The Defaulting of America

"Senator McConnell just a few weeks ago stated that the Republicans goal was to keep Obama a one term president."

OMG a politician told the truth, what a terrible thing!

Michael,

"The impasse is quite simple, but the solutions offered up actually have nothing at all to do with the problem."

What in your opinion is the cause of the impasse then? I think the cause of the impasse is more important than stating that the fact that the politicans are at a stalemate is simple.

The cause of the impasse is political theater pure and simple.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43890673

Please read this story. The top 5 Percent pay 60% of all taxes. We can raise their taxes but what we have is a spending problem.

Has Obama ever passed a Budget?

Isn't it just amazing that our leaders can't find any way to cut spending down to match revenue?

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

How can we survive as a country if it's "impossible" to spend less than double our revenue?

Michael, glad to see you indict both parties. I think most conservatives could probably agree with you on that one.

Neither party has proposed the size of spending cuts that will be required to balance our nation's budget. When you are borrowing 40% of the budget, a lot of stuff will need to be cut.

Raising taxes won't do it, especially raising taxes on the rich--they already pay most of the taxes with 47% of our population not paying any income tax.

The real problem is our policians are buying our votes with promises of more benefits. Anyone who wants to cut benefits (spending) does not get reelected. Term limits would solve that problem. Pols would no longer spend all their time seeking reelection and a "career" in politics, but would do what needs to be done.

So many people are up in arms about a possible default. It's going to happen eventually when the US can't borrow anymore. No nation has EVER repaid its debts in the history of the world-not one. Our nation's debt is now $45,000 per person. Can I have a show of hands; how many are ready to pay their share? Let's wait a while since it's increasing by about $50 billion a day!

The smart thing to do is cash your government bonds and go short the long term US govt bonds, and short the US dollar. Go long gold and silver. That's the smart investment ticket.

"47% of our population not paying any income tax"

Boomer, this statistic has already been debunked, so why post it as fact?

The smart thing to do is cash your government bonds and go short the long term US govt bonds, and short the US dollar. Go long gold and silver. That's the smart investment ticket.

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Tue, Jul 26, 2011, at 9:54 AM

How do you figure that is the smart thing OR the smart investment Boomer? That would completely crash the United States economy. That wouldn't help but hurt just about every American.

This country has raised the debt ceiling several times over the years. President Reagan did it several times. Several Republicans that are in office RIGHT NOW had no qualms about doing it without having to have any concessions during the Bush Administration. So, why now? Why is it only a problem at this point?

Michael, glad to see you indict both parties. I think most conservatives could probably agree with you on that one.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Tue, Jul 26, 2011, at 9:11 AM

I would imagine that most Americans would probably agree with that doodle not just conservatives.

So far most of what I have seen is nothing more than Republican talking points. Cut, cut, cut, but don't dare raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires.

My question is why not both? Both can be done to ease the debt, but as with most of the posters on this site and politicians in Washington it's either only one or nothing and I'm sorry to say this but that makes no sense at all.

You can make the necessary cuts where needed and raise revenue by cutting out the tax loopholes What interests me is that several big name millionaires and billionaires have said that they wanted their taxes raised but the ones fighting the hardest for them to keep their low taxes are people that aren't, in my opinion.

And can we please stop with the calling of millionaires and billionaires who have low taxes, job creators? That's nothing but an insult to the people who actually create jobs. Sorry to burst the bubble but people who get tax cuts and tax loopholes do not create jobs.

We actually don't have to look that far in the past to see what happens when both options are used responsibly. All we have to do is look back to the Clinton presidency.

http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

"How do you figure that is the smart thing OR the smart investment Boomer? That would completely crash the United States economy. That wouldn't help but hurt just about every American."

Ok, Michael, you buy the LT US bonds. I'll buy gold and silver. I will short the US dollar and the US bonds. Let's see who comes out ahead. Only liberals are stupid enough to invest epecting a loss! Ah, but it's for the greater good of the country, you say. You go, dude. If everyone followed your foolish investment ideas, there would be nobody left with any funds to rebuild the country after our currency collapses.

As to hurting just about every American, what do you think all this deficit, stimulus spending is doing to every American?

Michael hates the rich because he envies them.

Michael wants to tax the rich and not the poor because he wants to use the power of the ballot box to cut the rich down and elevate the poor. Steal from the rich who earned it, and give it to the poor who did not. Socialism 101.

The problem is the rich have less to invest afterwards so fewer people are hired. They have less to spend so the businesses they would have patronized must now lay off people. It's why socialism never works.

You bust the chops of the wealthy, and the results come right back on you and yours, Michael.

Wouldn't it be more honest to start a business and hire the poor? Use your own money to do it--no government hand out. I would be astounded if you had ever owned and operated a business. It would change your life for the better.

"Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you." Kind of a neat concept Christ had.

I love the Lord. He is my rock.

Michael, you say "My question is why not both? Both can be done to ease the debt, but as with most of the posters on this site and politicians in Washington it's either only one or nothing and I'm sorry to say this but that makes no sense at all."

You just used the same argument, I have heard more times than I care to remember, by both sides of the isle, at different times, of course, and each time, they bandy about like fighting chickens,raise the tax, make like they are reducing the burden on the people, and """Ka-zing""" Spending is off to the races ... again ... again and again.. There is no end to that formula failing to do as supposedly promising to do.

I liked, and agree with your initial blog. But,then you began to elaborate, and your liberal mindset overwhelmed, what I believe to be, your broad-picture understanding, until, you now are arguing like a street bully. OH-Well.

In a sense, the 'Budget' is not the problem, as it is in total balance with itself. "X" $ approved, and "X" $ spent, even if the bank don't not have the buck-notes/gold to pay. Therefore it is the 'Bank' that is the problem.

Perchance we should simply Budget less than the Bank has available, and let our 'Economy' find it's own neutral buoyancy, from which we only spend no more than 90% of, so the residual balance continues to grow, but the overall cost of production and consumption goes """DOWN"""?? Instead of seeking a way to raise taxes, we would be seeking a way to lower taxes, and 'We-the-Bank' could know our bank is healthy.

Sorry, I got off into the realm of sanity, and I know no one in our nation desires to go there, or we would not have elected a person who know even less than I, about ""Ruling"" the poverty-ridden masses, called: "We the People."

See what reading 25 nasty-grams can do to a 'Kudo?' I came to praise Caesar, but ended up shooting my words 'at' you.

Don't worry, folks, our 'representatives' will take the bull to the people and scrap all over us yet again, before the 2nd, as always. Hmmm, I think I could rant all day, on this one.

I'm done.

If more taxes would end the crazy spending, I'd say "Go for it". But we all know that's like giving your alcoholic relative the keys to the liquor cabinet.

Part of the stimulus money went to the Gunrunner "Fast & Furious" project at the BATFE. They sent more guns illegally into Mexico (to prop up the administration's claim that 90% of the guns used by the Mexican drug cartel come from the US). http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/27/atf-to-fire-gunrunner-whistleblower/

The State Department sent rocket launchers, hand grenades and full auto rifles to Mexico in a separate program. http://investmentwatchblog.com/worse-than-gunwalker-state-dept-allegedly-sold-gu...

The intent of these programs was to promote more gun control in the United States. They cared so much about the poor Mexicans being murdered, they failed to notify the Mexican government about what they were doing. As if....

Gunrunnergate will be bigger than Watergate and Monicagate combined. BATFE, Justice Dept and FBI are stonewalling the efforts of Senator Grassley to get to the bottom of it, but it will all come out. The coverup is what got Nixon.

Here is the chart of gold prices over the past decade, Michael. Overlay government spending and inflation over the top of this chart. Can you see the correlation?

http://www.kitco.com/scripts/hist_charts/yearly_graphs.plx

Ka-ching!

Sorry to all. You have to specify years for the chart after you get to kitco.

Compromise is what makes a pluralistic society prosper. Given that taxes are at their lowest rates since the 50's, given that defaulting will only throw the economy into yet another recession if not depression, given that the left has offered significant,meaningful spending cuts, what is with the right refusing to compromise?

Cuts only will not solve the financial mess the country faces. It is that simple.

When I borrowed money under the guaranteed student loan program for college, I paid it back on time, in fact made extra payments and paid it off early. I have never collected one cent in unemployment or other welfare, I have paid taxes every year since 1966.

When I found my budget impossible to follow during Reaganomics I went out and found a part-time job (incresed revenue) and cut my spending to meet my investment goals. It worked. Cut spending and raise revenue will work for the government and more importantly for the people of this nation.

Mike - Since you debunked it please tell us what percent of Americans Do Not Pay Federal Income Taxes. I have seen numbers ranging from 45%-55% that do not pay Federal Income Taxes.

Thanks for the answer.

Wallis

"given that defaulting will only throw the economy into yet another recession if not depression"

I keep hearing this, but am not sure where the "proof" is...as far as I can tell, this is speculation. We hear about the Stimulus saving the country from a deeper recession than that of our current experience...to which I say I'm fairly dubious about that logic as well.

Could it be possible that the markets could very well decide to NOT participate in a deeper recession? Is this an instance of the tail wagging the dog?

ontheleftcoast, I find it fascinating that you use all of those emotional feel-good words about how the left has you all warm and fuzzy and is "playing nice".

"Compromise"

"Significant"

"Meaningful"

Again I ask, when did it become okay to tell another man how much money he can make? When did it become okay to tell a man how much money he must give because he makes so much? We have a given number of producers in this country and a growing number of takers...how can we be expected to continue to support this ever-growing hunger? Someone has to say NO! It is going to hurt all those that like fuzzy warm words, but it has to happen. It is almost like an authoritative (versus authoritarian) style of parenting, but it will help those that need it, to grow up.

So, Michael, if you are so proud of Clinton's surplus years, you must be all in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment???

Or not?

Just asking?

-- Posted by ochosinco on Tue, Jul 26, 2011, at 1:41 PM

I could ask you the same about the Republicans. They had ample time and opportunity in the 2000s to pass a balanced budget amendment and did nothing. Odd that they would wait until now to make a political move to do it.

The one thing that Clinton years prove is that there is no need for a balanced budget amendment as Clinton and Congress were able to do it without and amendment.

A balanced budget amendment really doesn't get you where you want to go. To balance the budget all they have to do is project unrealistic revenue numbers on the high side, and WALA, balanced budget is achieved.

A cash basis amendment like many states have, would work better. With that you cannot spend more than is in the treasury--no borrowing in other words.

It's the spending that has to be curtailed. If we raise taxes, they will just increase spending, again. No amount of taxes will ever satisfy the appetite of the socialists--they want it all.

"I liked, and agree with your initial blog. But,then you began to elaborate, and your liberal mindset overwhelmed, what I believe to be, your broad-picture understanding, until, you now are arguing like a street bully. OH-Well."

Navy I hate to say this but I am ashamed by your words. You have fallen in with the character attack crowd. How do you believe that I am "arguing like a street bully"? Because I believe that the best way forward is both tax increases on the super rich and some cuts in programs? How is my liberal mindset overcoming my broad-picture understanding. There aren't many liberals who want cuts to any programs.

I believe you are missing the forest for the trees as most polling that has been done in recent weeks show a majority of people supporting tax increases. This is no longer a liberal position but an American position.

"47% of our population not paying any income tax"

Boomer, this statistic has already been debunked, so why post it as fact?

Here's a link to CNN story about that FACT.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm

I do realize everyone who works pays Social Security tax, but I specifically said "income tax".

This was a statistic from 2009; the percentage has risen since then.

Debunked--NOT! Michael, you need to take the blinders off. The world truly is different than you see it. You can't just wish stuff into being.

You should know by now, I do not put someone down, unless they need it. Consider your oration without answer, just three entries above your last (to me):

"... I could ask you the same about the Republicans. They had ample time and opportunity in the 2000s to pass a balanced budget amendment and did nothing. Odd that they would wait until now to make a political move to do it. ..."

You did not honor a question with an answer, but with an attacking challenge, that, IMHO, qualifies as a 'Street Bully' attitude. I fall only into one crowd, as you have recognized, in the past, my own mindset. I did not attack you, youngster, I spoke 'Truth,' which I am beginning to fear you do not recognize as such.

You have angered me, so I cease my blathering, but, please, Mr. History Teacher, read history, and you will see how many times this play has been acted out, won by the Liberal mindset, and failed every time to fix the problem (I might add that the Conservative political system has not worked well, either).

How about: No more negative spending!! Constitutionally 'Prioritize' all spending programs, and any spending/giving, Not Constitutional, be ceased immediately, and we allow the USA to find out just where we stand in this world. IMHO, more of the world will sink far more than USA, once the tap is turned off. Then we see is they want USA dead, or we can get a world that God would like to return to, with a smile on His face, and not a sword in His mouth.

We have very little time to accomplish the impossible, but we must be found trying. I'm Done.

Funny, I wonder if most of those "people supporting tax increases" are the ones paying them.

I have a solution to one of our problems. I say we quit allowing people to have their taxes automatically held from their paychecks. I say people are forced to write a number each month on a check to Uncle Sam so that they can see just how much they pay (if they are the percentage that pays taxes). This will change a few political ideologies over night.

To speak-e-x, et al

Federal income taxes are the lowest they have been in my working career, dating back to 1966.

I support CUTS as well as increased taxes. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are part of what got us in this mess. The wealthy benefit from federal programs just as do the recipients. I would stand first in line to protest in DC against food stamps paying for soda pop, candy, gum, Starbucks products, etc. But to allow the government to default will just worsen the economy which is suffering because of two unfunded wars and the Bush tax cuts. Out here on the left coast I am considered a moderate at best, especially on economic issues, I don't lock step agree with all the left represents by any means, but I abhor the extremists on either side equally. We do work together best when we compromise. It is the only way my long term relationship has lasted for many years. Don't put words in my mouth that were never said.

Cuts and tax increase are the solution.

And yes speak-e-z I have paid federal income taxes every year since 1966and state income taxes when required, other than college student loans, paid off ahead of schedule, and an FHA home loan, paid off ahead of schedule, haven't directly benefited from any other type of federal or state aid/welfare. In fact, for a number of years I paid taxes in the highest tax brackets and while I support cuts and spending reform, especially in foreign aid, corportate welfare, and individual welfare, when I visit something such as Yosemite National Park I realize some of my tax dollars are very well spent. There are some pretty wonderful things about this country, it's sad that is seldom mentioned in this national debate.

Thanks to the obstructionists in the state Republican party here, many of the state parks will be closed in the coming year. That is unnecessary except for the obstructionists refusal to compromise.

One last fact, the last time I checked, the people of the state of Nebraska were getting between $1.10-1.20 per federal tax dollar paid by Nebraskans versuses the people of state of California were getting 80 cents or less per federal tax dollar paid by Californians. Who truly lives in the welfare state?

ochosinco

I believe that as a nation we can, though it won't be easy, solve the problem. But naysaying and failure to work together won't solve the problem.

Eventually, yes we can pay off the national debt.

@leftcoast: do you see us ever paying off the national debt? Maybe Nebraska does receive more than California, but I havent yet heard of Nebraska crying to the federal government to bail them out of going bankrupt.

Refusal to compromise? I'll have to go along with ocho's take on that one; IMHO compromise with the left is going along with their agenda without question or complaint.

doodle bug

you are wrong in your assumption, think for yourself, far right tzlk show hosts, the tea party, etc, are just puppets of the elite

If we try, yes we can pay off the national debt eventually. We made a good start in the 90's, we can do it again.

It is the obstructionist radical Republicans who have refused to compromise on a state budget deal, and the feds haven't bailed us out, we are paying our way plus probably still getting less per federal tax dollar paid than the state of Nebraska. Nebraska didn't need additional aid as they were already getting it for over 20 years or more.

Facts please, not far right lies.

i have my sources, you have moveon, mediamatters, bill mahar, etc.etc.etc. Depends on who you want to believe. your sources are no better than mine.

Ok story said 47% don't pay taxes.

Please explain debunking when the facts are the facts?

Wallis

The facts are, the state of Nebraska received anywhere from $1.08 to $1.27 for every dollar paid by Nebraska in income taxes from 1980 thru 2006, California received from 75 cents up to 88 cents for every dollar paid in federal taxes by Californians from 1980 thru 2006. The facts are published, look them up yourself as I did.

I listen to the right, I listen to the left, and I do my own fact verification. The above I researched on my own.

And for your information I am not a fan of moveon, mediatters, will admit to enjoying Bill Maher but do not believe most of what he has to say anymore than I believe most of what the far right has to say.

You make unfounded, inaccurate, untrue conclusions doodle bug.

Do some serious, independant researach of your own, you will be surprized to learn who is really behind much of the extremists on either end.

The problem with our democracy, to me, was epitomized by a poll done in the early '70's shortly after Nixon resigned as president. The question presented to the people was, Who did you vote for in the 1972 election? According to the scientifically conducted poll, consistently correct with in a small margin of error,the winner of the '72 presidential election was McGovern winning by almost the same margin as Nixon actually defeated McGovern. One of the few regrets I have in life is not saving the newspaper article. But the results "suggest" the majority of the voters were unwilling to take responsibility for their vote.

We the people elected the officials who have created this deficit, we the people would be well advised to take responsibility for it and insist our elected officials design a long term solution to the nations debt. Not cop out and say it is impossible. That seems extremely unAMerican to me.

Ah, a new player here!

Ontheleftcoast, I hope that you don't get attacked too much just because the leftish people that usually post on this blog are not very coherent and tend to post attacks without substance. That being said, is your facts on the tax dollars per capita, per taxpayer, or what? I don't doubt the veracity of your figures, but as is well known figures lie and liars figure. I am curious as to where you got your figures and the context of that little factoid.

Really that dollar for dollar figure doesn't enter into this discussion does it? It appears to be a tactic to throw the debate off the tracks. (and it did work, by the way.) It looks like you are the one that brought up the welfare state. Were you intending to insult Righties, obstructionists, or just all folks living in Nebraska? Or do you not see calling a state a welfare state as an insult? I hope you aren't just another attack dog type, we have enough here already. :)

Sir Didymus

The facts are based on the total Federal income taxes paid by state residents contrasted to the amount of Federal money received per capita on an annual basis. Seek and ye shall find.

ochosinco

Grew up in Nebraska, have lived in several other states, and have chosen California. I live a happy, joy filled life out here.

Glad you are evidently happy in Nebraska.

Just sayin'

CBS News just cited the TAX Foundation. In 2009 the top 5% paid 51% of taxes.

Mike you are right. 47% has been debunked.

Wallis

leftcoast, I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I don't like it when its done to me and don't intend to do it to others.

With regard to those Bush tax cuts though, I happened to see first hand CASH MONEY that was a direct result of those because a business was able to turn that cut into cash in the paycheck. The employee took home a larger paycheck because of that horrible tax cut. I'm not saying the cuts work the same everywhere, but I have seen how they worked like they were suppose to.

With regard to state parks, etc. I agree. In Minnesota just recently, people were being ticketed and fined for fishing on their lakes for not having valid fishing permits. Why is this? Because they had no where to go to buy them! Talk about a gov't circle j**k.

I assume we disagree on many things leftcoast and also assume that we MIGHT agree on SOME things. But your classic retort "think for yourself" just rankled me. Its a classic (for both sides of the political spectrum) when you dont happen to agree with someones point of view. I may be incorrect, but I dont believe that I have ever used that retort (someone may correct me if I am wrong). No matter what your source, folks get their opinions from where ever then make up their minds on which way they believe.

I also believe you will be in debt for a long time if you continue to spend more than you bring in.

Bill Bonner has always told the truth. He doesn't claim to know everything. Here is his latest entry regarding the debts of the US, and the so-called debt limit crisis:

http://dailyreckoning.com/more-debt-for-your-money/

Good reading, if you want to know how we got here and where we're headed, sooner or later.

Have a great one everyone!

My mistake Mike said 47% don't pay any Federal Tax.

Funny though - 5% pay most tax and almost half pay no tax.

That is a different discussion I suppose. Mike you are getting a Masters. Do you think you will make very much money? Because the more you make the more "Revenue" you generate. Go make a bunch! The country needs your Revenue because currently you are not a "Generator".

Wallis

doodle, as usual, I concur with you. People that claim to think for themselves are swayed somehow. I have a certain way of thinking. I do not listen to Rush, Beck, or any of the other right wing radio hosts, nor do I listen to anyone from the left. I rarely listen to anything other than the weather report in the morning and even that gets me fired up when the weather guesser tells me how I'm suppose to feel about the day's temperatures. Everything I type on here is based on a set of my values and how I perceive what is said in relation to those values.

I value compromise with my spouse, but there is no compromise when it comes to discipline of our spending for example. We do not spend more money than we have. We are both worked as much as we can be so there is no possibility of further revenue and thus we cannot generate more. The only thing we can do is to cut our spending on frivolous things (apps for phones) and put that money toward necessary things (food).

Wallis, unlike you (apparently) I don't mind paying more in taxes to ensure safe roads, the government continuing to run, my Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare to still be there, a safety net for those Americans that need help the most.

Seems like Orwell's books always apply to these conversations in some way or another (in my simple mind). Seem's we'll all get along if we just remember that "Napoleon is always right." and "I will work harder."

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"

Just sayin'

Michael,

"Navy I hate to say this but I am ashamed by your words."

I'm proud of you Michael, you've taken some feedback from Navy and apparently it caused you to re-think a position and to feel shame for yourself because of your previous stance. I think this shows some growth. However, you say you "hate to say" it but I don't think you need to feel so reluctant when admitting you have been wrong, we all are wrong sometimes, yes even me.

who is not paying taxes? Find me one person not paying taxes.

Michael,

I thought you had eschewed character attacks? Are we back to your apparent self loathing?

"Wallis, unlike you (apparently) I don't mind paying more in taxes to ensure safe roads, the government continuing to run, my Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare to still be there, a safety net for those Americans that need help the most. "

You don't pay a penny in Federal tax now so this is a meaningless remark.

But if you want to pay more taxes make more money. We have a progressive tax code that has higher brackets for the more money you make. We also have an AMT that make "write offs" worthless above a modest amount.

Wallis

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

I am posting this a point of reference. Time and again Americans believe that "rich people" pay no taxes because of "writeoffs". That is fantasy as the AMT disallows deductions at levels well below $300,000 in income.

The only way to raise revenue is to raise the current rates on individuals or raise corp rates or to increase the employment pool (lower unemployment).

I am in the camp that by raising the personal rate will kill business where the owners have S corp or limited partnerships (flow through income).

I am also in the camp that raising corp taxes will increase unemployment.

Therefore I have been in the camp that the best way to increase government revenue it to lower unemployment and get more Americans working. Funny think is Bill Clinton is in that camp. So how is it that this Republican and that Democrat agree?

ocho,

It's been a while since I read any Orwell, but I'm pretty sure Boomer is right.

dawg, I believe most references to tax paid is the income tax. If so, are you seriously going to tell us that folks on assistance (by choice or by circumstance) are paying federal income tax? If so, I will twist your question/statement - show us someone on assistance who is paying federal income tax.

General Electric paid zero income tax last year, part of that scumbag bunch of 47.1% not paying their fair share.

just sayin...........

Wondering70,

How very intolerant of you! You are the first one here to call people that are unable or not required to pay taxes scumbags. Very enlightened. If I were Michael, I would probably be ashamed by your words. As I am not, I am disgusted by them. I dont know who this General Electric fellow is,(since I believe that most of this discussion is about individual federal income tax) But he sounds like a member of our armed forces, or possibly a professional wrestler.

"In reality, President Obama could circumnavigate Congress and raise the debt ceiling by invoking the 14th Amendment."

Really Mike?!? Have you read the 14th amendment past section 4 or are you just repeating the talking points and not actually taking the time to read into their propaganda? Maybe you should read section 5 of the 14th amendment and tell me how President Obama has the Constitutional power to raise the debt ceiling. Since you probably won't look it up, let me do it for you.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Very true ocho... He did say "in reality", but I guess he didn't clarify who's reality that was in.

As for the Nebraska "welfare state" bit....

I can't help but wonder the population to miles of interstate highway ratios of Nebraska and California, respectively.......

And please, PLEASE, refrain from referring to President Obama as the big "O".

That's been MY nickname since long before he first popped up on the public radar.

:o)

ontheleftcoast:

Here's the OTHER side of the state-to-state comparison: Nebraska is in debt to the tune of only $15 per person, the lowest of all 50 states. California is in debt to the tune of $2,362 per person, the seventh HIGHEST of all 50 states.

And, since I know you'll be demanding a source, here you go:

http://www.investinganswers.com/a/25-states-highest-debt-person-2395

can we drop the qualifiers doodle? Lets not focus so much on Federal Income Tax but taxes as a whole. I get weary of people shouting about how only the rich pay taxes, or pay most of the taxes. I would respectfully submit to you that the money spent on taxes for those not paying federal income tax is a higher percentage of the money they make then the percentage the very wealthy pay in federal income tax.

I wont argue those points dawg, because I believe they may have some validity. However, the discussion started on this thread was in regard to income taxes.

As for taxes in general, a "whole nuther story". The figures needed for those comparisions would be staggering.

Ocho

GE Capital.....adds 1000 jobs, well good for them, any financial outfit should be able to add jobs, since they are sitting on piles of cash. Hard to believe they would let loose of some of it.

There are serious problems with the tax code when a multi-billion dollar outfit doesn't pay a dime in income taxes, and retired people pay more income tax on their retirement than GE does on their business profits.

Still sayin...

Best example yet!

Yes and some of you will never understand that even under the hero of the conservatives, Ronnie Reagan, corporations actually paid income taxes.

Guess you will never understand that, since you have tea leaves clouding your vision.

Perhaps some of you tea party ultra conservatives should watch this from Thursday's Bill O'Reily show. I agree with ol'Bill completely, but guess even good ol Bill understands reasonable agreements.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/29/bill-oreilly-lashes-out-a_n_913380.html

The only "fair" tax is the one the other guy pays.

Karl Marx listed a number of tenets to his way to communist paradise. One was a heavily graduated income tax. One was a powerful central bank in control of the money.

Neither of these things was allowable under the original constitution.

The founding fathers were brilliant and selfless men. It took over 100 years for lesser men to undo their great work.

Ocho, you pwned 'em all with that example. Well done. The last line is correct: no explanation is possible. As an example, I refer you to wondering70's next posts.

"In reality, President Obama could circumnavigate Congress and raise the debt ceiling by invoking the 14th Amendment."

If this is true, then all of the debt ceiling scare is being manufactured by the President, No? I think this is what Michael's whole blog is about, an indictment of Obama. That is the way it reads. It would explain why Michael was made ashamed by Navyblue's post.

One huge reason why I don't watch any of the so-called main media outlets anymore is the constant "Breaking News" that a deal has been made or is on the verge of being made over the last week. Seemingly every time they have reported it ten minutes later they have had to retract the story. It has simply gotten ridiculous.

"If this is true, then all of the debt ceiling scare is being manufactured by the President, No?"

Simply put Didymus, No. The President and Congress are attempting to avoid defaulting. The President can use his Constitutional powers as a last ditch maneuver to get that accomplished. It looks to me like you are the one trying to manufacture a false story.

Good argument proudconservative regarding the 14th Amendment except for one small point. Section Five, clearly does give the power to the Congress, but Congress is currently the body that is about to cause public debt to come into question.

We are two days away from the federal government faulting on its debt and its loans and Congress is concerned about eliminating tax cuts and cutting spending. Something Congress was not concerned about the other 72 times that the debt ceiling was raised.

If Congress allows the government to default, the President would then have the power, if he so chose, to raise the debt limit by invoking the Article 4 of the 14th Amendment.

"Time and again Americans believe that "rich people" pay no taxes because of "writeoffs"."

Is this a fact wallis or another of your fantasies that you have convinced yourself is true? I don't remember seeing anywhere that Americans believe what you claim they believe.

CBS News just cited the TAX Foundation. In 2009 the top 5% paid 51% of taxes.

Mike you are right. 47% has been debunked.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, Jul 28, 2011, at 5:25 AM

I don't understand how this proves your point wallis. If the top 5% paid 51% of the taxes that leaves the other 95% paying 49% of the taxes. Where does your mythical 47% not paying any taxes come in with this argument?

"Wallis, unlike you (apparently) I don't mind paying more in taxes to ensure safe roads, the government continuing to run, my Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare to still be there, a safety net for those Americans that need help the most. "

You don't pay a penny in Federal tax now so this is a meaningless remark.

But if you want to pay more taxes make more money. We have a progressive tax code that has higher brackets for the more money you make. We also have an AMT that make "write offs" worthless above a modest amount.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jul 29, 2011, at 6:44 AM

I don't pay any taxes? Amazing how YOU would know whether I pay federal income taxes or not. Either you are (once again) just making it up as you go along ... or you are illegally getting information about me. I favor the first one since I did pay taxes last year.

"I am also in the camp that raising corp taxes will increase unemployment."

Considering corporations have had extraordinarily low taxes for the better part of a decade and unemployment has gone up not down your claim doesn't seem to match. Many corporations have been making record profits for the past few years because of their low taxes and their unwillingness to hire.

Therefore I have been in the camp that the best way to increase government revenue it to lower unemployment and get more Americans working. Funny think is Bill Clinton is in that camp. So how is it that this Republican and that Democrat agree?

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jul 29, 2011, at 6:54 AM

Most American are in the camp wallis but the statement doesn't fit with what you claimed above. How do you propose to lower unemployment and get more Americans working? Obama and Congress passed a stimulus that did just that and you called it one of the worst ideas ever and claimed that it didn't work (despite the evidence that it did).

The stimulus put Americans to work and the unemployment rate slowed before turning around. Then the new Congress came in promising jobs and instead wanted to focus on social issues (like gutting Medicare and Medicaid which they "tried" to "protect" during the health care debate). They have done nothing regarding jobs and now the jobs rate has slowed considerably and the unemployment rate is rising again.

I used to respect you Navyblue (maybe that doesn't mean a lot to you) because even when we disagreed you were always able to take the high road and not stoop the character attacks to make your points.

However, with your new found mudslinging because I angered you, that respect is gone. I hope you enjoy your time in mud and I hope it's worth it to you.

"I used to respect you Navyblue (maybe that doesn't mean a lot to you) because even when we disagreed you were always able to take the high road and not stoop the character attacks to make your points."

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Jul 31, 2011, at 2:05 PM

I find your hypocrisy refreshingly consistant michael.

"Wallis, unlike you (apparently) I don't mind paying more in taxes to ensure safe roads, the government continuing to run, my Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare to still be there, a safety net for those Americans that need help the most."

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Jul 28, 2011, at 2:37 PM

I hope you enjoy your time in mud and I hope it's worth it to you.

"Simply put Didymus, No. The President and Congress are attempting to avoid defaulting. The President can use his Constitutional powers as a last ditch maneuver to get that accomplished. It looks to me like you are the one trying to manufacture a false story."

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Jul 31, 2011, at 11:20 AM

Ah, I see, you were mistaken then earlier. Or, to put it into your parlance, lying about the whole thing.

Michael,

"Section Five, clearly does give the power to the Congress, but Congress is currently the body that is about to cause public debt to come into question. . . If Congress allows the government to default, the President would then have the power, if he so chose, to raise the debt limit by invoking the Article 4 of the 14th Amendment."

You have made this claim a couple of times now and I would like to understand your reasoning behind this position. Could you please share with us your interpretation of the 14th Amendment that allows for this argument. I have seen this postition expressed in the media, but as you have said you don't watch the main media, you must have arrived at this conclusion from your own study of the Constition.

I don't see any mention of the Executive in the 14th Amendment so I'm not sure how he would have the authority to usurp power from the legislative body in a crisis. Such and act would sound to me to be a move away from a republic and towards tyranny.

"47% of our population not paying any income tax"

It's TRUE according to CNN in 2009. Now it's closer to half of the population paying no income tax.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes...

The top 10% of earners pay 68% of the income tax:

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-w...

....but Michael and the socialists say paying over 2/3rds of the income tax is not enough! They want the top 10% to pay it all I guess. (So they themselves can get a free ride--bubbles for everyone, a party tonite)

Looks like the phony debt-ceiling crisis is about resolved. With no actual cuts in spending (I realize there were cuts from scheduled increases--but spending still increases unabated) and no actual increases in taxes (except for the automatic increase when the so-called Bush tax cuts expire 1-1-2013).

So we will increase the debt ceiling until after the 2012 elections, and nothing else will change, EXCEPT the nation will be closer to sovereign debt default than ever by then.

$1.7 trillion per year deficits will about TRIPLE our national debt in the next 10 years when you add all the interest accruing in. The fun really begins when bondholders awake to the "con" and charge 30% interest like they do to the Greeks now. (It's just like the jump in rates on your credit card when you can't make the minimum payments anymore.)

Kudos to all, and may everyone enjoy the impending economic collapse!

I saw a quote today that I was thought was very fitting for posting here today. It is by a man whose name is Paul Ward:

"If you believe that it is governments role to make laws that restrict marriage, family planning and who can build a place of worship, then don't be shocked or offended when others believe it is government's role to tax the rich, feed, clothe and shelter the poor, heal the sick and regulate the money changers."

I'll take this one on Michael.

It is not the governments role to be involved in family planning, therfore, Planned Parenthood should receive no government funding.

Government should not be involed in restricting marriage, therefore, why should govenment mandate everyone else recognizing alternative marriage styles?

Re: places of worship I am assuming (and I know that is dangerous) you are referring to the planned mosque near ground zero. EVERYTHING I have read or heard indicates that EVERYONE agrees that the muslims have a right to build where they wish. I have heard no one say they CANT build a mosque there.

To me your argument is specious at best.

The only laws we need are those that protect us from harm from other persons, and preserve our rights under the constitution.

But who will protect us from a government grown too large, too expensive, too intrusive, too confiscatory, too arbitrary, too socialistic and too repressive?

Michael,

Hypothetically speaking, what if I don't believe the government's role is to do any of those things, am I allowed to be shocked and offended that there are people who do?

Also, I don't want you to forget to elaborate on your Constitutional theory of the 14th Amendment.

Michael,

I have some questions about your interpretation of Ward's quote. Do you believe those pairs are equivalent and fair points or are they specious or something else? I do not see the connection between marriage rights and taxing the rich, family planning and clothing and feeding the poor, and building places of worship and healing the sick and regulating money changers. Do you? I think this is blatant baiting while comparing apples and oranges, once again failing to add anything of value to any debate. I fail to see anything in any of those examples that are mutually exclusive of each other. One can be in favor or against all of those things without hypocrisy.

Michael,

Sorry to keep posting but I tried to find the quote you mentioned but am not having any luck, can you please link the source or tell me where it can be found?

Boomer62, I believe you are right on. I have heard somewhere that the whole purpose of our government was to provide us with defense from foreign enemies and to uphold the constitution.

Much like an Orwell book, a little more power has been taken here and there over time until no one can remember any differently. Now production of shoes is 200% of what is was last year, infant mortality is at an all-time low, and all thanks to our benevolent leader who knew about and planned this all along. The animals may be starving and working 18 hour days, but at least they are free...

Boomer62 was also right way back up in this thread when he quoted "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

* The $2.5 trillion in spending cuts are, in the immutable logic of Washington, not cutbacks at all... but limits to the planned rate of spending increases

* Even better, they don't don't kick in until 2013. At that time, a new Congress will be in place, unbound by the promises of the current one.

There's also a "last minute" mechanism by which $1 trillion of the "cuts" are to be specified now, while the remaining $1.5 trillion -- including Social Security and Medicare fixes -- are to be hashed out by a special 12-member congressional committee.

It gets better.

The committee will issue its recommendations by Nov. 23 -- the day before Thanksgiving. Congress would then vote on the recommendations by Dec. 23 -- the Friday before Christmas.

While our debt grows by $50 Billion per day, our government leadership argues for weeks about whether we need to do something about it--and then basically does nothing! Realize, too, that these fake cuts are over TEN YEARS, not one.

And gold hits a new high at $1,642 per ounce; do you see the correlation yet, Michael?

Nice to see Gabby Giffords back! That's the best news. I hate her politics, but dang it, folks seem to like her. Her recovery is so remarkable and I am grateful for that.

Mike Doyle a Democrat from Pennsylvannia called the Tea Party people who want a balance budge, "terrorists"! Even Joe Biden didn't go quite that far, saying the Tea Party folks "acted like terrorists".

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html

It now becomes clear that we will never win the War on Terror, since we have no idea who the terrorists really are. It will surely follow the failures in the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs.

Excellent post, ochosinco! A very apt update to the fable.

Jack Spirko has used this frequently at his site.

http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/

But I am guessing you already are aware of that.

Have always enjoyed your posts.

Recommended reading list for Michael:

Atlas Shrugged--Ayn Rand

The Fountainhead--Ayn Rand

1984--George Orwell

Animal Farm--George Orwell

Brave New World--Aldous Huxley

Anthem--Ayn Rand

The Road to Serfdom--Friedrich von Hayek

True Believer--Eric Hoffer

Liberalism--Ludwig von Mises

Important works on the road to freedom and prosperity.

So apparently it doesn't bother you Boomer that Ayn Rand completely rejected religion?

"Government should not be involved in restricting marriage, therefore, why should government mandate everyone else recognizing alternative marriage styles?"

The last time I checked the only two laws on the books involving alternative life styles are both restricting. Fortunately one has been repealed and the other is no longer being enforced. I don't know of the mandate you are speaking of.

"Re: places of worship I am assuming (and I know that is dangerous) you are referring to the planned mosque near ground zero. EVERYTHING I have read or heard indicates that EVERYONE agrees that the muslims have a right to build where they wish. I have heard no one say they CANT build a mosque there."

Calling someone's argument specious after this paragraph is just a bit odd, but okay. If you really never heard anyone say that they couldn't build mosque is really weird. Were any laws passed? No. Several lawmakers however proposed laws to stop the building. Protests were held in the blind belief that the mosque was being built AT the 9/11 site. Sam posted an entire blog about it. Besides that the quote was about places of worship, that involves all religions not just Islam.

It's called political perspective SW.

Yay for Boomer62! If someone starts quoting those books instead of biased websites and blogs on here, they might have an argument. Granted, quoting a book labeled fiction does not provide anyone with "facts" but it does at least indicate that the person is thinking to some degree! Boomer62, you just added a couple to my list. I had never heard of "The Road to Serfdom".

If anyone wants a fascinating read just for the fun of it or considers themselves an "ant", pick up "One Second After" by William Forstchen.

You are absolutely correct Michael. The quote was about places of "worship"; and everyone reading this thread knows they were referring to muslims and a mosque. And you are also correct that no laws were passed. For crying out loud Michael, your own paragraph refers to mosque. And if you want to get into semantics, o.k., no one said the muslims did not have a "right" to build wherever they want.

Michael,

"It's called political perspective SW."

Here is a good example of what I see as cowardice and evasion by you Michael. You lied the other day and said I only ever pick on you (paraphrased on my part), yet here when I pose several questions over the span of a few posts you answer only with one sentence that refuses to foster debate and doesn't really address any of my questions. I tried to give you a chance to debate, just like you imply you would like, and you take a coward's way out. You didn't even let me know which of my questions you are answering, I'm forced to conclude that "political perspective" is the answer to all of them.

I'll still be here if you grow up enough to carry on a conversation, until then I guess you shouldn't be offended when I point out your evasion when I see it.

Speak-e-z, I just finished "One Second After" two weeks ago. A valuable book, I believe.

Michael, if God allows us free choice in whether we put our faith in Him, who am I to disagree? Ayn Rand was not so foolish as to have faith in the government, either.

Since a statist such as yourself raises government to the level of deity, I can see why Rand's lack of faith in the state would bother you, though.

The State=good. The Individual=bad. LOL

Please point out when I have ever raised government to the level of deity. Does this go along the same line as when conservatives were saying that liberals saw Obama as a God even though the only ones that ever made those comments were conservatives?

Also despite your decree I am not a statist. Just because you believe it doesn't make it so.

What makes you think that anything that Ayn Rand said bothers me. Did I state that?

You are getting as bad as some of the other posters on this site where you determine what someone believes and then state it as fact.

"Michael, if God allows us free choice in whether we put our faith in Him, who am I to disagree?"

Finally a statement I can completely agree with you on.

You asked a question SW I answered it. I'm sorry that it isn't enough for you and that you once again have to devolve to personal character attacks.

"I'll still be here if you grow up enough to carry on a conversation ..."

Says the poster who can barely go more than one or two posts before making personal character attacks, labeling people as he sees fit (or as he sees it only labeling them after they label themselves), and mocking people.

Tell you what since you don't think I am grown up enough to carry on a conversation, how about the day you decide to drop the character attacks, labeling people, and mocking people we actually have a conversation. I'm a lot more apt to answer questions when my intelligence isn't being questioned, or I'm being called a coward, or Mr. Pot.

I think I may have a long wait for that.

Michael,

"You asked a question SW I answered it. I'm sorry that it isn't enough for you and that you once again have to devolve to personal character attacks."

I'm also sorry I have to resort to "personal character attacks" to get any response from you. What does that say about you I wonder? I beg to differ that you "answered" a question. You gave one snarky line that didn't respond to any of my questions. This is a habit you have, you don't answer a question appropriately and when called on it you get defensive and just say that you've already answered it, although you haven't really.

"Tell you what since you don't think I am grown up enough to carry on a conversation, how about the day you decide to drop the character attacks, labeling people, and mocking people we actually have a conversation. I'm a lot more apt to answer questions when my intelligence isn't being questioned, or I'm being called a coward, or Mr. Pot."

Well that day you say you are waiting for was actually a week that you've just missed. I didn't do any of those things you said from July 25 to August 2 during which time, I tried to engage you to discuss issues. You refused to, see above. You say you're more likely to answer a question, but I find that I doubt your claim, you seem to only respond to perceived slights and refuse to answer serious, debatable question. If you don't want to ever have an adult discussion on a topic, that's your prerogative, just let me know and I'll stop trying to have such discussions with you.

If you want to go back and address any of the questions I posted previously, I'm happy to discuss them further.

Seems as the topics on this blog quickly move from the issues to accusations and the defense of "character attacks".

Seems we could have debate without division. However that takes a willing choice...

Debt downgrade.

So Obama has the failed stimulus. Health Care reform that doesn't do much for anyone except raise premiums for the people that already have insurance. High Unemployment that he still hasn't addressed with anything more than words. And now a Debt downgrade.

Yes you did Mike. And it was SO PREDICTABLE.

Wallis

And you Wallis are equally as predictable. The stimulus succeeded as much as it could with as little as was passed with the Republicants. The majority of the Health Care law has yet to take affect. Insurance companies are raising premiums for their own needs completely unrelated to the law, yet that still doesn't stop you from making a connection that doesn't exist. You once again change history, completely leaving out the fact that the Republicans now control one House of Congress and find a way to solely blame high unemployment on the President and leave any criticisms on Congress out.

What have the Republicans done about jobs since January? Oh that's right, absolutely nothing. They have been too focused on social issues and restricting reproductive rights. Let's not forget that all the squawking they did about protecting Medicare/Medicaid from the evil Democrats they have voted on three separate occasions to end it.

Then of course you fully blame President Obama for the debt downgrade regardless of the fact that the agency that downgraded the United States blamed the Republicans.

But I know how you operate who gives a flying flip about facts when you make up your "facts" so you can act all mad and offended.

But this is a classic move by partisans such as yourself. When something goes well do everything you can do to avoid giving credit where it is due (especially if it is a *gasp* Democrat who deserves that credit) but if their is fault to be given out make sure only one person gets that blame, even if you have to bend the truth a little or just completely make it up.

I do not see the connection between marriage rights and taxing the rich, family planning and clothing and feeding the poor, and building places of worship and healing the sick and regulating money changers. Do you?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Aug 1, 2011, at 6:24 PM

It's called political perspective SW.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Aug 2, 2011, at 3:23 PM

I don't understand where you are confused. It's a pretty straight forward answer for you, unfortunately your need to attack apparently prevented you from understanding.

The quote is comparing one political perspective to another. Maybe it's the whole perspective word choice. Does belief make it easier for you to understand SW.

It's called political beliefs.

Does that help? No? I'll break it down even further so maybe you can understand.

"If you believe that it is governments role to make laws that restrict marriage, family planning and who can build a place of worship ..."

Here the author is making a direct challenge to those people who believe in an amendment to specifically define marriage as being between a man and a woman., though that amendment would be restricting rights of other Americans which would make the amendment unconstitutional.

It is also making a direct challenge to those people who think it is the governments role to tell people what they can and can not do in their bedrooms and also making a direct challenge to those people that belief that this country is a one religion country and seek to restrict other religions and where they can build their houses of worship.

What is the direct challenge? Well looky there it is in the second half of the statement:

"...then don't be shocked or offended when others believe it is government's role to tax the rich, feed, clothe and shelter the poor, heal the sick and regulate the money changers."

In other words if you believe the first part don't get shocked or offended that there are people who seek the government to do the opposite. These people believe that the government should tax the rich instead of continuing to give them unpaid for tax breaks (money which they don't spend). They also believe that government should do everything in its power to help the poor and heal the sick. The also believe in regulations.

The political perspectives (beliefs, for you SW) are opposite and at odds with the other side.

The author is simply asking that if you believe one thing don't get offended or shocked that there are people that believe the exact opposite of you.

I thought the point was straightforward, it confused you to no end.

Michael,

You never really said who Paul Ward is. I am still wanting to read more that was written by the man. Could you please point me to more of his material? Perhaps a bio or something? I would be very pleased if you could do that. I am curious as to the context of the quote. The point that context means everything has been made by quite a few people.

I would like to let you know that I am disappointed in your repeated character attacks after taking so many people to task for commiting the same offence.

Michael,

Oh, forgive my confusion, as I thought I indicated, I wasn't sure which of my questions you were addressing with "political perspective". I had thought that "political perspective" is what your answer to my question about the reason for your interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which made no sense to me.

In that case you have still not answered any of my questions. I did not ask what it was called I asked if you saw the direct connection.

"The political perspectives (beliefs, for you SW) are opposite and at odds with the other side."

For people like you who engange in clear black/white thinking, I'm sure you do see those as opposites that are at odds and that it is a straightfoward link between gay marriage and taxing the rich, for example. I do not. I don't see any obvious opposing connection between those positions.

Michael,

I also have to agree with Sir Didymus here, for someone who rants about people attacking your character, you sure seem to engage it that behavior regularly. Why, some people might even point out your actions as hypocrisy.

Michael,

I thought political perspective meant something different than beliefs. I thought that political perspective had more to do with longer term views and compromise than a catagorization of people by stereotypical beliefs.

Debt Downgrade Mike.

You cannot talk yourself out of that truth.

Debt Downgrade Mike - Really? Really? The United States of America has a debt downgrade? I still can't believe it.

Wallis

Mike - Go to Ben Nelsons blog dated 3/2010 about economic recovery.

Read my post in November, 2010.

This was so predictable. Oil hit $100 - S&P hit 1350 now the selloff.

Wallis

What character attacks have I made Didymus and SW?

Why are you so surprised Wallis? When we have politicians that are more worried about cutting social programs (after spending nearly a year "trying" to protect them from the other side) and keeping unpaid for tax cuts in and somehow thinking that is going to solve all of our problems. Exactly why are you surprised that this has happened?

Michael,

How far back do you want me to go with character attacks? Just recently you used the clever "Republicants" and made several statements calling Wallis a liar.

On a side note, I did get a good chuckle out of reading you say: "But this is a classic move by partisans such as yourself. When something goes well do everything you can do to avoid giving credit where it is due (especially if it is a *gasp* Democrat who deserves that credit) but if their is fault to be given out make sure only one person gets that blame,"

Can you honestly tell me that you don't see how this statement applies to you as well if one were to reverse the label? You lecturing someone for being a partisan seems to me to be the "height of too-muchery".

Michael,

Speaking of honesty and the "facts" that you always demand of everyone, can you please show us the facts that support your statements:

"Let's not forget that all the squawking they did about protecting Medicare/Medicaid from the evil Democrats they have voted on three separate occasions to end it."

"the fact that the agency that downgraded the United States blamed the Republicans."

These don't sounds like the words of a partisan at all do they?

Michael, gold is up $100 to another new record high since I recommended it as part of the "smart" play a week ago. I know it doesn't fit with your liberal world view, but the world doesn't care how you view it.

To do well at investing (and life too) you need a perception of reality that is true. You can't just wish things were different, and then act as if they were. You must deal with reality.

The demise of the dollar (and the US economy) is well under way. The dollar has dropped from being able to purchase an ounce of gold for $35 in 1972 to $1,730 per ounce today. In another 10 years the dollar will no longer be the world reserve currency which will cut our standard of living by an estimate 20 to 30%, in addition to the stagflation economy we will experience. Only those who take the blinders off and face the new reality will prosper.

QE3 is being cooked up by Turbo Tim Geithner and Helicopter Ben Bernanke even as I write. Throw another trillion or two on the bonfire of their vanities, and add it to our debts. They didn't see the Great Correction coming, they don't understand why their several stimulus plans have not worked, and they still think another one will do the job. LOL.

Have you noticed the riots in Greece when people won't get their govt freebies any more? Today its happening in London and Philadelphia. Coming to a city near you soon? The entitlement programs are not sustainable here, either.

The administration needs to quit trying to stop the fire alarm and start trying to put out the fire.

They also need to quit blaming the Tea Party for the S&P downgrade of US debt. It was the Tea Party and some Repulicans who wanted to cut the spending, but were thwarted throughout the process.

You can ignore the fact that we borrow 40% of each federal dollar spent, but how can you lambast those who wanted change, whether that be the S&P raters or the Tea Party?

Micheal,

From your own source.

"Character Attack -- attacks that are directed against a person rather than his/her arguments."

Otherwise known as an Ad Hominem argument. Well, anytime you direct your argument against a person or his behavior rather than standing up to what they are trying to say, you are engaging in a "character attack" I was primarily refering to what you said about wallis.

"Wallis, unlike you (apparently) I don't mind paying more in taxes to ensure safe roads, the government continuing to run, my Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare to still be there, a safety net for those Americans that need help the most. "

This is a character attack because you are seemingly attacking Wallis' by implying that he does not want safe roads, government or helping those that need the most.

Also, everytime you switch to SW "name calling" rather than adressing his argument, that is an Ad Hominem argument. It doesn't matter if they did it too, or first. Remember two wrongs don't make a right. But two Wrights made an airplane. I chide you because you made such a big hairy deal about "character attacks" This is why I don't think you are very good at debating. Even while you decry wrongdoing, you exhibit the exact same behavior. Do you understand?

And feel free to engage in more Ad Hominem attacks towards me by pointing out my own character attacks. That is fine, but it still would be an Ad Hominem attack. Amusingly enough the very thing you ranted about is a common tool of the hypocrit. And you seem to use that particular toolkit quite often.

It is official now.

If anyone wants to join Team Perry please email me at wmarsh@extex.net

Wallis Marsh

Perry for President!

Rick Perry Eagle Scout.

Rick Perry Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M.

Rick Perry "Yell Leader" at A&M (there are only 5)

Rick Perry Captain in the Air Force from 1972-1977 (Vietnam).

Rick Perry Governor of Texas for 11 years.

Rick Perry Washington outsider.

Rick Perry Pro Jobs.

Rick Perry ran Al Gore's Texas campaign in 1988 (I voted for Al in the Oklahoma Primary that year).

Rick Perry is a former Democrat that is a Republican because less government is best for you and me.

I also met Lena Guerrero in 1991 when I was working for Texaco and she was a Texas Railroad commissioner (The government body that oversees oil and gas in Texas). She resigned for personal issues but she was special. She was a Democrat but endorsed Gov. Perry in 2006 because she believed in him - Party Politics aside. That is a telling deal.

Rick Perry has it. Pay attention to him. You will hear and see it.

Wallis Marsh

Michael,

By your lack of response am I correct to conclude that you agree with Sir Didymus and myself that you have been hypocritically engaging in character attacks?