass the bill to find out what’s IN the bill? Seems highly irregular to me…

  169. Roncella says:

    KARDNOS, lets stop with all the excuses about Why There Isn’t One Black Reporter working for a very large News Source like NPR, a very far far left organization.

    Why doesn’t NPR hire Blacks to work in their Organization, Why Kardnos ??

    Fox News Fair and Balanced has far more Blacks working for them, then does NPR.

    You being a very far left liberal should be able to answer my question as you believe and support a news outlet such as NPR.

  170. “xx98411 says:
    August 1, 2011 at 9:28 am
    Cutting Planned Parenthood and NPR does relatively nothing for the budget when the majority of spending is in military.

    consider it an appetizer to a full fledge fat cutting meal and a damn good start.

    How about calling it what it is…..cutting for the sake of cutting and political theater

    Please explain what is wrong with the government helping fund women’s healthcare and public radio.

  171. “aislander says:
    August 1, 2011 at 9:28 am
    Actually…KARD…I’m pretty sure you spoke up in favor of “shared sacrifice”

    Actually……Aislander……the only time I would have used the words “shared sacrifice” was to quote you or the letter writer.

    I do know that sharing isn’t part of your make up.

  172. The black person NPR didn’t hire, according to Roncella….

    http://www.farai.com/

  173. Roncella says:

    President Obama got all he wanted and more. He followed the advice of one of his closest advisors, Rob Emanuel now mayor of the City of Chicago. ” Never let a good crises go to waste”.

    Obama didn’t, he got the next debt Ceiling safely pushed past the 2012 elections.

    Reid/Pelosi/Obama were not held to cutting the out of control spending to 4 trillion for the first decrease in spending. They are barely cutting 1 trillon.

    The Bush tax cuts will expire causing a tax increase for almost all Americans.
    f
    Spending by the Federal Government will continue to rise yearly with no end in sight.

    So President Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the Dems got almost everything they wanted.

    Besides getting all they wanted they are now blaming Republicans Tea Party folks for the extended mess, and possible rise in the interest rates for us all.

    yep, Congradulations to “All The Liberal Democrats” in The Congress, They Won.

    All the Tax Payers lost including the Tea Party Folks.

  174. Since our meeting, NPR has hired an NABJ member – an African American male. He is a national correspondent for NPR’s digital platform. An NPR spokesman says another black male hire is in the works, but it is too soon to disclose details.

    Kathy Y. Times
    President, National Association of Black Journalists

  175. aislander says:

    KARD asks: “Please explain what is wrong with the government helping fund women’s healthcare and public radio.”

    Besides everything? Those are not legitimate constitutional functions of the Federal government, but never mind that. We have a national debt that is equal to the gross domestic product of the entire country for an entire year. We are borrowing $40 of every $100 we spend. We’d BETTER cut EVERYTHING we can, big and small. You know the old saying: A third of a billion here, a third of billion there, and pretty soon it adds up to real money…

  176. “So President Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the Dems got almost everything they wanted.

    Besides getting all they wanted they are now blaming Republicans Tea Party folks for the extended mess, and possible rise in the interest rates for us all.

    yep, Congradulations to “All The Liberal Democrats” in The Congress, They Won.

    All the Tax Payers lost including the Tea Party Folks.”

    It’s tough being a loud, ignorant minority in politics. The “TEA” Party has fragmented the Republican Party. I can’t wait for the 2012 elections.

  177. How about calling it what it is…..cutting for the sake of cutting and political theater

    Fine, whatever you wanna call it I don’t care anymore. NPR and Planned Parenthood are petty cash considering all the zeros thrown about. Cut the non-mandated spending.

    Please explain what is wrong with the government helping fund women’s healthcare and public radio.

    Absolutely nothing… it is a wonderful tax funded (portion of) service to the general public.

    There are limits to the size of my pocketbook. It only contains but so much money. The government needs to do what it is mandated to do whether it be at the Federal, State or local level.

    If there is money left over then either save that money for a rainy day (sound familiar), roll over that money to the next fiscal period and/or/whatever… refund that money back to the peoples (cold day in hades isn’t it)… something… anything but what the mindset is now.

    It is your friggin’ money, you earned, you are responsible for yourself and your family.

    The government is only obligated to receive from the taxpayer the minimal amount needed to fund mandated services. It is fiscally prudent that those services be as cost effective as possible.

    It is really that simple…

  178. “Those are not legitimate constitutional functions of the Federal government,”

    Oh…..pull out the “Constitution” again……

    “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” = Planned Parenthood medical

    NPR is reflective of the people’s right to media and that the air waves don’t belong to commercial broadcast.

    Now’s that for Constitution?

    As to cutting….how about cutting 50% of the military which would still make the US the largest military spender in the world?

    Brazil’s economy is cooking right now. You know when the last time was they participated in war as a country? The middle 1800s. They realize that war is like putting your economy in a pile and lighting a match.

  179. “Please explain what is wrong with the government helping fund women’s healthcare and public radio.

    Absolutely nothing… it is a wonderful tax funded (portion of) service to the general public.”

    Thank you for your long awaited intellectual honesty.

  180. aislander says:

    I hope you’re wrong, Roncella, but I fear you are correct. This debt ceiling thing is just kabuki: it really won’t have an impact on what the rating agencies do about our credit worthiness. When (not if) our rating is lowered, we will have to make cuts just to stay even, since hundreds of billions more will have to be spent merely to service the debt. We know tax increases won’t realize nearly enough to close the gap, and, as the IMF says, they will blow up the economy, which will REDUCE revenues. The existence of the nation is at stake, and politicians, especially those on the left, seem to have no interest in saving it. I try not to question motives, but those of the political class can’t be good.

    We need at least $4 trillion in cuts in one year, not the pittance this deal generated, which may be illusory in any case.

  181. aislander says:

    If those cuts are not made, we will find ourselves in the position of Greece, but with no one to bail US out. Cuts will be imposed with an axe and a chainsaw rather than with a scalpel, and the crybabies will be out in the streets, demanding what is “theirs…”

  182. Roncella says:

    KARDNOS, your actually proud of NPR just recently hiring some Blacks in their organizaton ? WOW. How long has NPR been around ?

    You need to be reminded that those Tea Party Folks voted for and sent to Washington D.C. many new Congressman and women to cut the out of control spending by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, dems in the Congress.

    The road block to doing this was the powerful establishment republicans who actually helped Reid/Pelosi/Biden/Obama win the great Budget debate and debt celing debate.

  183. aislander says:

    Talking to KARD about the Constitution is like trying to teach my dog to speak French: It frustrates me and annoys the dog…

  184. Thank you for your long awaited intellectual honesty.

    You asked a basic fundamental question without the classic presuppositions and pontifications…

    So we are clear – CUT, CUT, CUT…

  185. aislander says:

    …especially when the dog doesn’t know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence…

  186. I wish we could “like” or “thumbs up” posts…

    woof, woof…

  187. “Oh…..pull out the “Constitution” again……”

    It is a concept that is lost in the DC zip code.

  188. “Roncella says:
    August 1, 2011 at 11:34 am
    KARDNOS, your actually proud of NPR just recently hiring some Blacks in their organizaton ? WOW. How long has NPR been around ?”

    I thought that NPR didn’t have any black reporters…….Now you’ve changed your tune?

  189. Ooops…sorry…misquote…

    “promote the general Welfare”

    OK…do I get a cookie now?

    I guess the Declaration of Independence had nothing to do with the Constitution…….

  190. Declaration of Independence? We don’t need no sticking Declaration of Independence

  191. Roncella….are you going to admit that you don’t even know the NPR source for this market?

  192. aislander says:

    When we mention the “by our Creator” part, lefties insist that the Declaration has NOTHING to do with the Constitution…

  193. So…..xx……if we hadn’t spent all the money on Iraq, would it be OK to help fund a public broadcast network for Americans?

  194. XX98,
    “cutting Planned Parenthood and NPR . . consider it and appetizer” More like a preview of the radical social engineering the Rpots are planning.

    “fiscally prudent that those services be as cost effective as possible” Go tell that to the Republicans who prohibited Medicare / Medicaid from negotiating with the Drug Companies.

    Roncella,
    If the Federal spending continues to rise blame the Part Time Do Nothing Rpot controlled House as they would have to approve any increase in spending.

    Islander,
    Explain why it is OK to subsidies (to the tune of tens of billions of dollars) supposedly profitable corporations.

    Yesterday on MSNBC, Rep Raul Labrador (Tea Party / Republican, Idaho) said everybody tells him to “Cut … Cut … Cut … BUT DON’T TOUCH MY PROGRAM!”

  195. This lefty has no problem with the antiquated linguistics of our superstitious founding fathers.

    On the other hand, there is no reason to continue with their supersitions…..

    It’s sort of like “In God We Trust” on currency……who really cares?????

  196. “Our Creator”…..I guess that could be Allah, huh?

  197. “Islander,
    Explain why it is OK to subsidies (to the tune of tens of billions of dollars) supposedly profitable corporations.”

    then after that, you might be able to explain why a member of Congress (who is running for president) should get farm subsidies and her husband take medicaid payments, when she is pounding the podium about finances.

  198. aislander says:

    xring: As I’ve told you in response to this question that you have posed to me at least three times: I…AM…OPPOSED…TO…ALL…SUBSIDIES…AND…TO…ALL…ENTANGLEMENTS…
    BETWEEN…GOVERNMENT…AND…BUSINESS (except for the enforcement of the basic criminal and contract laws)…

  199. Roncella says:

    KARDNOS, Back to your defense of NPR.

    ” NPR needs to air more Black men in house or staff as part of adding a diverse across many ethnicties and races ” as stated by Farai Chideya Former host of News and Notes.

    A very far left Black Reporter Quan Williams was fired by NPR on oct.20 2010.

    Its been said that Blacks at NPR are last to be hired and first to be fired.

  200. So…..xx……if we hadn’t spent all the money on Iraq, would it be OK to help fund a public broadcast network for Americans?

    We already have multiple broadcasting networks, don’t need a Das Obama network (nor Republican network) funded by your tax dollars.

    Again, if you want the service and are will to fund it, send your check to TurboTax Timmy.

  201. KARDNOS says:

    “A very far left Black Reporter Quan Williams”

    hahaha…hahahahahaha……hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Now that I’ve gotten over “the very far left”……

    The “J” is done with the right hand and the “Q” is done with the left…..

  202. KARDNOS says:

    All that jazz programming on NPR is very “leftist”……LOL

  203. KARDNOS says:

    Hey…Roncella…..if NPR were to focus on hiring a black person…..

    You’d say they were discriminating…..

    LMAO

  204. Jazz is the one truly American brand of music.

  205. xx98411 says:

    spoken like a truly ignorant person who knows nothing about NPR.

    you wanna support NPR then make the case why we should be spending taxpayer money to support a form of entertainment and information when other stations exist that can serve that market.

    in the end we are talking about a relatively small percentage of NPR’s budget.

    (TNT – you call me out for being offensive and name calling… I am a big boy this is nothing… and consider the source. but calling me out… I am giving you a smirk for a look… please…)

  206. aislander says:

    Hey, xx98411: at least you don’t “LOL” your own “jokes.” That’s TRULY offensive–or at least a little creepy…

  207. xx98411 says:

    that does appears to be a “colloquialism” of some posters on this fine example of a community blog… of which I am humbled to be part of… :)

  208. aislander says:

    Kissing up to the Board Nanny, xx? Might work…I try to keep ‘em entertained.

  209. theglovesRoff says:

    RE: KARDNOS’ July 31 8:02 PM blather.

    I have had numerous comments removed (coincidentally, they were all related to KARDNOS) but I have never received a personal email from the TNT moderators telling me my comment was deleted. It is interesting that KARDNOS gets an email from the TNT moderators when a comment of his is flagged. And it is interesting that my comments that have been deleted seem to show up quoted in comments from KARDNOS, or on his “special” blog.

    To borrow the appropriate phrase from LarryFine, “Kooky”….

  210. xx98411 says:

    now you got me curious. this is what I received from an address from TNT.

    xx98411,

    Please refrain from name-calling and personal insults on the letters to the editor blog. Our commenting guidelines prohibit both, and repeated offenses could result in being banned from the forum. Thank you for your help in maintaining civility on the blog.

    (Name withheld to protect the honor of the person that actually has the job of monitoring discourse on this board. God bless you.)
    The News Tribune

    this is their sandbox and the rules are clear. I don’t have a problem with them calling me out… I just need to know what the heck I did.. I don’t see it. I haven’t been a jerk in a while.

    And once again, I do appreciate the opportunity and the platform provided to share my thoughts and feelings on this fine example of a blog serving the All-American City of Tacoma, WA… the greatest blog in the greatest city in all the world.

    I really do…. :)

  211. aislander says:

    Don’t be obsequious with the BN, xx. I may start flirting soon, though. There’s something about a woman with power…

  212. beerBoy says:

    if the poverty rate is VERY close to what it was in 1965, it’s pretty obvious we’ve been wasting our money.

    but aislander…..using your logic that, without Bush tax cuts(or rates) there would have been even less jobs created…….one could put forward the argument that the poverty rate would be much, much higher now without the various programs.

    Consistency……can cut both ways.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0