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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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

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?

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.

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...

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?

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

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.

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.

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 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

"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.

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?

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

THIS SPEAKS VOLUMES...

ABOUT YOUR PRESIDENT.

U.S. Weighs Summer GM Stock Sale - WSJ.com

"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:

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

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.