"More than four in 10 Republicans... believe the president probably or definitely was not born in America."

Arizona lawmakers pass presidential 'birther' bill - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/16/arizona.president.bill/index.html?hpt=Sbin)

Wonder what those #'s are amongst the tea party affiliates.

Interesting coincidence. While coming off the water and loading my kayak onto my truck yesterday, some old timer bait fishing for trout was droning on and on about Obama not being born in the US and being a muslim.

obama, birthers and Tea Party aside...

why is this a bad idea?

(CNN) -- The Arizona legislature has approved a bill that would require President Barack Obama and other presidential candidates to prove they are American citizens, born in the United States, before their names could be placed on a state ballot.

Hey Johnny D -

It's no secret I hate the guy, but I concede he was almost certainly born here.

But here's my question...why has Obama spent so much of his own money (I've heard hundreds of thousands of dollars) to ensure that his birth certificate and Harvard paperwork remain undisclosed?

I think that's a fair question, I don't think it makes me a racist or a kook. I can think of 2 reasons, and only 2...

(1) he wants to keep the "birther" movement alive. so that he (and the media) can demonize the opposition as kooks.

(2) there's something in there he doesn't want anyone to see. My guess is that when he applied to Harvard, he claimed that he wasn't a US citizen, in the hoopes of getting preferential admission or preferential financial aid.

Do any of the Obama supporters think my question is radical? Anyone have any guesses as to the answer? Most recent presidents have happily disclosed that stuff, Obama has gone to considerable expense to prevent that.

"More than four in 10 Republicans... believe the president probably or definitely was not born in America."

Arizona lawmakers pass presidential 'birther' bill - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/16/arizona.president.bill/index.html?hpt=Sbin)

Wonder what those #'s are amongst the tea party affiliates.

Zimmy, I see you live in CT. I've lived here my whole life. CT is as blue as it gets. It has been 30 years since the Republicans controlled the legislature in this state. In other words, this state offers an almost-perfect observatory to see the effects of pure, unchecked liberalism at work.

What has that gotten us? Crippling tax rates, astronomical debt, a God-awful business climate, and big cities that are a disaster.

Am I wrong?

I'm a tea-party guy. i think that there are only 2 ways to get into the levels of debt that our state is in...eithyer the taxes are unreasonably low, or the spending is unreasonably high...which is it?

Zimmy, the Dems in CT recently announced a plan to build a 9.4 mile road from New Britain to Hartford. The cost is $570 million. $570 million to pave 9.4 miles of road and buy a few buses.

Zimmy, does that sound reasonable to you, especially in this economy? Half a billion so that drug-addicts from New Britain can take the bus to Hartford to get their crack?

When that's the alternative, the tea party agenda starts looking pretty rational to me.

Interesting coincidence. While coming off the water and loading my kayak onto my truck yesterday, some old timer bait fishing for trout was droning on and on about Obama not being born in the US and being a muslim.

And I'd be much happier if Obama was a life-long Muslim, instead of a lifelong member of black liberation theology. There are many great Muslims, but no one who sat in Rev Wrights church for 20 years is rational. you can't listen to that bile for 20 years and not have a screw loose.

if he's from Hawaii, why does he have a SS# that would have been issued from Connecticut? When did he live in Connecticut? just wondering....


The Social Security website confirms the first three numbers in his ID are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses, 040-049.

“Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been issued by our central office,” the Social Security website explains. “The first three (3) digits of a person’s social security number are determined by the ZIP code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number.”

Robert Siciliano, president and CEO of IDTheftSecurity.com and a nationally recognized expert on identity theft, agrees the Social Security number should be questioned.

“I know Social Security numbers have been issued to people in states where they don’t live, but there’s usually a good reason the person applied for a Social Security number in a different state” .

When asked whether Siciliano thought the question was one the White House should answer.

“Yes,” he replied. “In the case of President Obama, I really don’t know what the good reason would be that he has a Social Security number issued in Connecticut when we know he was a resident of Hawaii.”

Siciliano is a frequent expert guest on identify theft on cable television networks, including CNN, CNBC and the Fox News Channel.


he's no ordinary president, is he?:rotf2:

I think he has yet to produce the long form birth cert. that I believe you and I need to get a passport. I think that form states a declared religion. Might he be ashamed?

"We invented all kinds of ways to obtain false identity papers, and got busy building multiple sets of ID for each of us and for every contingency," writes Bill Ayers of his years in the Weather Underground. "We soon figured out that the deepest and most foolproof ID had a government-issued Social Security card at its heart."


hmmmmm???:rotf2:

I think that's a fair question, I don't think it makes me a racist or a kook. I can think of 2 reasons, and only 2...

(1) he wants to keep the "birther" movement alive. so that he (and the media) can demonize the opposition as kooks.

(2) there's something in there he doesn't want anyone to see. My guess is that when he applied to Harvard, he claimed that he wasn't a US citizen, in the hoopes of getting preferential admission or preferential financial aid.

Do any of the Obama supporters think my question is radical? Anyone have any guesses as to the answer? Most recent presidents have happily disclosed that stuff, Obama has gone to considerable expense to prevent that.

Who called you a racist? I laught at the strawman the repub. always pull. Claiming that the dems call the repub. racists but I never see it from the dems.

I don't know if he's spent any money. Either way I think it allows the birthers to wallow in their misery and show how unhinged they are. He prob. thinks if he prov. any doc. they'll claim the docs. are forgeries or move onto something else. They'll never vote for him so why should he do anything they demand?

Who called you a racist? I laught at the strawman the repub. always pull. Claiming that the dems call the repub. racists but I never see it from the dems.



you should take a moment and Google this...there is no shortage of what you claim does not exist...

you should take a moment and Google this...there is no shortage of what you claim does not exist...

I'm sure there is plenty of that. You see all types on the internet. But I haven't seen it here.

when did he say that someone here called him a racist?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT
"I think that's a fair question, I don't think it makes me a racist or a kook. I can think of 2 reasons, and only 2..."






I'm pretty sure that Regan's birth certificate is hanging on the wall of his presidential library :rotf2:

when did he say that someone here called him a racist?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT
I think that's a fair question, I don't think it makes me a racist or a kook. I can think of 2 reasons, and only 2...

Why bring it up?

maybe he has doubts whether he is or isn't a racist?

Why bring it up?

it's the two (racist, kook) most common reactions by the left and the media toward anyone that brings up the subject...you just admitted that...


"I'm sure there is plenty of that." Paul

Who called you a racist? I laught at the strawman the repub. always pull. Claiming that the dems call the repub. racists but I never see it from the dems.

I don't know if he's spent any money. Either way I think it allows the birthers to wallow in their misery and show how unhinged they are. He prob. thinks if he prov. any doc. they'll claim the docs. are forgeries or move onto something else. They'll never vote for him so why should he do anything they demand?

Paul, if you claim that you have never heard liberals say that Obama bashers are racists, you really have you head in the sand. Obama himself said, several times during the campaign, that Republicans were going to make Americans afraid of the fact that he's black.

MSNBC uses that tactic every single night.

Get some facts before you start insulting thise on my side, OK?

"They'll never vote for him so why should he do anything they demand"

Oh, i don't know, maybe because he serves all of us, not just the ones that he likes? A real constututional scholar, eh?

I'm sure there is plenty of that. You see all types on the internet. But I haven't seen it here.

Paul, you didn't claim that you never saw it here. Here is what you said..."I never see it from the dems. "

No one here ever called me a racist, and I never made any such claim. I said it happens regularly, and no one who thinks rationally can say otherwise.

It came up in the other thread too ( the racism thing). THis is the first year since I have lived in CT (9 years) that there isn't a republican gov. I don't know about the road, haven't heard enough about it. I am guessing the intent has nothing to do with giving crack heads a way to get to Hartford. Also, I LOVE that scott w chimed in to show why he thinks Obama wasn't born in the US.

I love the Obama's behind the Birther movement...classic Karl Rove tactic...

-spence

Also, I LOVE that scott w chimed in to show why he thinks Obama wasn't born in the US.

when did I say that?...I find it amusing and I'm happy to point out that things regarding the president's origin and early years through college are a bit foggy, particularly if you've done any reading on the matter....seems to me there are many more questions regarding Obama's various inconsistencies than there were regarding Bush's military service and it's pretty obvious to all observing there's been very different treatment in the media and from the left who demanded the documents in Bush's case....even forged some during a presidential campaign and ran them as factual courtesy of Dan Rather...I have no way of knowing beyond the questions that have arisen and the little offered by the Obama team to answer any of the questions to draw conclusions but I do know that based on the trend of the last few years, the Obama supporters are very likely to be very disappointed after trusting what Obama says, remember...Clinton sent his minions out to defend him, and they dutifly marched out only to learn that he'd lied to them too....of course, he just immediately changed their marching orders and they continued to defend him :uhuh:

i think the people that really knew got snuffed

....seems to me there are many more questions regarding Obama's various inconsistencies than there were regarding Bush's military service
Statements like this are really better when backed up with documentation :uhuh:

-spence

It came up in the other thread too ( the racism thing). THis is the first year since I have lived in CT (9 years) that there isn't a republican gov. I don't know about the road, haven't heard enough about it. I am guessing the intent has nothing to do with giving crack heads a way to get to Hartford. Also, I LOVE that scott w chimed in to show why he thinks Obama wasn't born in the US.

"THis is the first year since I have lived in CT (9 years) that there isn't a republican gov"

Sigh. We don't live in a dictatorship, we live in a democracy with seperation of powers. In that democracy, the legislature is clearly the most influential branch, by far. In addition, I never said there were no "Republicans", I said that liberalism has gone un-checked. And I stand by that. Because while some of our governors had an "R" afetr their name, they were nowhere near being conservative.

How bout this Zimmy...can you name one tradiitonal conservative policy that a Republican governor has implemented here in CT? We have astronomical taxes, astronomical debt, publoic unions that get whatever they ask for, we have gay marriage, sanctuary cities, almost no limits on abortion, our entire federal congressional group is liberal...

You seem like someone who makes their mind up first, then spouts off the limited facts that support their conclusion, and ignores all other facts. "Reason" works better when you consider all the facts evenly,then form your conclusion.

If you don't know about thyat busway, look it up, then tell me it's not a stupid idea...

I love the Obama's behind the Birther movement...classic Karl Rove tactic...

-spence

Spence, you used the classic liberal tactic of ignoring the question raised, and insulting the person who asked it. You do that a lot.

Spence, lety me make my question clear. Why do you think he spent so much money to keep his birth certificate and Harvard records private? Presidents routinely hand that stuff over to the press. What do you think? Not "what does Rachael Maddow say", but what do you think?

Statements like this are really better when backed up with documentation :uhuh:

-spence

your statements are never backed up by anything :)

I'd like to see a single fact that Obama has tried to keep his birth records secret.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You seem like someone who makes their mind up first, then spouts off the limited facts that support their conclusion, and ignores all other facts. "Reason" works better when you consider all the facts evenly,then form your conclusion.

If you don't know about thyat busway, look it up, then tell me it's not a stupid idea...

I think you kinda show in your own post there that your "spouting off " statement is a bit... unfair :smash: considering I said I didn't know enough about the road to comment. You may not agree with what I say, but I tend to pay an enormous amount of attention to issues I am interested in and typically won't comment unless I have a well developed opinion. The only reason I got involved in this forum against my best judgment is that I kept noticing crap get posted as if it were based on facts, when it too often was not.

Anyway, I am still reading up on the bi-way, but here is some of what I have found. I don't have an opinion yet.
"The DOT estimates the project will cost $567 million, with the federal funds covering 80 percent of that.

"The project already has some state funding committed, but would need another $22 million in state bonding, according to the DOT.

Connecticut has already spent $60 million on the busway, including about $48 million in federal funds. Marie warned last year that the state might have to repay the federal money if it scraps the busway."

"The DOT projects that 15,000 people a day will use the busway, alleviating some of the rush-hour congestion on I-84 between West Hartford and Hartford."

I think you kinda show in your own post there that your "spouting off " statement is a bit... unfair :smash: considering I said I didn't know enough about the road to comment. You may not agree with what I say, but I tend to pay an enormous amount of attention to issues I am interested in and typically won't comment unless I have a well developed opinion. The only reason I got involved in this forum against my best judgment is that I kept noticing crap get posted as if it were based on facts, when it too often was not.

Anyway, I am still reading up on the bi-way, but here is some of what I have found. I don't have an opinion yet.
"The DOT estimates the project will cost $567 million, with the federal funds covering 80 percent of that.

"The project already has some state funding committed, but would need another $22 million in state bonding, according to the DOT.

Connecticut has already spent $60 million on the busway, including about $48 million in federal funds. Marie warned last year that the state might have to repay the federal money if it scraps the busway."

"The DOT projects that 15,000 people a day will use the busway, alleviating some of the rush-hour congestion on I-84 between West Hartford and Hartford."

Zimmy, the DOT can project whatever they want. 15,000 people a day are not going to ride a bus. Do you think some lawyer of insurance executive in West Hartford is going to stand in the rain waiting for a bus, to ride to work with people from New Britain?

I'm reasonably confident he was born in the US and short of some lightning bolt of clarity that states otherwise (Trump not being one of 'em). Crack pots on both side of the fence (Democrat higher % of Truthers anyone? (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance ))

But I like the Arizona law that asks for all potential presidential candidates to prove they were born here, in accordance with the law. Rational people would think that there is some mechanism in place that actually, you know, confirms one's legal ability to run, eh?

But hey , that's me. I prefer laws that require some level of compliance across the board instead of when just convenient.

I'd like to see a single fact that Obama has tried to keep his birth records secret.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, let's assume he hasn't spent a nickel to keep those records private if it gets you closer to answering a direct question for once. Again, assume he didn't spend anything. However, unlike every other modern president, he won't make those records public, and he won't say why he won't make them public.

What do you think about that? Can you please try to just answer the question?

Paul, if you claim that you have never heard liberals say that Obama bashers are racists, you really have you head in the sand. Obama himself said, several times during the campaign, that Republicans were going to make Americans afraid of the fact that he's black.

MSNBC uses that tactic every single night.

Get some facts before you start insulting thise on my side, OK?

"They'll never vote for him so why should he do anything they demand"

Oh, i don't know, maybe because he serves all of us, not just the ones that he likes? A real constututional scholar, eh?


I should have said that I hardly see it. What I do is people claiming it happens all that time but they claim it many times more than it actully happens. I don't search the internet like some of the folks here. I try to stay away b/c I find that on the internet people there are the too many scummy people. :biglaugh:who will say any classless things they want.

I'd like to see a single fact that Obama has tried to keep his birth records secret.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seriously? You really don't see any evidence that he has tried to keep this stuff secret?

How about this...millions of people are asking to see the long-form birth certificate and his Harvard records, and he hasn't released them.

Or put anothefr way...Spence, please go on-line and see if you can look up Obama's grades from Harvard. You can't, because he hasn't allowed them (as well as other documents) to be made public.

Spence, you have CLEARLY shown that you automatically believe everything that comes from the left, and you refuse to consider anything that comes from the right.

I should have said that I hardly see it. What I do is people claiming it happens all that time but they claim it many times more than it actully happens. I don't search the internet like some of the folks here. I try to stay away b/c I find that on the internet people there are the too many scummy people. :biglaugh:who will say any classless things they want.

Watch the way any network (other than Foxnews) covers the Tea Party...I can't quantify it Paul, but I knows it when I sees it. Never before in my lifetime have I seen the political opposition so immediately demonized.

When Bush was in office, dissent was "the highest form of patriotism", according to liberals. Now, dissent is the lowest form of racism.

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't happening with alarming regularity.

You cannot watch any coverage of the Tea Party without hearing claims of racism, regardless of the fact that there are blacks at every Tea Party rally I have ever attended...

Watch the way any network (other than Foxnews) covers the Tea Party...I can't quantify it Paul, but I knows it when I sees it. Never before in my lifetime have I seen the political opposition so immediately demonized.

When Bush was in office, dissent was "the highest form of patriotism", according to liberals. Now, dissent is the lowest form of racism.

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't happening with alarming regularity.

You cannot watch any coverage of the Tea Party without hearing claims of racism, regardless of the fact that there are blacks at every Tea Party rally I have ever attended...


Respectfull dissent (from both parties) should be the basis of a democracy.

There was an teaparty rally last week at the Conn. state capital. Given that the capital police est. 750 people were there, I'm sure that atleast 1 sign could have been broadly interpreted as racist.
Yet, I did not see 1 mention of racism in any coverage (granted it could have been that there wasn't any or if there was it was so minor that the news choose not to mention it).

Respectfull dissent (from both parties) should be the basis of a democracy.

There was an teaparty rally last week at the Conn. state capital. Given that the capital police est. 750 people were there, I'm sure that atleast 1 sign could have been broadly interpreted as racist.
Yet, I did not see 1 mention of racism in any coverage (granted it could have been that there wasn't any or if there was it was so minor that the news choose not to mention it).

Ok, let me re-phrase. Not every single news piece coveringthe Tea Party will claim racism. Not every single one. But a huge percentage do, and there is zero evidence that the Tea Party supports racism.

... and there is zero evidence that the Tea Party supports racism.

Jim, a few people do not represent everyone or necessarily the party, but there is a reason many of us would never associate with the tea party. I think some of the evidence was seen at the Washington rally. I personally know people who went to the rally on a ride w/ a bike club. In private situations, they are overtly racist. One of my friends has a confederate flag tattooed to his shoulder. He does not hide his feelings when we are in private situations. I personally know at least 12 people who are active w/ tea party rallies. They don't represent everyone in the tea party, but they represent everyone I know personally who considers themselves part of the tea party. They are all very bigoted. They are not ashamed of it.

Glenn Beck to Tea Party: Leave Your Racist Signs at Home! | buzz twang (http://www.buzztwang.com/2010/08/glenn-beck-tea-party-leave-racist-signs-home/)

Jim, a few people do not represent everyone or necessarily the party, but there is a reason many of us would never associate with the tea party. I think some of the evidence was seen at the Washington rally. I personally know people who went to the rally on a ride w/ a bike club. In private situations, they are overtly racist. One of my friends has a confederate flag tattooed to his shoulder. He does not hide his feelings when we are in private situations. I personally know at least 12 people who are active w/ tea party rallies. They don't represent everyone in the tea party, but they represent everyone I know personally who considers themselves part of the tea party. They are all very bigoted. They are not ashamed of it.

Glenn Beck to Tea Party: Leave Your Racist Signs at Home! | buzz twang (http://www.buzztwang.com/2010/08/glenn-beck-tea-party-leave-racist-signs-home/)

The problem with personal/anecdotal accounts is that they are all only tiny slices of reality, or versions of reality. Living in Detroit, most of my acquaintances are black. In private situiations, they are all overtly racist--unabashedly and proudly so. They are all Democrats. Is that a reason to not associate with Democrats? FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Margaret Sanger (founder of planned parenthood), the founders of this nation, were all racists. I suppose they should not have been associated with. Maybe most, if not all of us, are or have some degree of racism, and we should all become hermits. Can't we, even with racist tendencies, still have salutary ideas and solutions to political and economic problems? Can't we even be constitutionalists?

As for Twang's thang re Beck's restoring honor rally--just another biased hit piece--and one before the rally even occurred. Speaking of some previous rally, he, as is the common practice, cherry picks a few signs that he considers racist or having racist themes, totally ignoring the host of other signs such as one minutely seen in a background--"congress works for us not the other way around"--which is the predominant animus for the tea party movement. Even most of those he chooses, though rude and crude, are not racist. One refers to religion not race. Another reversed the slavery cliche. Two compared Obamacare to voodoo, another referred to his supposed connection to Islam (Hussein), the Dixie Chicks, and his supposed non-citizenship (Kenya). Another slammed cap and trade and played on the word "trade"--to "trade" him back to his supposed lack of citizenship (Kenya). The last one actually had a racist, mispelled pejorative "niggar." Twang totally spins and paints Glen Beck's positive attempt to unify Americans with, at the time, an upcoming rally, into Twang's misconceived, hateful version--"Beck's decision to blatantly ride on the coat of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights movement is nothing except a badly orchestrated and cynical effort to coopt the gravitas of MLK and the Rights Movement in order to replace the glaring lack of it in the Tea Party movement." Twang's own lack of "gravitas" is evident in his myopic, slanted, name-calling (teabaggers, tea bag party) and too easy and uncritical accusation that the tea party is a platformless group of know nothings. The actual Restoring Honor rally was of a different philosophical "color" than that which Twang tried to paint it.

Jim, a few people do not represent everyone or necessarily the party...
Zimmy, this is only an accurate statement if you are talking about people who represent conservatives or the far right. On the other hand, there are a multitude of posts (and full threads) on this forum to demonstrate that individuals *do* represent the majority if they are moderates or on the left.

Jim, a few people do not represent everyone or necessarily the party, but there is a reason many of us would never associate with the tea party. I think some of the evidence was seen at the Washington rally. I personally know people who went to the rally on a ride w/ a bike club. In private situations, they are overtly racist. One of my friends has a confederate flag tattooed to his shoulder. He does not hide his feelings when we are in private situations. I personally know at least 12 people who are active w/ tea party rallies. They don't represent everyone in the tea party, but they represent everyone I know personally who considers themselves part of the tea party. They are all very bigoted. They are not ashamed of it.

Glenn Beck to Tea Party: Leave Your Racist Signs at Home! | buzz twang (http://www.buzztwang.com/2010/08/glenn-beck-tea-party-leave-racist-signs-home/)

Zimmy, first you say that "people do not represent everyone or necessarily the party"

Then you say that "In private situations, they are overtly racist. One of my friends has a confederate flag tattooed to his shoulder."

Zimmy, you have a friend who may be racist. That friends goes to tea party meetings, so therefore the tea party is racist?

You contradicted yourself in the span of 3 sentences. Maybe you need some new friends. You may well know some loathsome racists, that has nothing to do with the agenda of the Tea Party.

"I think some of the evidence was seen at the Washington rally."

So you claim there was evidence of racism at a rally, and you don't provide any of that evidence...

Finally, I find it really, really maddening that the left demonizes the Tea Party as racist, and here's why. The principles that the Tea Party supports (small federal government, low taxes, individual responsibility, free market capitalist ideas with no unnecessary federal intrusion) are EXACTLY what black culture needs to escape the cycle of poverty. It's EXACTLY teh liberal agenda that got blacks stuck in the poverty cycle, by making them addicted to welfare, and providing financial incentives to drop out of school, have kids outside of marriage, and to not work.

The liberal agenda has essentially destroyed the black nuclear family and removed all economic upward mobility from the black culture. The surest way out, the only way out, is to support exactly the ideas the the Tea Party represents (menaing, we'll help you if you need it, but having a job is better than being on welfare). Yet the Tea Party is labeled racist?

That, to me, is as insane as believing the president is a Muslim...

Why doesn't somebody in the Tea Party go up to these people with the signs and say "Dude, We have an important message to get out here, and that sign isn't helping anything"

There was mention of a sign that said "congress works for us not the other way around"....thats the kind of signs they need to be carrying. Might help swing people in there direction a lot easier than the other ones they are carrying.

Just my opinion...

Why doesn't somebody in the Tea Party go up to these people with the signs and say "Dude, We have an important message to get out here, and that sign isn't helping anything"

There was mention of a sign that said "congress works for us not the other way around"....thats the kind of signs they need to be carrying. Might help swing people in there direction a lot easier than the other ones they are carrying.

Just my opinion...
Because sensationalistic actions/signs get you in the news, not sensibility.

Why doesn't somebody in the Tea Party go up to these people with the signs and say "Dude, We have an important message to get out here, and that sign isn't helping anything"

There was mention of a sign that said "congress works for us not the other way around"....thats the kind of signs they need to be carrying. Might help swing people in there direction a lot easier than the other ones they are carrying.

Just my opinion...

Dad, 99% of the signs say exactly that. But you wouldn't know that unless you attended rallies, because the media fixatres on the 1 or 2 inflammatory signs. In fact, there have been documented cases of liberal "plants" going to tea party rallies with racist signs, in hopes of discrediting us. And those are the signs that the media reports on, so that people like you have no way of knowing that 99.9 of the signs are totaly appropriate. How does the Tea Party combat that? What's the defense against that?

Dad, I've been to a few rallies. I have heard the speakers ask those in the crowd to not carry inflammatory signs, and stick to signs that carry the message. But the media won't report on that, because they are trying to demonize the tea party as racist, extremist kooks. And from your post, it looks like the media is succeeding (not that you called us extremists, but to repeat, you don't seem to know that your suggestion is actually the reality). I saw a guy carrying a sign that said "no matter what I put here, you'll say it's racist". That's what we are facing, which is fine with me, because it shows you how desperate the liberals are. And they are NOT desperate to debate the merits of our agenda...they are desperate to have us dismissed as racists, because the last thing they want is to debate our agenda, because they know their agenda doesn't pass the common sense test.

Look at Glenn Back's rally at the National Mall what, a few months ago? Maybe a couple of hundred thousand people (I was there). There was no trouble, when it was over, there wasn't a scrap of litter anywhere. Furhermore, if the tea party is racist, I'm sure that comes as a suprise to Martin Luther King's niece, who spoke at the rally...

A week or 2 later, the liberals had an anti tea party rally. Nowhere near as many people, and the mall was completely trashed.

Who are the unruly folks?

Dad, 99% of the signs say exactly that. But you wouldn't know that unless you attended rallies...
Me thinks you haven't been to too many rallies if you truly think "99% of the signs say exactly that." I've been to a couple that have taken place in Boston and, while the ridiculous signs are the minority, it was split about 75% rational to 25% ridiculous. That is including the nonsense t-shirts people wore.

Me thinks you haven't been to too many rallies if you truly think "99% of the signs say exactly that." I've been to a couple that have taken place in Boston and, while the ridiculous signs are the minority, it was split about 75% rational to 25% ridiculous. That is including the nonsense t-shirts people wore.

Is the 75% rational to 25% ridiculous worse than the rational to ridiculous ratio to be found in the general electorate? Granted that Jim in CT, as he admits, often speaks with hyperbole.

Me thinks you haven't been to too many rallies if you truly think "99% of the signs say exactly that." I've been to a couple that have taken place in Boston and, while the ridiculous signs are the minority, it was split about 75% rational to 25% ridiculous. That is including the nonsense t-shirts people wore.

Johnny, first I said I've been to a few rallies, not many. Second, my degrees are in statistics, but no, I didn't do an actual quantification of what the ratio is. I can't prove it's 99% rational, 1% extreme.

What I can say with 100% confidence are 2 things.

(1) Whatever the actual ratio of normal/kook is at most tea party rallies, the kook factor is tremendously overblown by the media. If you disagree, then me thinks you need to re-think what you thinks.

(2) The vast majority of the media coverage of the tea party completely ignores teh message we're tryingh to get across, and instead focuses on the lunatic fringe in the crowd.

How about this? Instead of spending all our time focusing on the extreme fringe within the Tea Party (which I concede exists), let's talk about whether or not the ideas of the tea party make sense. The media doesn't do that, because they are interested in promoting the liberal agenda, despite the fact that every place that lives by that agenda (CT, CA, IL, any business dominated by unions) is a train-wreck.

As I said, let's talk about the issues, not the lunatics on either side.

Liberals like to think we can balance the budget on tax increases. Here is one of my favorite facts that has come up recently.

If we imposed a 100% tax rate on every filer who makes more than $100,000, it wouldn't even balance the budget for this year. Let alone it doesn't address the $14 trillion debt we have now.

Let that sink in...if we leave spending where it is, and impose a 100% tax rate on everyone making over $100,000, our debt would INCREASE...We would just about break even for FY 2012.

We need cuts, massive, massive cuts. The Democrats disagree, which is literally to say they don't believe in mathematics.

And my facts come from the IRS, as has been reported recently in many media outlets...

...there is zero evidence that the Tea Party supports racism.

Zimmy, first you say that "people do not represent everyone or necessarily the party"


It's EXACTLY teh liberal agenda that got blacks stuck in the poverty cycle, by making them addicted to welfare, and providing financial incentives to drop out of school, have kids outside of marriage, and to not work.

I did not contradict myself. I said they do not represent...necessarily the party. You said there was zero evidence. There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist. The party platform certainly would not be overtly racist. I think there are people in the tea party who are not racist. I think there is a higher percentage of tea party members that are racist than any other "major" political group.

As far as the second part... you mean "people" in general or only "blacks"? I am not sure why the policies described did that to blacks and not my parents or grandparents or me. If the policies of the liberals are so bad, why aren't we all on welfare knocking people up?

(1) Whatever the actual ratio of normal/kook is at most tea party rallies, the kook factor is tremendously overblown by the media. If you disagree, then me thinks you need to re-think what you thinks.

Actually, JohnnyD does seem to agree with you with his 75/25 rational/ridiculous ratio. He just wants to nitpick at your exageration.

(2) The vast majority of the media coverage of the tea party completely ignores teh message we're tryingh to get across, and instead focuses on the lunatic fringe in the crowd.

Again, I think you're essentially correct, but be careful with exagerations such as "completely ignores"--this just gives those who want to ignore the/your message an excuse to obfuscate and dodge your discussion.

How about this? Instead of spending all our time focusing on the extreme fringe within the Tea Party (which I concede exists), let's talk about whether or not the ideas of the tea party make sense.

That would be a good discussion--doubt that it will happen. It's easier to nitpick your hyperbole, then move on.

The media doesn't do that, because they are interested in promoting the liberal agenda, despite the fact that every place that lives by that agenda (CT, CA, IL, any business dominated by unions) is a train-wreck.

Again, be careful with stuff like "every place," though I agree that your essential argument is correct.

If we imposed a 100% tax rate on every filer who makes more than $100,000, it wouldn't even balance the budget for this year. Let alone it doesn't address the $14 trillion debt we have now.

Let that sink in...if we leave spending where it is, and impose a 100% tax rate on everyone making over $100,000, our debt would INCREASE...We would just about break even for FY 2012.

The math is much more complicated than your simple examples. When the economy grows, the budget deficit decreases. The Bush tax cuts did not help the economy. Tax revenues decreased, the economy tanked, defense spending exploded. Would you be in favor of a 48% rate like Norway? Maybe on people over 500000? Budgets could be balanced. Balanced budgets help confidence in the economy. The economy grows increasing revenues.

You are missing a huge piece of the economics in your discussion. Those kinds of statements incite people, but they do not represent the realities of our economy.

I did not contradict myself. I said they do not represent...necessarily the party. You said there was zero evidence. There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist. The party platform certainly would not be overtly racist. I think there are people in the tea party who are not racist. I think there is a higher percentage of tea party members that are racist than any other "major" political group.

As far as the second part... you mean "people" in general or only "blacks"? I am not sure why the policies described did that to blacks and not my parents or grandparents or me. If the policies of the liberals are so bad, why aren't we all on welfare knocking people up?

Zimmy -

"There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist."

Bullsh*t. If that evidence exists, show us.

"I think there is a higher percentage of tea party members that are racist than any other "major" political group."

That's your opinion. You keep stating it, but you don't support it with anything other than your anectdotal observations, which prove nothing.

"I am not sure why the policies described did that to blacks and not my parents or grandparents or me. If the policies of the liberals are so bad, why aren't we all on welfare knocking people up?"

Because these liberal programs I was referring to, target those who are poor. Blacks are disportionately poor (I guess you didn't know that?), so these programs disportionately impact blacks. And all those programs do is provide financial incentives to continue the exact behaviors that are guaranteed to perpetuate the poverty cycle. The Tea Party agenda offers an exact remedy to fix this. Ironic, isn't it?

Finally, if it's not liberal policies which encourage blacks to have so many kids out of wedlock, what do YOU think it is? Are conservative white people causing 66% of black kids to be born without a Dad in the home? If so, how are we doing that?

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.

You said there was zero evidence. There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist. The party platform certainly would not be overtly racist. I think there are people in the tea party who are not racist. I think there is a higher percentage of tea party members that are racist than any other "major" political group.

Again, Jim in CT admits that he exagerates, but he can't seem to avoid using it--so I try to sift through the hyperbole to what is important. Now, it seems, that you like the use of a more slippery form of exageration--"plenty of evidence," not 100% of the evidence? . . . "substantial portion . . . are racist"--like, more than 25%, or more than the general population, or more than in the black, or latino, or asian communities, or in the white sector of the Democrat party? You "think" . . . "there is a higher percentage of tea party members that are racist than any other 'major' political group." Really? So is this a feeling, a thought, an intimation, a message in a dream or nightmare? How do you come by this?

As far as the second part... you mean "people" in general or only "blacks"? I am not sure why the policies described did that to blacks and not my parents or grandparents or me. If the policies of the liberals are so bad, why aren't we all on welfare knocking people up?

Blacks started in a big economic/psychological hole at the start of this country. Early on, they, fared better as citizens in the northern States, some did quite well. Even some in the South, who were not slaves did well. One of the biggest slave owners was black. The Civil War and its immediate aftermath saw a great and quick improvement of black society. Then, of course, the racist white backlash of Sourthern White Democrats (oops--Dixiecrats) put a stranglehold on that progress, though, economically, blacks in the north, though discriminated against, had gains. The aftermath of the great Society and its war on poverty helped, against its goals, to stagnate and reverse black gains.

Whites, on the other hand, as a race (not necessarily as individuals) started on top, and also gained with the economic growth that was provided with the originalist form of limited government based on regional and individual power. But the Great Society also affected the underclass of white society and expanded the numbers of that class. The growing unemployment, and poverty levels, and abortion levels, and welfare levels and broken family levels of white society is also expanding. But, starting from the top, the fall is not yet as great.

The math is much more complicated than your simple examples. When the economy grows, the budget deficit decreases. The Bush tax cuts did not help the economy. Tax revenues decreased, the economy tanked, defense spending exploded. Would you be in favor of a 48% rate like Norway? Maybe on people over 500000? Budgets could be balanced. Balanced budgets help confidence in the economy. The economy grows increasing revenues.

You are missing a huge piece of the economics in your discussion. Those kinds of statements incite people, but they do not represent the realities of our economy.

"The Bush tax cuts did not help the economy. Tax revenues decreased"

I'm pretty sure that tax revenues increased for the first few years after the Bush tax cuts, until the economy imploded?

This link seems to support my theory, and disprove yours...

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200)

"Would you be in favor of a 48% rate like Norway?"

If we absolutely needed it to survive, yes. If we need it to allow cops to continue to retire at age 40, then hell no.

"Balanced budgets help confidence in the economy. The economy grows increasing revenues. "

I agree. BUt we can't balance our particular budget without massive cuts. Do the math, we have $14 trillion in debt, expected to grow by another $10 trillion in 10 years, and that doesn't count the expected shortfall for Social Security and Medicaid. That could be another $60 trillion easy, for a total estimated shortfall of, let's say, $85 trillion. There are 300 million people in this country. To "grow" out of that debt, as you suggest, would mean additional tax revenue of $283,000 per person (I'm a math guy).

I would love to have my income increase to the point where I'm taxed at an additional $1.4 milion for my family of 5. But unfortunately, it ain't gonna happen unless I win Powerball. Is that what the liberals are expecting? That we will all win Powerball? Because that is one of the very few things that would explain how liberals can possibly believe what they claim to believe.

Tell me where I'm wrong, please...And I'm also ignoring the fact that we have to pay interest on our debt, so teh situation is actually much more dire than even I just described...I'm also ignoring that a huge number of "poor" people pay no taxes at all, so that $85 trillion (plus interest) has to be absorbed by far fewer than 300 million people.

"You are missing a huge piece of the economics "

I don't believe so. You are. Because liberals assume that if you raise taxes by X percent, that you'll automatically increase revenue by the same X%. You ignore the de-stimulative effect of raising prices. Conversely, you ignore the stimulative effect of tax cuts (if they are smart tax cuts).

Detbuch, I will try to contain my use of hyperbole.

jim- you are only looking at personal income in your figures in the last example. That is what I am talking about when I say you are missing a huge piece of it. $283000 per person implies each person would be responsible for that amount. That is not the case. Exxon, GE (if they paid taxes) etc would contribute. When the economy is good, the revenues from business increase. The recession reduced those revenues dramatically. It is incorrect to state that each person in the US would be responsible to cover 283000 or your family at 1.4 million. Also, the economy imploded under Bush, you can't just say revenues increased before the economy imploded as evidence that the tax cuts raised revenues. The economy imploded! Maybe there is something to the Reagan post-tax cut recession and Bush II post tax-cut recession.

jim- you are only looking at personal income in your figures in the last example. That is what I am talking about when I say you are missing a huge piece of it. $283000 per person implies each person would be responsible for that amount. That is not the case. Exxon, GE (if they paid taxes) etc would contribute. When the economy is good, the revenues from business increase. The recession reduced those revenues dramatically. It is incorrect to state that each person in the US would be responsible to cover 283000 or your family at 1.4 million. Also, the economy imploded under Bush, you can't just say revenues increased before the economy imploded as evidence that the tax cuts raised revenues. The economy imploded! Maybe there is something to the Reagan post-tax cut recession and Bush II post tax-cut recession.

The economy also "imploded under" Clinton (the Dot Com Bubble). It "imploded" even further "under" Obama. It has had this bad habit of "imploding under" many presidents, and even "recovering under" those same presidents. It didn't recover under FDR though it wavered up and down in its deep doldrums. It "imploded under" high taxes on the rich and under moderately high taxes on the rich and under low taxes on the rich. The taxes on the rich, high or low, don't seem to have had much of an effect on whether the economy "imploded" or not, but may have created short term little shifts, and high taxes on the rich may have given the unrich some envious satisfaction or some illusion that paying their illusive "fair share" was just the tweek to get the economy healthy. Never mind that taxes on the productive rich eventually always get shifted to the unrich in higher prices or lost jobs. High taxes on the rich has certainly been a campaign policy that helped win elections--even though the promise never pans out.

So you say that "maybe" there is something to the Reagan and Bush II post-tax cut recessions. What would that be? Is there a discussion there, or only mystifying conjecture?

There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist.

girlfriend's sister's uncle ...or ridiculous chain email?

THIS SPEAKS VOLUMES...

ABOUT YOUR PRESIDENT.

U.S. Weighs Summer GM Stock Sale - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703916004576271382418887092.html?m od=e2tw#)

"Government officials are willing to take the loss because the Obama administration would like to sever its last ties to the auto maker, the people familiar with the matter said. A summer sale makes it more likely Treasury could sell all of its stake in GM by year's end, avoiding a potentially controversial sale in the 2012 presidential election year.

GM also would like an early exit in large part because it faces tight restrictions on executive pay as long as the U.S. government is a part owner."

These guys graduated at the head of their class......the class called JACKASS SCHOOL OF INVESTING.

Buy high sell low. HEY IT'S ONLY 11 EFFIN BILLION DOLLARS. ALL SO PEOPLE WILL RE-ELECT HIM. WTF!!!

:smash::smash::smash:

DYING to hear how Spence will put a spin on this. :wall::wall::wall:

jim- you are only looking at personal income in your figures in the last example. That is what I am talking about when I say you are missing a huge piece of it. $283000 per person implies each person would be responsible for that amount. That is not the case. Exxon, GE (if they paid taxes) etc would contribute. When the economy is good, the revenues from business increase. The recession reduced those revenues dramatically. It is incorrect to state that each person in the US would be responsible to cover 283000 or your family at 1.4 million. Also, the economy imploded under Bush, you can't just say revenues increased before the economy imploded as evidence that the tax cuts raised revenues. The economy imploded! Maybe there is something to the Reagan post-tax cut recession and Bush II post tax-cut recession.

Zimmy, you are absolutely correct, much of that $85 trillion would come from tax revenue on businesses.

Here is another thing that liberals cannot seem to grasp...ZIMMY, FROM WHERE DO YOU EXPECT THOSE BUSINESSES TO GET THOSE TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS? Do those businesses have the ability to print money? No, they take it from us.

Many liberals think tax increases on businesses are a way to "spare" the public from tax hikes. But businesses will obviously pass that on to their customers and employees, which is us. Please ask Johnny D how he would respond if his corporate tax rate doubled? It's amazing to me, this liberal notion that there is this giant ATM out there called "business" that we can raid whenever we want without any consequences...

During the 2008 Republican Nat'l Convention, Fred Thompson made a great analogy to this in his speech. He said something like this..."Liberals believe that raising taxes on buisiness doesn't effect individual people. That's like saying 'don't worry, I'm not taking water from your side of the pail, I'm taking it from my side of the pail'. Because if you buy anything from a business, or you happen to get your paycheck from a business, then you are impacted by tax hikes on that business".

Where am I wrong Zimmy?

"When the economy is good, the revenues from business increase. The recession reduced those revenues dramatically. "

Zimmy, when the economy comes back, tax revenues will increase, that is correct. But it would take decades (at least) of a booming economy for tax revenues to marginally increase by $85 trillion.

Do you understand the math? I'm not just saying we need a total of $85 trillion...I'm saying we're $85 trillion in the hole. What that means is, we need to come up with $85 trillion to pay back debt, and that's ON TOP of what we need to cover the everyday expenditures.

Zimmy, federal income tax revenue for this year will be around $2.2 trillion, and we're spending $3.8 trillion. Let's say the economy grows by 20% (which is an enormous surge) and stays there. That gets revenue to 2.64 trillion. That's still SHORT of what we need to cover our 2011 expenses of 3.8 trillion.

We cannot grow out of this debt, Zimmy. Not with our expenditures. Do the math...for 2011, we are spending 73% more than we are taking in (3.8 trillion vs 2.2 trillion). That means if revenues increased by 72% (which is imposible), we'd still only be breaking even for this year, leaving not one penny to address the debt of $85 trillion. If revenues DOUBLED to 4.4 T, we would have an annual surplus of 0.6 trillion (4.4 - 3.8 = 0.6). Ignoring interest, we would need that to continue, uninterrupted, for 142 years to pay down that $85 trillion. How can you possibly play with those numbers and come up with a realistic solution to this mess that doesn't involve huge cuts? Answer - you can't. And then when someone like Paul Ryan has the political courage to tell the truth, Obama responds by saying that Ryan wants disabled kids to whither and die on the street. Notice that Obama never said Ryan was WRONG, rather, he tried to demonize him. Is that change? Is that leadership?

Zimmy, the math is what the math is. It's not political, and I'm not saying that the Democrats are solely to blame. But we are in deep doo-doo here.

"the economy imploded under Bush"

First Zimmy, you explicitly stated that tax revenues under Bush drcereased after the tax cuts. I proved that's not true, will you admit that? Second, you're saying Bush's tax cuts caused this mess? Sorry, it was the subprime mortgage mess that did the damage. If you deny that, you are utterly brainwashed by political contempt for those you disagree with...

Also Zimmy, the economy grew like crazy when the GOP controlled Congress (from 1994 to 2006). The Dems took over in 2006. And in our system of gov't, the legislature, way more than the President, sets the legislative agenda...I'm sorry if that fact tends to suggest that the Dems messed up, but it's a fact nonetheless...

I love it when folks say the Bush tax cuts caused this. There is absolutely no rational way to say that with a straight face...

"you can't just say revenues increased before the economy imploded as evidence that the tax cuts raised revenues."

Why can't I say that? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, so why can't I say it? I can't prove that the Bush tax cuts caused the increased revenue...but I can prove that tax revenue increased for several years aftre the cuts went into place. So you can say that revenues decreased as a result of the tax cuts...you can say that, even though it's irrefutably false. But I cannot say that revenues increased after the cuts, even though that's precisely what took place? In other words, you can make stuff up, but I can't state historical fact?!?! Wow. I mean, wow...

Het Detbuch, no hyperbole here, right? Just simple, irrefutable (except to liberals) child-level math.

OK liberals, where am I wrong exactly? Believe me, I want to be wrong on this issue...but I don't suspect I am...

THIS speaks volumes too...

Obama Skips Tornado Destruction, Heads West to Raise Money | The Blog on Obama: White House Dossier (http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/04/20/obama-skips-tornado-destruction-heads-west-raise-money/)

Zimmy, you are absolutely correct, much of that $85 trillion would come from tax revenue on businesses.

Here is another thing that liberals cannot seem to grasp...ZIMMY, FROM WHERE DO YOU EXPECT THOSE BUSINESSES TO GET THOSE TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS? Do those businesses have the ability to print money? No, they take it from us.

Many liberals think tax increases on businesses are a way to "spare" the public from tax hikes. But businesses will obviously pass that on to their customers and employees, which is us. Please ask Johnny D how he would respond if his corporate tax rate doubled? It's amazing to me, this liberal notion that there is this giant ATM out there called "business" that we can raid whenever we want without any consequences...

During the 2008 Republican Nat'l Convention, Fred Thompson made a great analogy to this in his speech. He said something like this..."Liberals believe that raising taxes on buisiness doesn't effect individual people. That's like saying 'don't worry, I'm not taking water from your side of the pail, I'm taking it from my side of the pail'. Because if you buy anything from a business, or you happen to get your paycheck from a business, then you are impacted by tax hikes on that business".

Where am I wrong Zimmy?

"When the economy is good, the revenues from business increase. The recession reduced those revenues dramatically. "

Zimmy, when the economy comes back, tax revenues will increase, that is correct. But it would take decades (at least) of a booming economy for tax revenues to marginally increase by $85 trillion.

Do you understand the math? I'm not just saying we need a total of $85 trillion...I'm saying we're $85 trillion in the hole. What that means is, we need to come up with $85 trillion to pay back debt, and that's ON TOP of what we need to cover the everyday expenditures.

Zimmy, federal income tax revenue for this year will be around $2.2 trillion, and we're spending $3.8 trillion. Let's say the economy grows by 20% (which is an enormous surge) and stays there. That gets revenue to 2.64 trillion. That's still SHORT of what we need to cover our 2011 expenses of 3.8 trillion.

We cannot grow out of this debt, Zimmy. Not with our expenditures. Do the math...for 2011, we are spending 73% more than we are taking in (3.8 trillion vs 2.2 trillion). That means if revenues increased by 72% (which is imposible), we'd still only be breaking even for this year, leaving not one penny to address the debt of $85 trillion. If revenues DOUBLED to 4.4 T, we would have an annual surplus of 0.6 trillion (4.4 - 3.8 = 0.6). Ignoring interest, we would need that to continue, uninterrupted, for 142 years to pay down that $85 trillion. How can you possibly play with those numbers and come up with a realistic solution to this mess that doesn't involve huge cuts? Answer - you can't. And then when someone like Paul Ryan has the political courage to tell the truth, Obama responds by saying that Ryan wants disabled kids to whither and die on the street. Notice that Obama never said Ryan was WRONG, rather, he tried to demonize him. Is that change? Is that leadership?

Zimmy, the math is what the math is. It's not political, and I'm not saying that the Democrats are solely to blame. But we are in deep doo-doo here.

"the economy imploded under Bush"

First Zimmy, you explicitly stated that tax revenues under Bush drcereased after the tax cuts. I proved that's not true, will you admit that? Second, you're saying Bush's tax cuts caused this mess? Sorry, it was the subprime mortgage mess that did the damage. If you deny that, you are utterly brainwashed by political contempt for those you disagree with...

Also Zimmy, the economy grew like crazy when the GOP controlled Congress (from 1994 to 2006). The Dems took over in 2006. And in our system of gov't, the legislature, way more than the President, sets the legislative agenda...I'm sorry if that fact tends to suggest that the Dems messed up, but it's a fact nonetheless...

I love it when folks say the Bush tax cuts caused this. There is absolutely no rational way to say that with a straight face...

"you can't just say revenues increased before the economy imploded as evidence that the tax cuts raised revenues."

Why can't I say that? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, so why can't I say it? I can't prove that the Bush tax cuts caused the increased revenue...but I can prove that tax revenue increased for several years aftre the cuts went into place. So you can say that revenues decreased as a result of the tax cuts...you can say that, even though it's irrefutably false. But I cannot say that revenues increased after the cuts, even though that's precisely what took place? In other words, you can make stuff up, but I can't state historical fact?!?! Wow. I mean, wow...

Het Detbuch, no hyperbole here, right? Just simple, irrefutable (except to liberals) child-level math.

OK liberals, where am I wrong exactly? Believe me, I want to be wrong on this issue...but I don't suspect I am...

I likes it mucho. Maybe a slightly careless "absolutely" or "utterly" thrown in, but lots of direct, to the point, hard hitting Jim in CT stuff.

Jim, pointing out that revenue went up for a limited time before plummeting doesn't mean you "proved" that tax cuts raise revenue. I don't think you need me to explain why,

"The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for almost half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs." How about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018. How about George W. Bush's CEA chair, Greg Mankiw, who used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't."

From David Stockman
David Stockman, who led the all-important Office of Management and Budget under Reagan and was a chief architect of his fiscal policy, criticized today’s GOP for misreading Reagan’s legacy by adopting a “theology” of tax cuts. Stockman has spoken out before, but took perhaps his strongest stance yet against his own party today, saying “I’ll never forgive the Bush administration” for “destroying the last vestige of fiscal responsibility that we had in the Republican Party.” He also broke with Republican orthodoxy on a number of key issues:

– We need “a higher tax burden on the upper income.”

– “After 1985, the Republican Party adopted the idea that tax cuts can solve the whole problem, and that therefore in the future, deficits didn’t matter and tax cuts would be the solution of first, second, and third resort.”

– The 2001 Bush tax cut “was totally not needed.”

– On claims that Reagan proved tax cuts lead to higher government revenues: “Reagan proved nothing of the kind and yet that became the mantra and it just led the Republican Party away from its traditional sound money, fiscal restraint.”

– Former Vice President Cheney “should have known better” than claim the Bush tax cuts would pay for themselves.

– “I’ll never forgive the Bush administration and Paulson for basically destroying the last vestige of fiscal responsibility that we had in the Republican Party. After that, I don’t know how we ever make the tough choices.”
Bush's economic crew said these things:

Bush administration officials acknowledged cutting taxes decreases net revenue.

"Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."

Read more: Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html#ixzz1K6mCtsCa)


Paulson: "I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." During his June 2006 confirmation hearing, then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson said, "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." The financial information website MarketWatch reported this statement as "echoing the opinion of most economists."

Nussle: Tax cuts do not "totally pay for themselves." According to a November 15, 2007, Washington Post editorial, Jim Nussle, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget, told reporters, "Some say that [the tax cut] was a total loss. Some say they totally pay for themselves. It's neither extreme."

Viard: "No dispute" revenues lower than they would have been without Bush tax cuts. In an October 17, 2006, article, the Post quoted Alan D. Viard, a former Council of Economic Advisers senior economist under Bush, saying that "[f]ederal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the [Bush] tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that."

Lazear: "[W]e do not think tax cuts pay for themselves." During his testimony to the Senate Budget Committee in 2006, Edward Lazear, then-chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, stated: "Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data presented above do not support this claim."

Samwick: "You know that tax cuts have not fueled record revenues." In a January 2007 New Year's Plea," to "anyone in the [Bush] Administration who may read this blog," Andrew Samwick, an economics professor at Dartmouth College and former chief economist to the Council of Economic Advisers during the Bush administration, wrote:

You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.

if you Google those quotes individually...the results are pretty funny...

Jim, pointing out that revenue went up for a limited time before plummeting doesn't mean you "proved" that tax cuts raise revenue. I don't think you need me to explain why,

"The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for almost half — 48 percent — of this $539 billion in increased costs." How about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? Their budget calculator shows that the tax cuts will cost $3.28 trillion between 2011 and 2018. How about George W. Bush's CEA chair, Greg Mankiw, who used the term "charlatans and cranks" for people who believed that "broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue." He continued: "I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't."

From David Stockman
David Stockman, who led the all-important Office of Management and Budget under Reagan and was a chief architect of his fiscal policy, criticized today’s GOP for misreading Reagan’s legacy by adopting a “theology” of tax cuts. Stockman has spoken out before, but took perhaps his strongest stance yet against his own party today, saying “I’ll never forgive the Bush administration” for “destroying the last vestige of fiscal responsibility that we had in the Republican Party.” He also broke with Republican orthodoxy on a number of key issues:

– We need “a higher tax burden on the upper income.”

– “After 1985, the Republican Party adopted the idea that tax cuts can solve the whole problem, and that therefore in the future, deficits didn’t matter and tax cuts would be the solution of first, second, and third resort.”

– The 2001 Bush tax cut “was totally not needed.”

– On claims that Reagan proved tax cuts lead to higher government revenues: “Reagan proved nothing of the kind and yet that became the mantra and it just led the Republican Party away from its traditional sound money, fiscal restraint.”

– Former Vice President Cheney “should have known better” than claim the Bush tax cuts would pay for themselves.

– “I’ll never forgive the Bush administration and Paulson for basically destroying the last vestige of fiscal responsibility that we had in the Republican Party. After that, I don’t know how we ever make the tough choices.”
Bush's economic crew said these things:

Bush administration officials acknowledged cutting taxes decreases net revenue.

"Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues."

Read more: Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html#ixzz1K6mCtsCa)


Paulson: "I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." During his June 2006 confirmation hearing, then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson said, "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves." The financial information website MarketWatch reported this statement as "echoing the opinion of most economists."

Nussle: Tax cuts do not "totally pay for themselves." According to a November 15, 2007, Washington Post editorial, Jim Nussle, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget, told reporters, "Some say that [the tax cut] was a total loss. Some say they totally pay for themselves. It's neither extreme."

Viard: "No dispute" revenues lower than they would have been without Bush tax cuts. In an October 17, 2006, article, the Post quoted Alan D. Viard, a former Council of Economic Advisers senior economist under Bush, saying that "[f]ederal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the [Bush] tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that."

Lazear: "[W]e do not think tax cuts pay for themselves." During his testimony to the Senate Budget Committee in 2006, Edward Lazear, then-chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, stated: "Will the tax cuts pay for themselves? As a general rule, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves. Certainly, the data presented above do not support this claim."

Samwick: "You know that tax cuts have not fueled record revenues." In a January 2007 New Year's Plea," to "anyone in the [Bush] Administration who may read this blog," Andrew Samwick, an economics professor at Dartmouth College and former chief economist to the Council of Economic Advisers during the Bush administration, wrote:

You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.

The "problem" that these quotes talk about is the Federal budget (deficit and debt) and Federal revenues, not the private sector economy and private sector profits. Whether tax cuts bring in more revenue or pay for themselves may be debatable. There are certainly a host of quotes than can be given to support that. There is the Laffer curve theory that supports a level of taxation as being optimal and above which taxation is counterproductive. Those who view the "economy" as dynamic favor that view. Those who view the economy in a more static fashion think it is obvious that the higher the tax, the higher the federal income. When we speak of the "economy," however, most, I think, are referring to the private sector. That the Government has amassed a huge debt and is unable to balance a budget is a different matter. Your list of quotes don't address the "economy" that most of us think of and which has to pay for the "problem."

The first quote is very telling . . . "in the absence of such legislation, the NATION would have a surplus this year . . . tax cuts account for allmost half . . . of this $539 billion in increased costs." The nation he speaks of is the Federal Government, not the States, the businesses, and the individuals who pay for this overarching Government. And, to me, a cost is outlay, purchase, spending, not income. Not being an economist or accountant, I am not aware of this definition of a cost being income. Government economists seem to think it is. In my simplistic view, government costs are government programs--things that cost money, not the money that is used to pay for those costs. If the money, the revenue, is a cost, then logic would dictate that to reduce that cost (tax revenue), you would reduce the tax. And it is a bit laughable to trot out quotes by the very government apparatichiks who helped to spend the Federal Government into its debt as if they know the answer to getting out of that debt.

I'm not sure--are you implying with these quotes and your previous comments in this thread that balancing the Federal Budget and Paying down the debt will create a booming economy, one that will not "implode." And that raising taxes is the way to do it?--"Maybe there is something to the Reagan post-tax cut recession and Bushs II post -tax cut recession."

And that the resulting fiscally responsible Government will then give the private economy the "confidence" to flourish?--"Balanced budgets help confidence in the economy . . ."--whose confidence and which economy?

As Milton Friedman once asked--where are these angels (that would govern so responsibly)?

So, then, if the Government had not been so profligate in the first place--as it has been for the past century--the "economy" would never have imploded?

Perhaps such thinking is backwards. The "economy" is not driven by the Government. The Government is fed by the "economy" as you almost correctly stated--"When the economy grows, the budget deficit decreases." Except it hasn't worked that way because angels were not at the Government helm, and they sqaundered the wealth given to them (more accurately--that they confiscated), and to think that taxing the rich, raising taxes, blah, blah, will contribute to a balanced budget and a paid National debt is a fiction devoutly to be wished. There is nothing short of a balanced budget amendment that will stop the devils from spending any increased "revenue," as the Federal Government has always done since it wrested powers from State and local governments and from individuals to spend in the manner it does. The chance of such an amendment passing is . . .? Or of returning powers to the States is . . . ? Only the Tea Partiers have the passion for it, and they are being demonized and ridiculed.

Zimmy, first off I apologize if I tee'd you off to the point of wanting to ignore me, that wasn't my intention, but my wife always tell sme my emails are more inflammatory than I intend them to be...

"pointing out that revenue went up for a limited time before plummeting doesn't mean you "proved" that tax cuts raise revenue. "

I wasn't trying to prove that the tax cuts increased revenue (although I believe that to be true, because the same thing also happened when Bill Clinton slashed tax rates). I was trying to prove you were wrong when you said that the tax cuts decreased revenue. After the tax cuts were put in place, revenue went up and stayed up until the subprime mortgage crisis hit. Then revenues went down. If I can't say that the cuts caused the revenues to go up, why is it OK for you to say that the cuts caused them to go down?

Zimmy, you may be right that if it wasn't for those cuts, the deficit would be less. I can also say that if it wasn't for liberals pushing home ownership for poor people who can't aford it, the economy would not have collapsed, and therefore the deficit wouldn't be as bad as it is.

Again, I'm not saying either side is at fault. What I'm saying is this...the previous generation of career politicians over-spent by at least $283,000 per person, and that is irrefutable fact. In my opinion, a group of politicians has to be pretty incompetent to do that, which is why I think we need a new breed who actually know how life works.

Zimmy, for every quote you post from someone bashiong the tax cuts, I can post 50 quotes from folks blaming liberals for spending too much and for pushing subprime mortgages (which you have not once mentioned as a culprit in all this).

Zimmy, you also completely ignored my irrefutable (I think) math that showed how impossible it will be to grow out of this mess with tax revenue, unless we have massive spending cuts.

Look at the numbers from my previous post. Even if tax revenues doubled (which is impossible) and even if we didn't have to pay interest on our debt (which we do), it would take over 140 years to raise an additional $85 trillion. That's 4 generations from now, our great-great-grandkids, who will still be paying this debt off, and that's IF tax revenues double and with no interest!!!!! So Zimmy, are you telling me that tax revenues will more than double? Or are you OK with taking hundreds of years to pay off this debt? Which is it? WHICH IS IT?

How do you respond to that? Please don't tell me what MSNBC or the New York Times tells you to think...don't post quotes from some mouthpiece...what do you think about that?

If my math is wrong (and I pray that it is), please tell me. If not, please tell me how we raise an additional $85 trillion?

You keep saying "business". Again, many liberals seem to believe that they have an unlimited ATM machine out there called "business" that they can raid whenever they like, and that it's free money with no consequences. It's not true...

Jim, you definitely aren't on my ignore list. You have not done anything that would make me ignore you. I enjoy reasonable discussions. Your math ignored a significant part of revenue. I pointed that out. I am not sure why you keep bringing it up. Another part you are missing is I started in this discussion saying we need both cuts and the tax rate we had in the 90's. Republic and tea parties would never go for that. They cry and cry about being held back by liberal spending, but they won't budge on tax rates for upper incomes.
By the way, you are fairly misinformed (or make incorrect assumptions?) about the housing market. It wasn't liberals pushing poor people who couldn't afford houses into buying them that caused the bubble. It was a combination of banks and underwriters looking to make money off of people by getting them mortgages even if they were very risky and people looking to make money off of houses. A huge percentage of foreclosures came from people trying to flip homes. Another large percent was people who took jumbo type loans and couldn't afford them. Learn the facts before you spout off about blacks being held down by liberals or liberals pushing poor people into getting houses they couldn't afford. As much as I enjoy the discussion, I am bored with it at this point.

I bet I am :hee:

Earth Day Ends Obama's 53,300 Gallon Trip - Washington Whispers (usnews.com) (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/04/22/earth-day-ends-obamas-53300-gallon-trip)

It should be mandatory that these guys reimburse the American taxpayer for ANY costs incurred for campaigning.

Like the guy said...you may have raised 1 million dollars but you lost 1 million votes....

Jim, I enjoy reasonable discussions.

Your math ignored a significant part of revenue. I pointed that out. I am not sure why you keep bringing it up. Another part you are missing, I started, they cry and cry..... by the way, you are fairly misinformed (or make incorrect assumptions?), It wasn't liberals, learn the facts before you spout off.

As much as I enjoy the discussion, I am bored with it at this point.

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

it would mean so much more if you occasionally provided something more than your own statements of opinion before declaring yourself victor and more informed...and I don't mean quotes from mediamatters,democratunderground and thinkprogress

I bet I am :hee:

Earth Day Ends Obama's 53,300 Gallon Trip - Washington Whispers (usnews.com) (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/04/22/earth-day-ends-obamas-53300-gallon-trip)

It should be mandatory that these guys reimburse the American taxpayer for ANY costs incurred for campaigning.

Like the guy said...you may have raised 1 million dollars but you lost 1 million votes....

Sorry.. I can't hear you :rotf2: You get a pass since you just infected with lead and wood dust :devil2: I got no problem with reimbursement as long as they all have to do it.

I don't disagree with that. Not sure why they're allowed to get away with it in the first place. If I took a company car out on a vacation or a job interview you betcha the boss would be looking for reimbursement.

Spence will tell you it's ok though and he doesn't mind his tax dollars going to this :hee:

Jim, you definitely aren't on my ignore list. You have not done anything that would make me ignore you. I enjoy reasonable discussions. Your math ignored a significant part of revenue. I pointed that out. I am not sure why you keep bringing it up. Another part you are missing is I started in this discussion saying we need both cuts and the tax rate we had in the 90's. Republic and tea parties would never go for that. They cry and cry about being held back by liberal spending, but they won't budge on tax rates for upper incomes.
By the way, you are fairly misinformed (or make incorrect assumptions?) about the housing market. It wasn't liberals pushing poor people who couldn't afford houses into buying them that caused the bubble. It was a combination of banks and underwriters looking to make money off of people by getting them mortgages even if they were very risky and people looking to make money off of houses. A huge percentage of foreclosures came from people trying to flip homes. Another large percent was people who took jumbo type loans and couldn't afford them. Learn the facts before you spout off about blacks being held down by liberals or liberals pushing poor people into getting houses they couldn't afford. As much as I enjoy the discussion, I am bored with it at this point.

Zimmy I'm relieved to hear that, sincerely!

Zimmy, yuo posted earlier that there's evidence to suggest that a substantial element of the Tea Party is racist. That's a hell of a thing to say. I asked you to support that, and you didn't respond. I'm waiting patiently...

"A huge percentage of foreclosures came from people trying to flip homes. Another large percent was people who took jumbo type loans and couldn't afford them"

Right, and those would be called "subprime" mortgages. Any mortgage given to someone who can't afford it is subprime...that doesn't mean poor, it means unable to pay it back, which can be very different from poor. And our local lib, Barney Frank, had a lot to do with that, and he has not been held accountable for his huge role in this mess. Instead, he blames Bush, and gets re-elected...

"It wasn't liberals pushing poor people who couldn't afford houses into buying them that caused the bubble. It was a combination of banks and underwriters "

Sure Zimmy. It was that evil thing called "business" that's to blame. Big, bad, busines that's out to get us all! No liberals pressured banks to extend homeownership to poor people, that's what you're saying? By the way, since many banks almost went bankrupt because of the subprime mess, I can only wonder what their incentive was to issue those loans. Is it good for banks to issue loans to folks who can't pay them back?

"Learn the facts before you spout off about blacks being held down by liberals or liberals pushing poor people into getting houses they couldn't afford."

I haven't said a single thing that's factually incorrect. You may offer a different opinion, that doesn't mean I'm factually incorrect.

One last time, how about that evidence that a substantial portion of the Tea Party is racist? Please either provide that evidence, or admit that you made that up. I love it whan liberals play that card, because it means that I've won the debate, because that card is played to end the debate, not to further it...

Jim, I don't mean to come across as a dck as much as I do :) but with all due respect, you brought up the racism thing several times. I commented that the people I know personally who associate with the tea party are racist. I said there was some evidence of racism at rallies. That is all I said. I didn't bring up the racism issue. I didn't say the tea party as a party has a racist agenda. There is a percentage of people who like the tea party because they want the federal budget cut. You are one of those people. If anyone says you are racist because you are a tea party supporter, that is bs. I think that is what you are getting at with this and I agree with you completely. That said, I believe the agenda of the tea party is appealing to a racist portion of the population for obvious reasons. I didn't play the card, you did.

There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist.


Jim, you brought up the racism thing several times. I commented that the people I know personally who associate with the tea party are racist. I said there was some evidence of racism at rallies. That is all I said. I didn't bring up the racism issue. I didn't say the tea party as a party has a racist agenda. If anyone says you are racist because you are a tea party supporter, that is bs. That said, I believe the agenda of the tea party is appealing to a racist portion of the population for obvious reasons.

I didn't play the card, you did. QUOTE=zimmy



:confused:

Zimmy -

" I said there was some evidence of racism at rallies. That is all I said."

Really??? Here is what ytou said..

"There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist."

Zimmy, you may know some racists. That means NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and it says nothing about the tea party. I asked you multiple times for the so-called "evidence", and all you can do is say you have racist friends who go to Tea Party meetings. If you think that says something about the entire Tea Party, you don't know much about critical thinking...

"Your math ignored a significant part of revenue."

No, my math did not. You, and many other liberals, seem to think that taxing "business" is somehow different from taxing people. Zimmy, this may come as a shock to you, but a business can't pay its own taxes. A business is building and equipment...the building itself cannot write a check to the IRS.

I don't know why liberals don't grasp this...when you tax a business, you are taking money away from people linked to that business...the customers, the employees, and the owners/shareholders. Every single penny of business tax is a penny less that some person, somewhere, gets to keep for themselves.

That's not even economics 101, it's simpler than that...

:confused:.


In his mind, calling the Tea Party a bunch of racists is NOT playing the race card....

.


In his mind, calling the Tea Party a bunch of racists is NOT playing the race card....

Scott, I am starting to get the idea that you have serious issues. Where did I say the Tea Party is a bunch of racists? Did you read my post? I am done wasting my time with you. You have some weird issue with the tea party and race.

Scott, I am starting to get the idea that you have serious issues. Where did I say the Tea Party is a bunch of racists? Did you read my post? I am done wasting my time with you. You have some weird issue with the tea party and race.

Zimmy -

"Where did I say the Tea Party is a bunch of racists?"

Are you feeling OK? Here is what you posted the other day...

"There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist"

"You have some weird issue with the tea party and race"

My issue is that some folks, including you, find it more convenient to label us as racists, rather than debate the points we are making. It's easy to hurl a baseless accusation of racism. It's a lot harder to try to articulate why fiscal responsibility isn't sound political policy...

[QUOTE=zimmy;853779]Scott, I am starting to get the idea that you have serious issues. Where did I say the Tea Party is a bunch of racists? QUOTE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
"There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist."

:screwy:

:smash: substantial is not all. You asked what evidence there was related to tea party and racism. You said there is no evidence. I gave you examples of racism associated with the tea party based on my own experiences and images from rallies. That is all. I have many thoughts on the policy ideas of the tea party. I would have never brought the race issue up as it is pretty much irrelevant to me. I am not sure why you care so much about it.I would have never replied about except you said there is ZERO EVIDENCE. That is the only reason I chimed in. Zero evidence is a bit disingenuous. Suppose I had said "there is zero evidence that liberals want to take away our guns." You could have replied to show that zero evidence isn't really true with anecdotes about liberals you know who think no one should own guns. You could have shown signs from rallies that talk about kids killed by guns. That would not necessarily mean that you think that every democrat or the democratic party wants to take every bodies guns. It is the same for me and race with the tea party. I am not even sure why I am bothering responding, but maybe it is your mis-characterization that is irritating.

Zimmy, one last time...the fact that you have racist friends who go to Tea Party meetings means absolutely nothing. For you to assume that your little observation can be used to say something about anational organization, is amazing. There is no logic at all in what you are doing.

That would be like me saying "a black woman cut me off on the highway today, therefire I can conclud ethat black women are lousy drivers".

That's not how you do a sample Zimmy. You need a lot more observations, and they need to be random, not limited to your pals.

The fact that you admit to being friends with racists says a lot more about YOU than it does about the Tea Party.

To top it all off, you keep saying on one hand that there's evidence that the Tea Party is racist, then on the other hand, you are denying that you are playing the race card. That's great. So you suggest we are racists, and then when we object to the implication, you tell me I'm being paranoid about race, because you made no such claim?

Clearly, you have no idea what it means to play the race card, because I couldn't invent a better hypothetical example of it than what you are doing. Eith that, of you have been painting inside with the windows shut. You need to open the windows a crack...

Zimmy, you know a few racists who belong to the Tea Party, so you conclude the Tea Party is racist. Fine. Zimmy, what inference do you make about the fact that 95% of blacks voted for Obama? If your 2 racist friends are enough evidence for you to conclude that Tea Partiers are racist, then how can you fail to conclude blacks are also racist? 95% of them refused to vote for McCain, right?

Jeez!

[QUOTE=zimmy;853892

Suppose I had said "there is zero evidence that liberals want to take away our guns." .[/QUOTE]

You might as well say that, because it's just as bizarre as what you are saying. The liberal agenda is more serious about gun control than the conservative agenda, that's a fact. It's also a fact that there is nothing in the Tea Party agenda that discriminates based on race.

The really ironic thing is that the Tea Party agenda is PRECISELY what blacks need to embrace, in order to escape the shackles of poverty. But they won't consider it, because they have been convinced by the media, by Obama, and by the likes of you, that the Tea Party is racist.

Finally Zimmy...where am I wrong when I say that taxing business is the same as taxing people? You keep saying we can increase revenue without consequences by taxing business, and I made a good case that taking money from a "business" is still taking money from people. I see you didn't respond to that...

The really ironic thing is that the Tea Party agenda is PRECISELY what blacks need to embrace, in order to escape the shackles of poverty.

I have been avoiding this, but I will now point out that this statement you made before and feel the need to repeat could be deemed racist. :smash:

I have been avoiding this, but I will now point out that this statement you made before and feel the need to repeat could be deemed racist. :smash:

Again, you play the race card...accusing me of racism, with nothing to back it up.

Blacks are disproportionately poor. The tea party feels that poor people (regardless of ethnicity) are better off with paychecks than with welfare checks. Not only is that better for poor people, it's better for everyone...

You tell me why that's racist, please...that could only be deemed racist by liberal idiots who would always choose to play the race card rather then debate the merits of an argument...

I have been avoiding this, but I will now point out that this statement you made before and feel the need to repeat could be deemed racist. :smash:

That statement he made is not racist...the statement might address race but it isn't racist....there is a difference.

I think a lot of that is getting lost in the PC Policed world

If Scott said poor people, considering almost 40% of welfare recipients are white, then he is addressing those people and not a race. His statement specifically implied that all blacks need the tea party agenda to escape the "shackles of poverty." Something tells me Colin Powell does not specifically need the tea party policies to escape the shackles of poverty. Why does Scott keep bringing up race?

If Scott said poor people, considering almost 40% of welfare recipients are white, then he is addressing those people and not a race. His statement specifically implied that all blacks need the tea party agenda to escape the "shackles of poverty." Something tells me Colin Powell does not specifically need the tea party policies to escape the shackles of poverty. Why does Scott keep bringing up race?

First, I'm Jim not Scott...

Second, what I obviously meant was that POOR blacks would benefit by embracing Tea Party ideals. You are right, Oprah Winfrey doesn't need the Tea Party. Pointing out hypertechnical issues is not advancing the debate, does it?

"Why does Scott keep bringing up race?"

Again, I'm Jim. It was brought up because conservatives like me do not like it when liberals dismiss us as racist, instead of discussing the pros/cons of our ideas. That is very intellectually dishonest...And you quickly played that card, then you denied doing it.

Again, when did I play that card Jim?

I mean before the most recent post where I pointed out how your statement could be seen as racist.

Finally Zimmy...where am I wrong when I say that taxing business is the same as taxing people? You keep saying we can increase revenue without consequences by taxing business, and I made a good case that taking money from a "business" is still taking money from people. I see you didn't respond to that...

I was talking about how your math ignored revenue from business in your tax analogy. You really distort what I have said. "Taking money from business is taking money from people." Well, some might say that a business tax code without loopholes would reduce the tax burden on a wider proportion of people. You are trying to make simple statements when the economics is complicated.

Also, please stop indicating that I should respond to everything you say. Are you keeping track or something?

Again, when did I play that card Jim?

I cannot comprehend how you can ask that question, but once again, you played the race card when you said this...""There is plenty of evidence that a substantial portion of the members of the tea party are racist."

Not only is that clearly playing the race card, it's also nonsense. Your handful of friends do not represent "plenty" of evidence, nor do they represent a "substantial" portion of the Tea Party.

"some might say that a business tax code without loopholes would reduce the tax burden on a wider proportion of people."

If business tax hikes only impacted owners of a business, you would be correct. Zimmy, can you answer a question? Where do you think business tax revenue ultimately comes from? Do you grasp that when busines taxes are increased, that means everyone associated with that business pays more taxes? And that includes not just the rich owners, but also employees and customers? IS now a good time to increase the cost of doing business?

I agree that scofflaws like GE need to pay their share. But most businesses already pay their taxes, and increasing those rates now, may do more harm than good.

"please stop indicating that I should respond to everything you say"

If you won't respond to what I'm actually saying, I'd appreciate it if you didn't chime in just to call me a racist. But you are free to do that if you wish...

I gave evidence of a racist component of the tea party. That is it. You stated there is ZERO EVIDENCE. You asked the question, I responded. Your business tax assumptions assume every penny of tax is passed on to consumers or employees. That is factually untrue based on past analysis of taxation. I appreciate your passion, but please know that I am done responding to this thread.

this thread is really, really, really amusing.

The majority of the threads in this forum are funny.

I know I've posted this before....but this is pretty much what this forum has become....

YouTube - Monty Python - Argument Clinic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM)

THIS speaks volumes too.

He lied to the press.

And he continues to lie to the American people. Just like he lied about the fake birth certificate or Taxes, or pulling out of Iraq.

Update: Chronicle responds after Obama Administration punishes reporter for using multimedia, then claims they didn't : Bronstein at Large (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=87978&tsp=1)

Just think....5 more years of this Socialist pig.

"President Obama is committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history."

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:: rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2: