Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ELECTION: Fighting those 17 angry billionaires

Letter by Jerry Beckendorf, Puyallup on Aug. 10, 2012 at 1:12 pm with 175 Comments »
August 10, 2012 3:01 pm

We are preparing for the overwhelming flood of TV ads as a result of Citizens United unlimited campaign funding. Much of it will come from 17 angry billionaires who think there should be less Wall Street and environmental regulation, larger tax cuts for millionaires and smaller entitlements benefiting the middle class. They may have their way if the Republicans take over at all levels of local, state and national government.

As a result I’m knocking on doors and calling citizens in my precinct urging them to support Democrats at all levels: Barack Obama for president, Maria Cantwell for U.S. Senate, Jay Inslee for governor, Bob Ferguson for attorney general, and Democrats for the other statewide and county offices.

I’m supporting Denny Heck in the new 10th Legislative District and, in the 25th Legislative District, Dawn Morrell and Bill Hilton for the state House and Eric Herde for state Senate.

There are occasional good Republican office holders who supported the values of my parents when I was growing up in Oregon. No-compromise tea party folks and Grover Nordquist (never raise taxes) shout down the moderate Republicans.

Support middle-class values rather than those 17 angry billionaires who need our tax dollars to build their next mansion in Bermuda.

(Beckendorf is a Democratic precinct officer in the 25th Legislative District.)

Leave a comment Comments → 175
  1. aislander says:

    We need a productive economy, not dependence on government. Do the math: there just ain’t enough money available to take from people to do what the Dems want to do to us…

  2. LeePHill says:

    So, aislander, the 200% growth of the stock market since Obama took over isn’t enough for private enterprise?

    How is that math?

    Maybe when the wealthy start paying taxes on all that corporate profit, there will be enough money available.

  3. aislander says:

    The stock market is one indicator, and what it is indicating right now is the effect of the Fed’s pumping money into it. What you are celebrating is essentially inflation.

    And your math doesn’t work because those taxes won’t come close to covering Obama’s profligacy and, as I point out, those stock-market profits aren’t real, nor will they be realized to whatever small extent until those “gains” are taken through the sale of the stocks…

  4. LeePHill says:

    Uh…taxes are at an all time low….try again

    I like your conspiracy about the market being artificially inflated by the Fed, though. Maybe you should write a novel.

  5. sandblower says:

    And a little inflation is good.

  6. aislander says:

    “Uh…taxes are at an all time low….try again…”

    Uh…what does that even mean? Or, more to the point, how does that relate to anything I posted? Taxes are low as a percentage of GDP due to the Obama economy, and any rate increase on the “rich” isn’t going to come close to closing the gap.

    As for a “conspiracy,” I don’t think there is one, but all that “quantitative easing” had to go somewhere. It went into the stock market mainly due to the weakness of other currencies…

  7. ThomasSkidmore says:

    Hard to understand why the Republicans are supporting Republican Candidates. The Republicans came close to destroying the economy – the banks and Wall Street. Bush was dumping 700,000 jobs a month and Obama stopped all that. Now Wall Street and the banks are back to robbing us blind and making money hand over fist. None of them went to jail and they are paying less taxes than they have in the last 50 years. Why are they against the Democrats…they are getting everything they want! All they will get from the Republicans and Romney is another Great Depression…go get ‘em Jerry!

  8. 17 Billionaires. I know 5 of them are Waltons of Walmart. Who are the other 12 and what are their interests so I can, in my own little way, boycott their interests? I know Koch has much of Georgia Pacific so I read the labels on paper products and do not buy Georgia Pacific. They also own control of Shaw Carpets. What else? Let us all do a little homework, compile a list, and start voting, not just with our feet, but with our wallets. Right here in Washington State Tom Stewart of Food Services of America is another big contributor to the Republicans. Come on all you writers, lets name names and kick butt.

  9. A democrat PCO? Supporting all democrats everywhere?

    This format has gone way beyond slow news days. This is nothing less than a free political advertising billboard.

    Who’s been the dollar-fodollar biggest liars this year?

    Barack 0bama for president 2012 and Priorities USA – hands down.

  10. Funny, Romney is a moderate republican. You hypocrite.

  11. tappsman64 says:

    Wow! Olemag is blaming Tom Stewart for making large contributions to the Republicans a couple years after he was killed. Who are Sam Walton and Howard Hughes contributing to? So much for credibility.

  12. LeePHill says:

    “CT7 says:
    Aug. 10, 2012 at 6:25 pm Funny, Romney is a moderate republican. You hypocrite.”

    Not according to Romney and his campaign…or are we etching the sketch again?

  13. arttheshark says:

    Well, well, it’s Mr Naive himself. And there’s no money on the Democrat side? They’re all middle class working stiffs, right? And lets have another $5 trillion more in debt. And more “quantitive easing” which is just another term for inflating the currency. That will surely help the middle class, right? Nothing like a good old fashioned dose of inflation to lower the standard of living. Everyone has a brain, but obviously not everyone knows how to use it.

  14. menopaws says:

    I’m voting for Obama and the Democrats because the Republicans are sooooo hyped on deregulation. That is what got us into this mess–nobody watching the corporate pirates rape and pillage for fun and profit…….I don’t plan on bailing those stupid jerks out again and Chase has just shown us they learned NOTHING from the last meltdown…….At least Dodd Frank tried to put some brakes on them, but it doesn’t kick in until next year—so, of course, they want to reverse it and go back to their merry ways of rampant speculation and hedge bets that are backed by what, cotton candy??? I have seen the fiscal RESPONSIBLITY of Republicans….It involves keeping dishonest books and then blaming the other guy when he finally puts the war costs in the deficit…….It’s like one of those carnival hucksters…..which shell has the quarter under it???? With them, the answer is none–they are all empty…….But, lots of empty promises for your trouble…….Been there, done that and I’d rather take my chances with the guy who did keep some promises……..Bin Laden is at the bottom of the ocean and that works for me………The other guy and his psycho Veep were too busy water boarding for 8 years to bother—Just remember Chase just did it all over again and so will the others without a watchdog…….Republicans are stuffing their money into their campaign costs–deregulation is their mantra…….Obama 2012…..Save your money and your accounts from the sharks!!!!!

  15. No, meno… reeeeeealy??? You’re voting for 0bama and the democrats because (insert gratuitous reasoning here)???
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Gosh, in a million years I’d never have guessed that one either.

  16. klthompson says:

    That letter amounts to an extreme amount of Kool-Aid.

  17. took14theteam says:

    I saw the name menopaws, saw about 3 inches of text, saw a few capitalized words, and a lot of periods, so I skimmed…..

  18. took14theteam says:

    And, 0bama sucks.

  19. Did someone want some names of GOP billionaire donors?
    Sheldon Adelson (offshore casinos),
    Charles Schwab (Charles Schwab),
    Boone Pickens (BP Capital),
    Foster Friess (private equity),
    Henry Kravis (private equity; Playtex, Duracell, Safeway, Toys R Us, Regal Ent.),
    Charles Dolan (Cablevision/HBO),
    Richard DeVos (Amway, Orlando Magic),
    Theodore Forstmann (private equity; Dr. Pepper, 24Hour Fitness)
    Leslie Wexner (Victoria’s Secret, Bath & Body Works, Abercrombie, The Limited),
    John Chambers (Cisco),
    Glen Taylor (Taylor Corp, Minnesota T’Wolves),
    Carl H. Lindner (United Dairy Farmers, American Financial Group),
    Bob McNair (power plants, private investment, Houston Texans),
    Stephen A. Schwarzman (The Blackstone Group; investment banking),
    Ray Lee Hunt (oil),
    E. Stanley Kroenke (Walmart, St. Louis Rams, Arsenal),
    Alex G. Spanos (A.G. Spanos Co, real estate; SD Chargers),
    Richard T. Farmer (Cintas),
    Jerry Perenchio (Univision),
    Michael Dell (Dell),
    Sam Wyly (technology investments)

  20. “The stock market is one indicator, and what it is indicating right now is the effect of the Fed’s pumping money into it. What you are celebrating is essentially inflation.”

    Bovine byproduct. The inflation rate is very low, and the money supply isn’t expanding all that much either. Time to try another lie.

  21. By naming Paul Ryan as his VP, Romney has shored up his pro-austerity Tea base but has also picked the one conservative that is known and reviled more than any other by folks on the other side.

    Romney is horrific but Ryan is far, far worse.

    Congrats Romney – you have made me reconsider my vote. I think I may have to vote for the lessor of the evils here.

  22. RegisteringFool says:

    Facts? Citations? Proof?

    Its so easy to spout off this fact or that. But nobody seems willing to back up his/her claims with any authority. And then the allegations of lying start.

    This is just great theater folks! So much ado and so little foundation.

    I need to take a shower.

  23. the money supply isn’t expanding all that much either.

    You mean it’s not “expanding that much” from it’s 1st quarter all-time highs?

    http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/money-supply-charts

    And if you actually take the time to read the article, you may learn a bit about the effects of money supply on inflation… or not.

    And here’s the latest chart:

    http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/money-supply-charts

    Pay special attention to the “Note” to the left of the chart… you know, where it says the following:

    Note: A downward slope in this growth curve does not necessarily mean that the money supply is dropping. Only if the curve goes below zero does that show money supply having contracted over a full twelve months.

    Your colorless, matter-of-fact statement is either incredibly uninformed or irresponsible – or both.

  24. SwordofPerseus says:

    The “money supply” is under the control of the FED. A group of private for profit bankers, who by the charter granted to it by the US Congress, print US currency and then loan it to us at interest! We will never end the cycle of boom and bust util we abolish the FED. End the FED, revoke the charter now. That would be a great start to financial recovery.

    “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
    Thomas Jefferson

  25. One-hundred million people receiving welfare of some sort probably agree with you, Jerry. Those living in Cities declaring bankruptcy probably do not.

    Tacoma is broke, Pierce County is broke, the State is broke, and the Federal Government spent one-trillion more dollars more than it took in this year. Those in charge do not appear to have citizen’s best interest in mind.

    Vote democrat; get more of the same . . .

  26. SwoP, the subject of abolishing the FED is a great topic in as much as it crosses ideological lines from Paulinsky’s to OWSers. I’m no fan of the FED either, but it may be the lesser of all evils – at least for now. So my question to you is, assuming the FED were abolished, what system or standard would you choose to replace it?

  27. SwordofPerseus says:

    nanook – got any details or facts to back your claim of 100,000,000 people collecting welfare?

  28. SwordofPerseus says:

    Lincoln needed money to fund the war against the south. First he went to the National banker who wanted to charge more interest than Lincoln would pay, so he had a currency printed called the “Greenback” it was issued by the US Treasury and backed by gold or silver. The only difference is now we trade US Treasury Notes for Dollar Bills. Since money is essentially paper or electronic the need for gold and silver has been eliminated.

    We pay interest on every dollar to the FED. That system of financial tyranny would end with the reestablishment of the US minting its own currency.

  29. So you’re advocating a return to the “gold standard”?

  30. RegisteringFool says:

    …but he can’t win…

    He’s got this crazy idea about the Fed.

    …but he can’t win…

    What? He wants to bring the troops home?

    …but he can’t win…

    You mean he thinks we are our own worst enemy?

    …but he can’t win…

    Do some delegates really think he might still get nominated?

    …but he can’t win…

    “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” – Gandhi

  31. SwordofPerseus says:

    You could just read this yourself above your question…

    “Since money is essentially paper or electronic the need for gold and silver has been eliminated.”

  32. “You mean it’s not “expanding that much” from it’s 1st quarter all-time highs?”

    Here’s a clue for you. When your chart only goes back to 2007, your perspective is somewhat limited. http://nowandfutures.com/key_stats.html

  33. Sop, since you are too lazy to google-

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/jane-devin/political-propaganda-100-million_b_1758311.html

    Huffpo already preloaded your excuses for you. No need to think or do any research.

  34. Bb- reconsider? LOL!

    This is great news. Two action oriented professionals. Romney and Ryan will bring the Nation back to its rightful place fiscally and morally.

  35. LeePHill says:

    Ryan is a life long government employee. CT7 just demonstrated how little he knows about the nominee

    “Graduating from Joseph A. Craig High School in Janesville in 1988, Ryan was voted prom king and “Biggest Brown-Noser” by his classmates.[14] He went on to attend Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, returning to Camp Manito-wish YMCA, to work as a staff member and counselor during his college summer vacations.[15] He worked as a salesman for Oscar Mayer, driving the Wienermobile.[16] During his junior year at Miami University, Ryan worked as an intern opening mail for the foreign affairs advisor assigned to Senator Bob Kasten of Wisconsin.[17] Ryan graduated from Miami University with a BA in economics and political science in 1992. He also studied at the Washington Semester program at American University and was a member of the Delta Tau Delta social fraternity. Following his studies, Ryan briefly returned to Wisconsin and worked as a marketing consultant for a construction company run by his relatives”

    Bush revisited. Maybe he can borrow the Wienermobile for the campaign.

  36. LeePHill says:

    “CT7 says:
    Aug. 11, 2012 at 9:35 am Sop, since you are too lazy to google-”

    A priceless post from “I’ve got a Wacko Website”

  37. Did you even read your own copy and paste? Marketing consultant. Worked throughout college. Hustled.

    I am not an expert on Ryan’s past, and I am sure we will all learn more soon enough.

    Biden. Lol!

  38. LeePHill says:

    “worked through college”…..

    Drove the Weinermobile and was a camp counselor, not to mention was handed a job in the family business.

    Yeah…quite the worker. Probably a posterchild for the working class heroes.

    “Marketing consultant”. The term used for people that peddle Amway.

  39. LeePHill says:

    I’m sure that the men and women digging ditches and doing the real labor for the family construction company respected Paul quite alot. They usually do respect when the family’s privileged kid gets handed a “management” job, which is why my dad made me work as a laborer for his company.

  40. So there is no honor in peddling Amway?

    And you did not have the schooling or talent to Ryan. Face the hard truth.

    If you ran a business and wasted talent, your business would no last very long or be nearly as successful as it could be.

    You are being 100% ridiculous right now.

  41. LeePHill says:

    “honor”?????

    Oh sure! There is lots of “honor” in pyramid schemes. The higher up the pyramid you go, the more “honor”.

    There is also “honor” in being a community organizer, but somehow you clowns can’t see that.

    If you think Ryan was handed the “marketing consultant” job for the family construction company because of his brilliance after four years of college, you are either (a)ignorant about the construction business, (b) ignorant about marketing degrees or (c) both.

    I choose (c).

  42. LeePHill says:

    I’d love to watch you try to remake Paul Ryan’s biography, but I’ve got to go out and take care of a few of my customers that pay for maintenance services which require actual labor for the money they pay.

    If only I could come up with a pyramid system that allowed me to do no work and the money would come rolling in for the work that someone else did….well…geeez, I’d be “honorable”!!!

  43. Here’s a clue for you. When your chart only goes back to 2007, your perspective is somewhat limited

    Here’s a clue for you: When you (falsely) criticize someone for a link, and then post a link showing the exact same chart (Money supply M1, M2, M3) – a chart which, by the way, in the case of the one I linked, graphs data on three different measurements of US money supply from 2003 to present – it isn’t a matter of “perspective”, it’s a matter of credibility on your part.

    I’ll admit to double posting the link though. The second link should have been this one:

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/320535-u-s-money-supply-soars-to-all-time-highs-shows-inflation-trade-is-still-on

    Again:

    Pay special attention to the “Note” to the left of the chart… you know, where it says the following:

    Note: A downward slope in this growth curve does not necessarily mean that the money supply is dropping. Only if the curve goes below zero does that show money supply having contracted over a full twelve months.

    HTH – seriously doubt it will.

  44. SwoP, as I stated, I’m no fan of the FED, but I’m not convinced a gold standard is the answer either. But my brother-in-law holds a PhD in economics. He’s been schooling me on some of the difficulties of switching back to the gold standard in today’s world, so I’ll play a bit of devil’s advocate here.

    First of all what is backed by gold? The monetary base? Most people’s money isn’t held as currency, so, what, like 10% of my money is backed by gold, the other isn’t? Or, do you have to print new paper money so that every 1 and zero in a computer at a bank has a corresponding piece of paper?

    You don’t trust the Fed to not print money, so instead they should… print money? Hmmm…

    Then there’s the problem with privately-held gold. Given the US holding of gold and how many dollars are out there, what does that do to the value of gold backed by dollars? It’s probably thousands of times higher than the present price of gold. So do all current gold-holders suddenly see their wealth (in dollars) shoot up a thousand times over it’s current value? The Fed just instantly declares them gazillionaires? My gold wedding band is suddenly worth $100,000? Or does the government have to first confiscate all private gold holdings so as to not unfairly declare people with certain assets to be instantly super-rich?

    That’s just a couple of the problems with switching back to a method of backing currency not used in nearly 100 years.

  45. http://nowandfutures.com/key_stats.html#total_money

    The rate of increase is less than 3%. Fail. Try again.

  46. philichi says:

    jellee I wish that I was a billionaire, you could put me on the list too! Thank God that these people are giving of their funds to restore our nation back to greatness.

    Leehill: I realize that Ryan hasn’t had the private sector experience that you wanted. Just think, it is double our current presidents. However, I suppose that if he had started his own business, you would have demonized him. And, if he would have started his own business, you would have said “you didn’t build that”

  47. The rate of increase is less than 3%. Fail. Try again.

    LMAO, yeah, if you only look at the graph for M-3. Trouble is, even the FED doesn’t even publish
    M-3 money supply anymore.

    Economists rely on M-2; which is the sum of currency and coins, balances held in checking accounts and some additional assets that are “usable in making payments but at greater cost or inconvenience than currency or checks.”

    Try looking at the M-2 graph, genius, you’ll find a 10% increase between 2/ 11 and 2/ 12 – an all-time high in money supply.

    Embarrassing fail. Try again.

  48. SwordofPerseus says:

    Clam – No. There is no gold now as a base for US currency, as you probably know, this is called fiat currency and it is backed by law and the “full faith and trust of the United States Government” which is granted by the Constitution the sole privilege to mint currency or to delegate that authority. To give the power of controlling the money supply was unwise at best, Wilson was duped and never should have signed the Federal Reserve Act.

  49. SwordofPerseus says:

    Clam – To be more precise if I can, the FED “loans” dollars the United States Treasury (at current T-Bill interest rates) to use our own effing money.

    This concept is lost on most people with whom I discuss this topic. In other words we are paying a private consortium of bankers, known collectively as the Federal Reserve Bank, to lend us at interest mind you, for what we should already own, United States Dollars! Not a good deal. At the same time the IRS and income tax was established so that the peoples income could be collected to pay the interest on the debt.

    ;-\

  50. LeePHill says:

    “Leehill: I realize that Ryan hasn’t had the private sector experience that you wanted. Just think, it is double our current presidents. However, I suppose that if he had started his own business, you would have demonized him. And, if he would have started his own business, you would have said “you didn’t build that”

    Philichi…based on your “quote” of President Obama (which is not what he said), I can see that you’d prefer to embellish Ryan’s experience, as opposed to just admitting that he is one more Fortunate Son that is being introduced to the middle class with a facade saying “I’m just like you”.

    If you think driving the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile is the equivilant to:

    director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization originally comprising eight Catholic parishes in Roseland, West Pullman, and Riverdale on Chicago’s South Side. He worked there as a community organizer from June 1985 to May 1988.[35][36] He helped set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants’ rights organization in Altgeld Gardens.[37] Obama also worked as a consultant and instructor for the Gamaliel Foundation, a community organizing institute

    …..your problem is obvious

  51. And where does the profit from those loans go??

  52. LeePHill says:

    Here, Philichi…since you have so much trouble quoting the President in context:

    “There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
    “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

  53. LeePHill says:

    “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

    THERE is the part that the conservatives will never understand….

  54. sandblower says:

    Thank god for Ryan. A total jerk as VP makes it even easier for the undecided to vote for Obama and Biden.
    The last time I looked at an analysis of his budget proposal it was a guarantee that the deficit would go up, that the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer. It is the perfect solution for resolving the uncertainty some voters might have.
    Four more years looks even better with this announcement.
    I can hardly wait for the press to find the Ryan skeletons we all know exist.

  55. LeePHill says:

    Even the Catholic Bishops disagreed with Ryan’s budget proposal…and they are doing as much as possible to deep six Obama.

  56. A “jerk” vs a total idiot (Biden)? Whose budget got more votes, Ryan or BHO?

    Run scared lefties. Great speech by Mitt today. You are done

  57. Shall we review some recent democrat VP’s/ VP Candidates… again:

    Gore
    Edwards
    Biden.

    Stones, glass house, remember?

  58. “Try looking at the M-2 graph, genius, you’ll find a 10% increase between 2/ 11 and 2/ 12 – an all-time high in money supply.”

    You’re using old numbers. The growth of the M2 supply has slowed dramatically since February.

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current/

  59. SwordofPerseus says:

    Umm -err how about speaking of recent Puglican VP’s/VP candidates…
    Again:

    Palin,

    Cheney,

    Quayle.

    Might wannna hold your stones…

  60. “Shall we review some recent democrat VP’s/ VP Candidates… again:

    And you think Palin, Cheney, and Quayle were better? LOL

  61. SwoP, I think you misunderstood my first question/ point. I understand how the FED works, but I’m questioning how converting to the gold standard would affect non currency holdings… in other words, how would it be possible to make a return to the gold standard operational in today’s global economy?

    To another point; seems to me the Chinese would vacuum-up all of the world’s gold in about 90 seconds. Then what.

  62. Cheney and Quale were head and shoulders above Gore and Biden. So you want to argue Palin vs. Edwards?

    Didn’t think so.

    Now go on back to your econ 101 class.

  63. You’re using old numbers.

    Go back to my first comment on the subject, knucklehead:

    Clamat0
    AUG. 11, 2012 AT 7:28 AM

    You mean it’s not “expanding that much” from it’s 1st quarter all-time highs?

    Last time I checked February was in fact in the 1st quarter.

    Again, please try to keep up.

    Remedial reading/ reading for comprehension 101 in order for you too?

    The growth of the M2 supply has slowed dramatically since February.

    Once again s-l-o-w-l-y:

    A downward slope in this growth curve does not necessarily mean that the money supply is dropping. Only if the curve goes below zero does that show money supply having contracted over a full twelve months.

  64. SwordofPerseus says:

    Clam0-No GOLD; Fiat currency just like the fed without the penalty of interest. Not sure you GET it, I’ve answered this the same way twice now. Maybe you need to read m-o-r-e s-l-o-w-l-y.

  65. SwordofPerseus says:

    Clam0 said; “Cheney and Quale were head and shoulders above Gore and Biden.” Good thing I had no liquids in my mouth when I read that ’cause you would owe me a new keyboard. ROTFLMAO

  66. menopaws says:

    Warmed over Reaganomics, with one HUGE difference. Reagan had sense enough to raise taxes—ryan has NO revenue increase in his “magical” plan……….Just spending cuts………..Reagan was smarter than this dude—knew you need to increase revenue to increase other spending……..But, hey, all these bloggers worship Reagan and forget his amazing tax increase….which, I might add, did the job and pulled us out of an inflationary spiral…..Mortgage rates were at 18%–how soon people forget what Reagan REALLY did……Ryan spouts the rhetoric but doesn’t quite have his economics lesson learned……..Try worshiping what Reagan actually did versus the spin……

  67. sandblower says:

    I thought Palin was great….for us. A complete and total meltdown is what happened and it would not surprise me to see the same happen to Mitt and what’s his name.

  68. Sop, I know you got distracted by the new VP, but focus! Where does the Fed profit go? Hint- wiki will tell you.

    Do not be scared. Better men then you have fallen for propaganda and rhetoric.

  69. Where is Biden’s plan? LOL!!!!!

  70. SwoP @ 4:18 & 4:20; classic example of why it’s a waste of time trying to have a courteous conversation with liberal zealots – especially on this forum.

    The point is it’s easy to say “we need to dump the FED and go back to the gold standard”. but when you get into specifics, it’s incredibly difficult to even comprehend – and specifics are exactly what your and RF’s posts have left out in favor of grossly simplified banalities all day here.

    And you’ve still not even addressed my second question above.

  71. Clam, he has no idea how it works today, so how can he explain in his own words how it should work in the future?

    For them it is not about workable solutions, but emotion and talking points. What he does not realize is that he is someone’s pawn right now. A tool of the leftist machine. Actually very sad.

  72. “First, if Ryan is an extremist and his proposals are so unpopular, how has he won election seven times in a Democratic district? His lowest share of the vote was 57 percent — in his first race. He routinely wins over two-thirds of the vote. When Obama swept the nation in 2008, he carried Ryan’s district by four points. But at the same time, Ryan won reelection with 65 percent of the vote, meaning that a fifth of Obama voters also voted for him.

    Ryan has pointed out to me that no Republican has carried his district for president since Ronald Reagan in 1984. “I have held hundreds of town-hall meetings in my district explaining why we have to take bold reform steps, and I’ve found treating people like adults works,” he told me. “All those ads pushing elderly woman off the cliffs don’t work anymore if you lay out the problem.”

    Second, Democrats know that Ryan has Reaganesque qualities that make him appealing to independent, middle-class voters. Take the cover story on Ryan that the Isthmus, a radically left-wing Madison, Wis. newspaper, ran on him in 2009. “Ryan, with his sunny disposition and choirboy looks, projects compassion and forcefully proclaims dedication to his district,” the story reported. “And he’s proved he is not unyieldingly pro-corporate, as when he recently joined in condemnation of AIG ‘retention’ bonuses.”

    Third, Ryan’s ideas aren’t that novel or scary. The idea of “premium support” for Medicare, which would change the program’s one-size-fits-all policy to a private-insurance model with public options, was endorsed by a bipartisan commission appointed by Bill Clinton back in the 1990s. Late last year, Ryan announced a new version of his proposal with a new partner signing on: Democratic senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, who first achieved political prominence as an advocate for seniors.

    Four, Ryan puts Wisconsin and its ten electoral votes in play. Polls have shown that President Obama holds a five to seven point lead in Wisconsin — significant, but much less than Obama’s 14-point margin in 2008. With Ryan on the ticket, polls show the race is dead even.

    Five, if Republicans were looking for a superior candidate, they’ve found it in Ryan. His maiden speech as the GOP vice-presidential candidate was perfectly pitched:

    We won’t duck the tough issues . . . we will lead!

    We won’t blame others…we will take responsibility!

    We won’t replace our founding principles . . . we will reapply them!

    Nationreview.com

    Larry, I see you pulled your thoughts on Ryan from the New Yorker. At least give credit where it is due. Pathetic.

  73. LeePHill says:

    “Larry, I see you pulled your thoughts on Ryan from the New Yorker. At least give credit where it is due. Pathetic”

    I wonder who CT7 is talking to…..

    “First, if Ryan is an extremist and his proposals are so unpopular, how has he won election seven times in a Democratic district?”

    Lack of a good Democratic candidate. Any Republican should know about that. They’ve suffered from the same problem in 2008 and 2012

    If a Republican Congressman is winning a his district 7 times in a row, it’s a district that votes Republican, other than for President, when the GOP just can’t seem to field a decent candidate.

    This is nothing other than the GOP trying to define Ryan as a good vote by independents….only one problem….Ryan has to win a hell of a lot more than just his district.

    If you remember, Palin was a landslide in her homestate of 600,000 people, but took John McCain down the toilet.

  74. Palin lost the election for McCain? Nice rewrite o history.

    And Ryan is not Palin. By the way, did your hear Mitt’s speech today. Awesome. Sure you liked the teacher union comment.

  75. LeePHill says:

    If the 26 congressional representatives elected to the 1st District in Wisconsin since 1848…..15 of them have been Republican.

    WOW…what a Democratic district!!!

    CT7 will drool and eat the slop that the GOP serves up…..

    CT7 says:
    Aug. 11, 2012 at 8:35 pm Palin lost the election for McCain? Nice rewrite o history.”

    Ask Steve Schmidt.

    By the way, he was McCain’s campaign director in 2008, so I think he knows a little about what took place.

    No…I wouldn’t waste my time listening to a campaign speech from Mitt Romney. I would like to see his taxes, though. I wonder if Ryan will be vetted….

  76. SwordofPerseus says:

    Clam0- I mistakenly was giving you the benefit of the doubt in conversing with you. You are obviously reading comprehension challenged as you have previously accused others of being.

    @10:47a.m. Clamato said; “SwoP, as I stated, I’m no fan of the FED, but I’m not convinced a gold standard is the answer either. But my brother-in-law holds a PhD in economics. He’s been schooling me on some of the difficulties of switching back to the gold standard in today’s world, so I’ll play a bit of devil’s advocate here.”

    To which I replied

    @1:07p.m. Sword said; “There is no gold now as a base for US currency, as you probably know, this is called fiat currency and it is backed by law and the “full faith and trust of the United States Government” which is granted by the Constitution the sole privilege to mint currency or to delegate that authority. To give the power of controlling the money supply was unwise at best, Wilson was duped and never should have signed the Federal Reserve Act.”

    Followed by;

    @ 1:20 p.m. Sword said;. “This concept is lost on most people with whom I discuss this topic. In other words we are paying a private consortium of bankers, known collectively as the Federal Reserve Bank, to lend us at interest mind you, for what we should already own, United States Dollars! Not a good deal. At the same time the IRS and income tax was established so that the peoples income could be collected to pay the interest on the debt.”

    Clamat0 said @ 3:41 p.m. “Shall we review some recent democrat VP’s/ VP Candidates… again:
    Gore
    Edwards
    Biden.
    Stones, glass house, remember?”>/i>

    @3:54 p.m. Sword said; “Umm -err how about speaking of recent Puglican VP’s/VP candidates…
    Again:
    Palin,
    Cheney,
    Quayle.
    Might wannna hold your stones…”

    Now we start to get to the part where Clam asks again –

    @3:58 p.m. Clam0 said; “I understand how the FED works, but I’m questioning how converting to the gold standard would affect non currency holdings… in other words, how would it be possible to make a return to the gold standard operational in today’s global economy?”

    Well by this point I am guessing you DO NOT know how the FED works and I tire of repeating myself however I will persevere.

    In reply to ehill

    @4:09 Clam0 said; “Remedial reading/ reading for comprehension 101 in order for you too?
    The growth of the M2 supply has slowed dramatically since February.
    Once again s-l-o-w-l-y:”

    Again I repeat myself for the benefit of Mr. Clam0.

    @4:18 p.m. Sword said; “Clam0-No GOLD; Fiat currency just like the fed without the penalty of interest. Not sure you GET it, I’ve answered this the same way twice now. Maybe you need to read m-o-r-e s-l-o-w-l-y.

    @ 4:20 p.m. Sword said; Clam0 said; “Cheney and Quale were head and shoulders above Gore and Biden.” Good thing I had no liquids in my mouth when I read that ’cause you would owe me a new keyboard. ROTFLMAO

    Now the snark starts.

    @5:56 Clam0 said; “SwoP @ 4:18 & 4:20; classic example of why it’s a waste of time trying to have a courteous conversation with liberal zealots – especially on this forum.
    The point is it’s easy to say “we need to dump the FED and go back to the gold standard”. but when you get into specifics, it’s incredibly difficult to even comprehend – and specifics are exactly what your and RF’s posts have left out in favor of grossly simplified banalities all day here.”

    At no point in the conversation (for your convenience I have copied and pasted) did I once mention a return to the “GOLD STANDARD”. In fact I quite clearly stated the opposite, which you conveniently choose to ignore.

    Like I tried to explain, cut out the middle man (FED) print our own money. Not for the profit of PRIVATE BANKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    No GOLD standard.

    This is a very difficult concept to grasp. I took me a while.

  77. LeePHill says:

    It’s amazing how the Republicans will take a district that has voted in 58% Republican congressmen and turn that into a yarn about “Democratic district” to attempt to BS the independents into thinking Ryan is something other than a ultra-conservative Republican.

  78. SwordofPerseus says:

    How many here have Netflix or Apple iTunes accounts?
    May I see a show of hands?

    Find this movie and view it- Inside Job – Dir. Charles Ferguson
    (on iTunes $3.99)

    Takes a closer look at what brought about the financial meltdown.

  79. SwordofPerseus says:

    Lee – This Ryan clown thinks he’s channeling Ayn Rand. This will be great. It’s just like Palin and McCain all over again.

  80. Stupid #1- they voted dem for presidents since 1984.

    Stupid #2- the PROFITS GO TO THE TREASURY. The private banks keep a small dividend (if you bothered to check instead of repeating lies you would know the answer). The banks do not keep the profits.

  81. LeePHill says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin%27s_1st_congressional_district

    Take a look at the history of the First Congressional district in Wisconsin before you crown Ryan as a Saint. Like most things Republicans say, Ryan is BSing and dancing around the truth.

    Brian Baird held the Congressional 3rd District for a long tenure, but said district is anything but Democratic.

    “stupid” is the unwillingness to vet Ryan’s campaign rhetoric.

    Sword – the selection of Ryan has been the Democrat’s dream all the while…..

  82. SwordofPerseus says:

    Ya funny call me stupid- you jack a$$ nub nuts. You with less than no clue.

    Okay dummy as useless as it is to prove to an uneducated moron such as yourself. Try to learn something from somewhere beside Wiky pee’d on ya.

    {Why pay interest on our currency? A typical incorrect answer is – the FED profits are returned to the U.S. Treasury. The truth is, the FED is a private bank in business for profit. We pay roughly $300 billion in interest on our artificial debt and by special agreement, the U.S. Treasury receives $20 billion in return. Taxpayers lose $280 billion to the FED banking system per year … Your local library has these dollar figures. The numbers don’t lie.”

    Federal Reserve Notes, Interest, and the National Debt
    by
    Dr. Edward Flaherty
    University of Charleston

    July 18, 1997}

    Source; http://www.zoklet.net/totse/en/politics/international_banking_money_laundering/frnint.html

    You look more stupid with every post Conc. Give it up. Numbers don’t lie, unlike your candidates for VP & Pres.

  83. You are talking apples and oranges. I own bonds. Am I also committing some act that is evil in your twisted liberal mind? They are loaning the govt money. They should do it for nothing?

    What a joke.

  84. SwordofPerseus says:

    I have giga bytes of information regarding the FED. Who profits from it, who started it. ALL of it. I have been studying for three years. Conc. if you come to this battle about economy I suggest you go arm yourself with some information, facts, and ideas. You are defenseless against my overwhelming knowledge on this subject. I wouldn’t want you to get too embarrassed by your certain agonizing defeat.

  85. You read a NYT article and think you are an expert? You had no clue where the profits went.

    Gigabytes. Lol!!!

  86. SwordofPerseus says:

    NO we are talking about economics and fractional reserve banking. Fiat currency. All of this is far out of your comprehension, it is obvious by your tepid and clumsy off base replies.

  87. SwordofPerseus says:

    Profits go to the Primary share holders of the member FED banks. That is a short list of very influential people, who are not elected and not accountable. Why would you give taxpayer money to rich but not a helpless invalid, you are sick and twisted indeed.

  88. SwordofPerseus says:

    Oh I see you have had enough, good night.

  89. LeePHill says:

    “CT7 says:
    Aug. 11, 2012 at 9:56 pm You are talking apples and oranges. I own bonds”

    A couple of bonds do not make a financial analyst.

    I own two Ford vehicles, but I wouldn’t suggest that I know their profit and loss statement.

    Sword – keep in mind that…while you’ve been studying economics, CT7 owns bonds…..and so does every kid that had a newspaper route.

  90. blakeshouse says:

    I’d vote for any pile of dog crap in my yd vs ANY of the socialist Dems in this politburo.

  91. I normally do not answer fools but I’m making an exception for Sword.

    Google one-hundred millon and welfare. You will find 162-million references in .18 seconds. I do not believe that many articles exist but no one thinks Google is 100% correct . . .

  92. Ok Sop, you are correct that the dividend paid goes to the member banks, which can then do whatever they want with it.

    Do you know how much money we are talking here? The individual fed banks paid $3-1.7bil according to wiki. That is spread between hundreds of banks. Not a significant sum.

  93. “it’s a waste of time trying to have a courteous conversation with liberal zealots”

    ROFLMAO – that was a great one!

  94. Clam0- I mistakenly was giving you the benefit of the doubt in conversing with you. You are obviously reading comprehension challenged as you have previously accused others of being.

    See my 5:56 PM comment.

    There is no gold now as a base for US currency…

    Really? None? Are you sure there is no monetary gold being held in the New York Fed or Fort Knox? If true, SwoP, your “research” has really turned over a gem. Better get ahold of Glen Beck and the rest of the precious metal alarmists (profiteers) – they’d probably pay good money to see your stuff.

    Not sayin’ it ain’t so, Swop, just sayin’ you got a real scoop here if you can prove it.

    In other words we are paying a private consortium of bankers, known collectively as the Federal Reserve Bank, to lend us at interest mind you, for what we should already own, United States Dollars!

    How are we “paying a private consortium of bankers… to lend us at interest… United States Dollars”? My understanding of the way the FED increases money supply goes something like this; the Fed asks the Treasury to print the amount it’s requesting. The Fed gives the money to the banks and debits each bank’s reserve account. The Fed then invests the reserves in government securities as collateral, and profits from the interest that accrues to its own account.

    It’s true that Federal reserve banks are paid annual dividends… well let’s let the FED explain it:

    The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized much like private corporations–possibly leading to some confusion about “ownership.” For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

    So there’s that.

    I think you’re conflating “member banks” (Federal Reserve Banks) with commercial banks, who are paid interest on “excess” funds that they “return” to the FED, and which funds accrue interest as long as they’re parked at the fed. But the fact is these banks are also charged interest on the money lent them by the FED in the first place. Still I’m quite sure that commercial banks are making money on these “excess funds”, otherwise they’d make them available for lending in the private sector – which is a subject near and dear to me.

    In short, I’d like to see a more detailed description of your theory as to how Federal Reserve banks – or any other banks – are (illegally) “lending at interest” to the FED. And since you’re such a student of the FED – been spending three years studying it, I think you can do a better job of explaining it to us dilettantes.

    RE: Clamat0 said @ 3:41 p.m. and SwoP @ 3:54 p.m. – I was replying to ehill. Sorry, I should have quoted him so as to eliminate confusion, and you were fast on the send button. It happens.

    Well by this point I am guessing you DO NOT know how the FED works…

    Ah-hem, we’ll skip the gratuitous parts for the sake of clarity.

    In reply to ehill

    So… you wish to insert yourself into a pissing match between me and mole now?

    Now the snark starts.

    Uhh… actually it “starts” @ 4:20.

    At no point in the conversation (for your convenience I have copied and pasted) did I once mention a return to the “GOLD STANDARD”.

    Okay, I’m guilty of assumption since most folks who advocate the abolishment of the FED use a return to the gold standard as their solution. And speaking of solutions:

    Like I tried to explain, cut out the middle man (FED) print our own money. Not for the profit of PRIVATE BANKERS!

    I assume you’re referring to the FED en-toto as the “middle man”. That’s fine. But I would appreciate it muchly if you could demonstrate precisely how “Private Bankers” are directly profiting from the FED’s printing of money by paying themselves interest, as you initially stated (and buy “private bankers” that I assume you are referring to your “private consortium of bankers, known collectively as the Federal Reserve Bank” – and for whom you are well aware, having done so much research and all, are not permitted – by law – to profit from it’s activities). To wit:

    The “money supply” is under the control of the FED. A group of private for profit bankers, who by the charter granted to it by the US Congress, print US currency and then loan it to us at interest!

    For someone who’s been “studying (the FED) for three years”, it seems to me you’ve come to more than a few “tin hat” conclusions.

    Oh, and while you’re at it, I would love to see exactly how you would propose we do away with the whole central bank thing, and just start to “print our own money.” I’m all for the elegance of simplicity, but simplistic sloganeering is a currency of a different color.

    Oh… and please keep the description of your plan in layman’s terms, these complicated concepts and big words tend to fly right over our collective heads.

  95. “Google one-hundred millon and welfare. You will find 162-million references in .18 seconds.”

    Or you could try asking for facts from the Congressional Research Center. Here’s what they report:

    Cash Welfare Caseload. In December 2010, the number of families receiving TANF cash welfare was 1.9 million families, consisting of 4.7 million recipients, of which 3.5 million were children.”

    http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL32760.pdf

    Facts. They trump wrong-wing hysteria every time.

  96. That is one out of 80 means tested welfare programs. Try again.

    Heck, I even gave you the link with premade excuses and deflections for you. Unlike the other Hill, do not plagerize and give credit where it is due if you choose to use their excuses.

    I like your attempt to do some research. Think a bit bigger next time. You will get there eventually.

  97. LeePHill says:

    “short and to the point”

    And we get a post by Warren Piece….

    How can “Google” be wrong? It is nothing but an index

  98. LeePHill says:

    “Unlike the other Hill, do not plagerize and give credit where it is due if you choose to use their excuses”

    oh gaaaawd.

    Do I have to say that I copied Ryan’s wiki? Here’s a clue, numnutz….when you see a bunch of bracketed numbers, you can probably bet it’s from Wiki….not “New York Magazine”…..LMAO

    I can’t wait for the political cartoonist that depicts Ryan driving on the scene in the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile to save the Republican Party.

  99. CT7 – Did you even read HuffPo article?

    If you had you would have found HuffPo disclosed the reasons why the story is false.

    Specifically:

    From the graph “Figures include anyone residing in a household where at least one person received a program benefit.”

    “welfare” was re-defined as any government program giving money to people including social security, unemployment and other programs not supported by tax dollars.

    This chart:
    Represents only the tiniest fraction of the propaganda that’s going out during this election season.

    Was created by Republicans, who are so desperate to win they are willing to create distortions and spread misinformation.

    Paul Ryan is a Hustler – a person who employs fraudulent or unscrupulous methods to succeed.

  100. X- I was pointing out the collective laziness of 2 leftist posters here. I did not cite the 100mil number.

    I also stated twice the huffpo link provided the pro-welfare crowd with their talking points. You facilitated their laziness.

  101. Mound- the NEW YORKER recently did a hit piece on Ryan, focusing on his private sector work.

    That is what you stole.

  102. SandHills says:

    The choice really not so clear cut, even if Romney’s VP choice may have no more policy impact than most VPs (hopefully not as much as Cheney had).

    The nation is pretty much divided behind some pretty strong barricades. One side sees government as all evil, the other that only government programs can bring about the utopian ideals of liberals.

    So, choose Obama, whose philosophy is generally trying to insure the government serves the most people – but will be costly and adding to a debt that is already over our heads. For one side, this is defined as distribution of wealth and the bullet train to socialism and the death of American values.

    Or, choose Romney, who has certainly proven he is able he can take care of numero Uno – and will lead a more limited government (even if not a slash and burn plan proposed by his VP choice). It will protect the wealth of the wealthy – along the lines of a trickle down economy we were sold a bill of goods on for the last 20 years.

    Sadly, in both cases, we may all be on a bullet train to hell – under Romney the wealthy will just have a better elusion that a dying middle class don’t affect them behind gated communities, and mountian/waterfront vacation homes they are better able to afford with the tax cuts they have had since GW. Under Obama, even with more taxes on the wealthy the shear cost of of big government programs may only have the effect of a little more uncomfortable ride for the wealthy and the elusion to the middle class that the ride is a bit more comfortable.

    As for me, given only those two choices….it will probably be Obama. Since I am not wealthy I can’t use the elusions promised by Romney – and even knowing it is an elusion that government can solve our problems by going deeper in debt, having Obama as President just seems to really make the wealthy so uncomfortable, well that is at least something to tip the balance – even if at the end of the day we are still on that train to hell.

  103. The ‘illusion’ is BHO would help the middle class at all. If punishing the wealthy makes you feel better about having less, then BHO is your man.

    If you want the middle class to have a chance at growth and prosperity, then Romney is your man.

    Not all business is ran or owned by the ‘rich’. Removing barriers to their success (yes, in some cases taxes and fees) helps everyone. From the owner to the guy who sweeps the floor to the intern just starting out.

    Also, punishing future generations for the spending of today is morally and fiscally unsound. So much of economy is base on predictions of future. By overspending today we are not just kicking the problem down the road a generation, we effecting our Nation’s strength and credit in the present.

  104. aislander says:

    I don’t think we have TIME to kick the can down the road.

    A generation? I think it implodes within ten years, more likely sooner.

    The only thing that will save us is a growing economy, which many constituents of the Dems emphatically DO NOT WANT.

    The left calls it “trickle down.” I call it a growing economy, where wealth isn’t spread out of the goodness of someone’s heart, but out of necessity to keep up with growth.

    Government has NO money of its own, but must extract it from the economy. Do you think that helps the economy or hurts the economy.

    C’mon! Use your heads for once!

  105. LeePHill says:

    CT7 goes into diatribe mode whenever embarrassed by his behavior on the thread.

  106. SandHills says:

    CT, I admit my spell check defect…although the word elusion is not far off the mark either. But your defense of the trickle down theory of economics have been proven wrong over the course off the last 20 or more years – especially the last 10 or more where the wealthy has those extra Bush tax cuts. If even that had been put into economic growth rather than an extra vacation home or two, then you might have some basis of fact to ardently defend a “Pied Pipers” con-game of economic voodoo the middle class had been led the believe since Reagan. Romney wants the middle-class to believe we can all win the lottery and live like him – with offshore bank accounts and tax write offs for dressage horses.

    Granted, Obama and the more extreme fear of “redistribution of wealth” -largely fanned by conservatives – has me worried about trying to do too much for too many who contribute too little society – all on a melting credit card for my grandchildren to deal with.

    It isn”t any great burning envy I have of the wealthy – it’s just the “let them eat cake” attitude from many of the wealthy. My concern is the absolute certainty that both sides of this argument have that they are absolutely right – one side believes in trickle down that obviously hasn’t worked even with tax brakes, and the other side who feels that there is enough money out there for the government to do all things for all people – something else that has also been proven wrong (the USSR case in point).

    I’ll stick to my main opinion that both sides are driving us to a future of even more divisiveness – and the ultimate end may not be just “wealth envy” as a political slogan – but out there somewhere might be a modern Madame Defarge already knitting names…

  107. aislander says:

    SandHills: Please define what you mean by “trickle down,” so we can be certain we’re talking about the same things in meaningful terms.

  108. Sandhills, if you really want to have an honest conversation, which I commend you for, at least start with facts.

    I can hear the uproar from the Mounds already, but here is a good article explaining why conservative economic principles are not “trickle down”. The Bush years alone prove that false. Biggest % of tax cuts went to middle and low income households.

    “The economist Thomas Sowell has repeatedly pointed out that not only is there no comprehensive trickle-down economic theory by an economist, but the claim that it is the trickle-down theory that is the sole justification for limiting taxes on the “rich” is absurd.  In his (7/11) article in IBD, in response to the president’s speech, Thomas Sowell issued the following challenge:

    Name any economist, outside of an insane asylum, who had ever said any such thing.”

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/m-the_trickle-down_hoax.html

  109. SandHills says:

    aislander, I can always admit to topics I can’t give a doctoral dissertation on, economics is one of them – but given the state of the economy, even the most educated economists have been shown to have as much certainty as those who would try to predict when Mount Rainier is going to erupt.

    But in the context of this forum, where some are championing the need to let the wealthy keep their tax cuts – or even give them more, rather than raise them – on the argument that such tax saving has a direct impact in economic growth (i.e. investment in business start-ups and expansion, and in-turn more jobs). In those terms I define trickle down – where it is expected the wealthy are motivated more to invest “extra capital” rather than buy that third vacation home, or put it in off-shore accounts, or tax havens, trust funds, etc., etc.

    By the very nature of the greed than has resulted in our economic duress, one has to say the that theory can be seen as a false idol – there is definitely a bad economy that has hurt the middle class bad, who can debate that? But the wealthy are still living large – where is all the investment that they were to put their disposable wealth, even that which they have accumulated since the Bush tax cuts? Romney’s tax returns could pull that curtain back to tell us……

  110. SandHills says:

    CT not going to be dragged into a meaningless this or that as a right or wrong opinion – already too much of that in this country, which is mirrored on this forum. But to compare middle class tax cuts – where it might mean being able to just taking the family on a vacation (in itself might have done more good for the economy as anything) – to the tax cuts given to the wealthy, and where they put their savings, is a duplicitous point to try and make.

    I will continue to hammer that no one is going to win debate points on this forum – and it appears that the most frequent posters are pretty entrenched, so what is the point to hammer at each other? But since this reflects what is generally happening throughout the nation – of course excluding a wide expanse of those unknowing or uncaring masses that could determine the election (either by voting out of ignorance, or not voting at all) I still confident in my opinion that the yammering from both sides is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

  111. aislander says:

    I don’t think economists “predict” so much as try to explain, otherwise the phrase “economists disagree” would not have such wide currency (play on words intended).

    There are several kinds of rich people, but a useful separation could be erected between the “active” rich, who are running businesses and putting their capital at risk in order to reap a reward, and the “passive” rich who have their money and wish to preserve capital and eliminate risk.

    In today’s world, stuffing one’s money into a mattress is putting it at risk, because when you take that money out of the mattress, it is going to be worth less. Or worthless, depending on how successful Democrats are electorally. Sorry–couldn’t resist.

    However, both types of rich people are useful to the economy, if the economy represents either an opportunity or a risk-free environment, since the money is put to work either way.

    Trouble arises when there is lack of certainty–and stiffing, say, the GM bondholders contributes to lack of certainty. So does playing ping-pong with tax rates. That results in money going into precious metals and foreign banks, where, I assure you, the rich would prefer not have their money.

    This post is already too long, but I will close by stating my strong belief that an economic system must be fair and reward productive behavior not unproductive behavior, and in that regard, free-market capitalism–freedom–is the fairest system there is.

    Any system based on political connections is inherently unfair…

  112. Ok, you called them greedy. Can you, in plain language, describe today’s “rich”? How you think they got there?

    Much of your concern revolves around the wealthy. If that is not your focus, please address.

  113. “In his (7/11) article in IBD”

    Ahhh. Investors’ Business Daily. Those wonderful folks who brought us the “Obama is a secret Muslim” slime.

  114. aislander says:

    If I didn’t know it to be impossible, I would have to say that ehill’s 4:55 PM post is an ACTUAL case of being unable–or unwilling–to deal with the message and, rather, attacking the messenger.

    But, since we know ehill is no hypocrite, that couldn’t be true.

    Oh, sure it is…

  115. LMAO, ai, the evidence keeps mounting (like we really needed any).

    Hypocrisy, yes… it isn’t exactly like he’ll be the last to know – though introspection isn’t mol.ehill’s thing. And, worse yet, he doesn’t show up in mirrors.

  116. LeePHill says:

    Conservatives aren’t really good at vetting sources – proof positive – Sarah Palin.

    http://news.investors.com/article/618823/201207191846/obama-gave-muslim-brotherhood-keys-to-mideast.htm

    When a publication resorts to “Obama is a secret Muslim” and they try to defend the publication with “kill the messenger”, what little credibility they may have had dwindles to nil.

    In the case of our local group, there may be a minus column on credibility.

  117. LeePHill says:

    Oh…wait…let me guess.

    Aislander and Clam think Obama IS a Muslim and wants ehill to prove them wrong??????

    Shades of CT7…..

  118. aislander says:

    Trying to pull ehill’s pathetic little shriveled chestnuts out the fire, huh, LeeP?

    I guess a good offense and all that…Good thing you don’t have to try too hard.

  119. Anything but BHOs actions since 2009 and the future. Sad.

    Palin? Bush? Come up with something new or relevant.

  120. aislander says:

    I was speaking metaphorically. Of course…

  121. “Trying to pull ehill’s pathetic little shriveled chestnuts out the fire”

    Ahem. message – messenger. Ring any bells? No, of course not.

  122. tellnolies says:

    “The only thing that will save us is a growing economy”

    There is very rarely only one way….

    Your statement depends on two things, what you mean by “save”, and also what you consider “us.”

    Communications and transportation technologies have fundamentally changed human reality. We haven’t changed to reflect that, and that will continue to be the real problem we face

  123. Ahem. message – messenger. Ring any bells?

    Yeah, my hypocrisy alert bell is ringing like crazy.

    Chesssstnutsss, yummmmmmm.

  124. No ehill, it does not. Can you please explain why you post the same childish remarks on thread after thread? Is that your default line when you are beat? When the conversation goes right over your head?

  125. “Can you please explain why you post the same … remarks on thread after thread?”

    Because you and several others keep on attacking the messenger instead of refuting the message on thread after thread.

    Look at the post above yours for a great example. Look at the last two sentences of your last post for another.

    If you’re tired of reading it, here’s a clue: put on your big boy pants and try refuting the message instead of attacking the messenger.

  126. LeePHill says:

    “aislander says:
    Aug. 12, 2012 at 8:15 pm Trying to pull ehill’s pathetic little shriveled chestnuts out the fire, huh, LeeP?”

    I was making a joke when I said “they believe Obama’s a Muslim”. It looks like I was right. Just goes to show you how much truth there is in humor.

    I guess when I claim that Romney’s bully episode demonstrated homosexual S&M tendencies, that means Aislander, Clam and CT7 have to prove that Romney doesn’t mirror such.

    By the way, have you stopped beating your spouse?

  127. LeePHill says:

    “CT7 says:
    Aug. 13, 2012 at 6:21 am When the conversation goes right over your head?

    Now THAT is Monday Morning Irony from the one whose default line is “commie”

  128. Because you and several others keep on attacking the messenger instead of refuting the message on thread after thread.

    Hmmmmmmm.

    Ahhh. Investors’ Business Daily. Those wonderful folks who brought us the “Obama is a secret Muslim” slime.

    LMAO, absolutely incredible. We’re witnessing the redefining of hypocrisy.

    The audacity of “trope”.

  129. LeePHill says:

    Let’s see….

    pointing out that a publication is guilty of spreading false rumors (being nice and not calling them “damned lies”) is “attacking the messenger???????

    We’re back to having to “refute the message”, thus Investors Daily has no responsibility in being truthful?????

    Am amazing….

  130. aislander says:

    Obama lies all the time and we still are forced to deal with his “messages…”

    It would be so much easier if we could merely discount his utterances rather than having to deal with their…er…”substance.”

  131. “Obama lies all the time and we still are forced to deal with his “messages…”

    Projection.

  132. “Investors’ Business Daily. Those wonderful folks who brought us the “Obama is a secret Muslim” slime.

    LMAO, absolutely incredible”

    “Incredible” is exactly correct. IBD ruined what little credibility they had by publishing scurrilous, obviously false stories.

  133. aislander says:

    I gotta ask: do you keep repeating these inanities just to piss off people, or is that all you’ve got?

  134. The truth hurts, eh?

  135. Obviously both, ai. The answers are not mutually exclusive in this case.

  136. Okay, there is also a third choice in ai’s multiple choice question – probably the most applicable one.

    I’m sure he didn’t include it in deference to the mods.

  137. “LMAO, absolutely incredible. We’re witnessing the redefining of hypocrisy.”

    ROFL – that’s really funny, coming from someone who’s attacking the messenger instead of refuting the message in another thread. To wit: ““I forgot to mention THE most ironic thing about SwoP’s youtube host’s moniker: Ahijab; literal translation: “A Veil”, or “head covering” worn in public by Muslim women – also religious code governing the wearing of such clothing. Hmmm, wonder what Ahijab is hiding behind that youtube veil.”

    Thanks for providing the great example, Clamat0

  138. “I gotta ask: do you keep repeating these inanities just to piss off people, or is that all you’ve got?”

    What an excellent job of refuting the message and not attacking the messenger. You truly are an intellectual giant.

    /sarcasm

  139. The substance was the challenge he made, not IBD.

    You are a raging hypocrite.

  140. aislander says:

    No attack, ehill. That was a serious question.

    You know the meaning of the word “inanities,” right?

  141. aislander says:

    All this message-messenger stuff has me thinking about the ways that progs on this forum deal with serious posts; posts that are not just the back and forth that we’re doing right now, but posts of substance (or at least that are meant to be of substance).

    Such posts are ignored utterly, or they are followed by extended wallpaper that is, I believe, intended to shove them upthread and reduce the chances the comments may be read by someone who is still persuadable.

    Then there are the disingenuous questions, which are designed to divert the thread into the pursuit of some “fact” that illuminates nothing. That is called, according to Alinsky, taking the argument away from an “enemy’s” (Alinsky’s word) area of expertise…

  142. Ehill wrote: Ahhh. Investors’ Business Daily. Those wonderful folks who brought us the “Obama is a secret Muslim” slime.
    _______________________________________________

    LeePHill in defense of ehill’s idiotic assertion writes:

    Conservatives aren’t really good at vetting sources – proof positive – Sarah Palin.

    http://news.investors.com/article/618823/201207191846/obama-gave-muslim-brotherhood-keys-to-mideast.htm

    When a publication resorts to “Obama is a secret Muslim” and they try to defend the publication with “kill the messenger”, what little credibility they may have had dwindles to nil.

    In the case of our local group, there may be a minus column on credibility.
    ____________________________________________

    Vetting of LeePHill’s linked IBD article reveals that the “Obama is a secret Muslim” quotation NEVER APPEARS IN THE ARTICLE.
    The article does contain the following quote by Egypt’s foreign minister made on Nile TV: “The American president told me in confidence that he is a Muslim.” Do ehill and LeePHill really believe that the Egyptian foreign minister is an employee of Investors Business Daily?

    I feel confident that I will be accused of attacking messengers when they were only trying to bring us the message that IBD maintains that “Obama is a secret Muslim.” Talk about twisting the theme of a magazine article………..these two are real cake-takers.

    I’m outta here to the golf course. CO and AI, good luck arguing with those two blathering fools.

  143. aislander says:

    …or they perceive some nonexistent attack and fall back on “message-messenger” or “projection” or “deflection” or some other hackneyed cliche’ (I apologize for the redundancy, but I wanted to emphasize how many times we’ve all seen those words in ehill’s posts).

  144. ROFL – that’s really funny, coming from someone who’s attacking the messenger instead of refuting the message in another thread.

    LMAO, a cross-thrad attack!

    But you left out the next sentence:

    Hypocrites and creeps welcomed to fire-away with the “message/ messenger” chant.

    Sincerely,

    Messenger

    So. the projectionist projects. The fact is I’m not the one who’s ever insinuated that attacking a “messenger” is out of bounds. That would be the high private road of only the most foolish and hypocritical.

    In fact your attacking me here is yet another example of attacking the “messenger”, since I was merely informing observers of the fact that SwoP had linked a whacko’s youtube channel. Further, I linked another gem from the guy’s site, making me the “messenger”.

    Would that be a clear-cut example of your “attacking the messenger”? Or would that just be another of the countless examples of your own very special brand of hypocrisy?

    Being the butt of so much humor over the fact that one cannot make all the rules and then break them must really suck. You painted yourself into a corner, I’m not throwing you a plank.

  145. AI, I agree that it is an attempt to shift a thread away from anything but substance. Ehill is by far the worst of the bunch, no substance ever.

    I recall Larry trying to get threads over 100 to hide his usual losing side of a debate.

    Now, do they drive intelligent left-leaning posters away? I believe they do. Why does TNT tolerate it?

  146. Why does TNT tolerate it?

    They locked-down the comment section for the second LTE below this one – right after the last comment… by ehill.

    Maybe your insinuation is incorrect, CT.

    But on the other hand, it allows more hypocrisy from the mole to stand – without refutation, so…

  147. Now how ’bout we get back to the topic.

    Wow, a democrat PCO voting all democrat, and using this forum to announce it!!!

    Whodathunkit.

  148. mahinaokeiki says:

    I’m ready for all elected public officials to be required to have their funds deposited into the banks of the states where they live (verifiable, of course).

  149. “Hypocrites and creeps welcomed to fire-away with the “message/ messenger” chant.”

    Excellent use of the “poisoning the well” logical fallacy. Thanks.

  150. CT7 – tehill and the rest of us keep post the same childish remarks because you and the rest of the gophers keep posting the same inanely stupid remarks.

    Aislander – just because Obama says something you do not agree with does not mean he lied.

    ‘discount substance’ – you already ignore context so why not ignore substance.

    Oldoc– Ehill never said IBD said ‘Obama is a secret Muslin’ in the posted article, just that IBD in the past said and supported the lie that ‘Obama is a secret Muslin’.

  151. aislander says:

    mahinaokeiki writes: “I’m ready for all elected public officials to be required to have their funds deposited into the banks of the states where they live (verifiable, of course).”

    You mean Romney, I suppose. He didn’t take a salary while governor of Massachusetts, so that would leave only the money generated by his blind trust.

    I’ve asserted all along that liberals are all about coercion (that would be forcing people to do things government wants them to do, to make this clear to the inane among us), and the only way you could “require” someone to do what you propose with his own money is to, well, force him to…

  152. Skipping the BTDT jr. “validate me” posts, many of the typically most outspoken democrats are conspicuously silent on the subject of offshore funds.

    Wonder why?

  153. mahinaokeiki says:

    If you lead this country, if you are a leader, then you should be investing in this country. How does it HELP this country to have funds deposited outside of the U.S.?

  154. Because he pays US taxes on the income. The trades/business is done in US dollars.

    Any other crappy talking points you need clarification on?

    How does it help this country to have a community organizer in the WH? It doesn’t.

    Speaking of leadership, when do you blame the current occupier and tell him enough with the excuses?

  155. aislander says:

    I don’t have much of a quibble with a requirement that, if someone aspires to the Presidency, his check from the government be deposited in a domestic bank. Requiring that ALL of his personal funds (again–over which he has no direct control) be thus deposited, goes against a little thing called “freedom,” which is supposed to be a basic American principle.

    In any case, I understand that most of Romney’s wealth resides within the borders of the United States, but why should anyone be forced to put all his eggs in one basket? Especially when that basket is as decrepit as ours is currently.

  156. aislander says:

    By the way, being FORCED to do anything is the very opposite of leadership…

  157. aislander says:

    xring: Are you asserting that Obama is NOT “a cotton fabric made in various degrees of fineness and often printed, woven, or embroidered in patterns, especially a cotton fabric of plain weave, used for sheets and for a variety of other purposes?”

    THAT’S really going out on a limb…

  158. LeePHill says:

    “I recall Larry trying to get threads over 100 to hide his usual losing side of a debate.”

    This is the most ridiculous thing that CT has ever posted on the TNT forums…….

    Granted…there is a lot from which to choose…but that one takes the cake.

    Someone wake me up when CT7 actually submits something that would be considered debate material. When you consider all of the false allegations, baseless assertions, hasty generalizations and just plain lies, there is not much room left in CT7’s vocabulary for debate material.

    Oh hell…I forgot his “commies” and “hippies”.

    I can’t wait for Aislander’s next typo….

  159. LeePHill says:

    “CT7 says:
    Aug. 13, 2012 at 1:06 pm Because he pays US taxes on the income. The trades/business is done in US dollars.”

    Baseless assertion. Without a tax statement to support such a claim, it is without base.

  160. But who is Larry?

  161. aislander says:

    You’re right, LeePHill: that was cheap shot and I am contrite. From now on I shall remark only when xring types something that isn’t a typo…

  162. LeePHill says:

    “Vetting of LeePHill’s linked IBD article reveals that the “Obama is a secret Muslim” quotation NEVER APPEARS IN THE ARTICLE.
    The article does contain the following quote by Egypt’s foreign minister made on Nile TV: “The American president told me in confidence that he is a Muslim.”

    Rhetoric roulette.

    Try a search of “Investors Business Daily” and “Obama” for the list of false statements submitted by the publication, regardless of the exact verbage.

    “You said his RIGHT hand was in the cookie jar…it was his left”

  163. LeePHill says:

    paybacks are an aislander, aislander.

  164. aislander says:

    This just in from The Department of Redundancy Department:

    LeePHill writes: “Baseless assertion. Without a tax statement to support such a claim, it is without base.”

    But you’re correct that we’re without a tax “statement.” Romney provided two returns…

  165. “Bart Mallon, a lawyer at Cole-Frieman & Mallon who sets up offshore companies, said such arrangements appeal to foreign investors. Many foreigners prefer investing through an offshore company because they don’t want to file U.S. tax returns or expose themselves to potential Internal Revenue Service audits, he said.

    “Unfortunately, when people hear the term ‘offshore,’ they automatically think that there’s, you know, that people . . . are trying to get away with something,” Mallon said.

    “But it’s not really getting away with something. It’s just working within the tax laws as they’re currently written.””

    And his team stated they are taxed in the same manner as US held investments.

    Jealousy is a terrible thing. Just because your piggy bank has 2 wooden nickels does not make anything Romney did illegal, immoral, or unethical. The world of high finance and über wealth is beyond your comprehension.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/romney-cayman-islands-holdings-complicate-tax-return-debate/2012/01/24/gIQAmuvZOQ_story.html

    But, anything but BHOs record…

  166. aislander says:

    Dude! I took pity and gave you a typo! You did NOTHING with the opportunity, thereby burnishing your lefty bona fides

  167. Xring wrote: Oldoc– Ehill never said IBD said ‘Obama is a secret Muslim’ in the posted article, just that IBD in the past said and supported the lie that ‘Obama is a secret Muslin’.
    _____________________________________________________________
    Great catch xring. I characterized the IBD link provided by LeePHill as “in defense of ehill’s idiotic assertion” not that ehill was quoting the article in question.
    Now then, when can we expect ehill to produce a link to the other IBD article that you think supports the lie that “Obama is a secret Muslim”? Crickets anyone?
    If it was your intention to attempt to provide cover for these two fools, your effort was wasted. Neither has a clue.

  168. CT7 – ‘he pays US taxes on the income” wrong again peanut.

    People put money offshore accounts to AVOID paying taxes.
    However, if this is an issue for you why not ask Romney to release his taxes.

    BTW – several of the people vetted for Romney’s VP said they had to submit more than two years of tax returns.

    How does it help the Country to have a do nothing Congress, lead by a House that is too busy passing symbolic bills, and too commintted to a change at the WH to do what is needed to keep the country from imploding?

    Aislander – ‘personal funds over which he has no control’
    Odd that when Bill First was a Senator his blind trust often sold blocks of stock just before Congressional Action caused said stock to decline in value.

    Alternatively, Paul Ryan’s blind trust unloaded stocks in several banks on the same day that Ryan was briefed about the impending credit crises and how bank stocks would fall.

    And yes there are probably Dems that due the same and should be held accountable as well.

    ‘most of Romney’s wealth resides within the borders of the US’ cannot be verified because Romney will not release his tax data and some unknown amount of his wealth is hidden in overseas accounts and are not covered by US Tax Law.

    ‘being forced to do anything the very opposite of leadership’ – spoken like someone who has never been a leader.

    Aislander – have you no sense of hummer – I refuse to be forced to accept arbitrary and capacious spelling rules.

  169. X- you must have skipped the section in Huffpo where they told you the House passed a budget. It is the senate that is failing America. First call, Marine!

    And I saved you the huge effort of clicking on the link and showed you why Mitt has an offshore account.

    If you have a beef with the system, address the system. Be an adult.

  170. aislander says:

    If you read my initial post on muslin, it was replete with humor. LeeP is the one who took it all too seriously…

  171. “these two fools”

    Taking the high road again, eh?

  172. aislander says:

    Nope. Merely observing reality…

  173. I wrote in reference to ehill and LeePHill: “these two fools”

    ehill responded: Taking the high road again, eh?

    I call ‘em like I see ‘em…..by the way, where is your link to the IBD article claiming that “Obama is a secret Muslim”?? Crickets again?

  174. CT7 – so the House, lead by the Party that demands the budget be balanced, past a budget bill that will add trillions to the national debt, and will not balance the budget for 28 years.

    Mitt has an off shore account to hide money so he does not have to pay US taxes.

*
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