And now a word from the "Coffee Party".....

[Rinata]

Well, he is a Constitutional scholar, after all.

That's right. Just pisses you tea bagging conservatives off, doesn't it???

I could get behind him a little more if he actually showed some understanding of the Constitution.

Apparently, you can be a scholar in a subject and be utterly clueless about it.

You're really making a fool of yourself, Dave.

 

[daveman]

Seems those capitalists can't even figure out that demand won't be there if people have no money to spend because they either have no jobs, or are working for much less money and need to sort out their priorities before rushing off to buy the latest biggest and bestest.

Of course those capitalists have figured it out. The left is screeching about the trillions they're sitting on instead of expanding business.

The reason they're not expanding business is because this government is hostile towards business.

Once again, how?????????? No specifics, as usual. The government gave businesses every tax break imaginable during the initial meltdown in order to boost incentives, and some, such as not waiting a year to take deductions for depreciation of business equipment will remain in place for at least another two years.

To listen to you people go on about this, one would think that business and industry is operating under some giant thumb belonging to Barack Obama where none of them stands a chance of being successful until he is gone from office. WTF? Any business man or woman with any common sense knows that the whiners who complain the administration is being "hostile" is simply not true. Not when they STILL can take advantage of ALL OF THESE PERKS, none of which has been eliminated:

Small Business Expenses and Tax Deductions | SBA.gov Business Expenses

Small Business Expenses and Tax Deductions | SBA.gov Capital Expenses

So you're saying the business owners are lying, and the government is telling the truth?

You really wanna go with that?

 

[daveman]

Apparently a federal court didn't think so.

Appeals court upholds health care law – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Let's see what the USSC has to say. But of course being a right-wing majority membership, you won't have to worry any longer because I think we all know how the vote will be.

Yes, because right-wing judges tend to use the actual Constitution when deciding a law's constitutionality.

You mean like calling corporations "people"??

Corporations are groups of people.

Did you now know that?

 

[MaggieMae]

Ummm...where did I say that? Oh, yeah -- nowhere.
It's rather a given, at this point.

However, Obama is pushing for more intrusive and oppressive government regulation of business.

How so? Again, is it possible for you to ever be specific? All I know is that Obama wants existing regulations to be abided by, which the investment banking community and Wall Street investors have ignored for a decade, and he doesn't plan to allow the Republicans to eliminate EPA requirements for making sure factories don't flush their garbage into nearby waterways or the clean air. Some want to eliminate the EPA entirely. Scorched earth, here we come.

You say "It's rather a given, at this point.", then complain that I don't offer specifics?

Here's some specifics, from the people who would know -- business owners:

In recent months, however, that relationship has begun to fray. First, Democrats included a provision in the health-care bill -- over the Roundtable's objection -- that reduced corporate subsidies for drug coverage to retirees, a move that could cost big companies millions of dollars. Then the EPA unveiled rules to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions even without climate-change legislation, creating uncertainty about the future cost of energy.

The final straw, said Roundtable president John Castellani, was the introduction of two pieces of legislation, now pending in Congress, that the group views as particularly bad for business. One, a provision of the administration's financial regulation overhaul, would make it easier for shareholders to nominate corporate board members. The other would raise taxes on multinational corporations. The rhetoric accompanying the tax proposals has been particularly harsh, Castellani said, with Democrats vowing to campaign in this fall's midterm elections on a platform of punishing companies that move jobs overseas.​

So I guess conservatives would prefer that Medicare Advantage continue to be subsidized out of the general Medicare fund because those insurers cover things Medicare doesn't, such as hearing aids and eyeglasses, which every person over 65 will need one or the other by then. It's the reason those items were never included in Medicare coverage in the first place. A no-brainer, because Medicare would have been bankrupt in the first five years.

So I guess conservatives would prefer that the financial institutions continue to play Russian Roulette with other people's money. (Sorry, we just don't have the money you put in and don't know when we will. Funny that the credit card companies don't buy that excuse for individuals.)

So I guess conservatives would prefer that "Buy American" is a lost cause and that it's fine and dandy that tradition is gone with the wind, as well as America seeing any financial benefit at all by way of taxing those companies. So be it. This is NOT the American way that I grew up with. It is NOT an attitude that has made America the greatest leader in the world and why governments of other countries who wish to succeed try to emulate us. It IS the attitude that has made the populations of other allied nations scoff at our greed and intense need to prove that material stuff is what's most important to well-being and all the pushing and shoving that goes along with it is far more important. Animals do that because that's all they know. People should know better.

 

[daveman]

How so? Again, is it possible for you to ever be specific? All I know is that Obama wants existing regulations to be abided by, which the investment banking community and Wall Street investors have ignored for a decade, and he doesn't plan to allow the Republicans to eliminate EPA requirements for making sure factories don't flush their garbage into nearby waterways or the clean air. Some want to eliminate the EPA entirely. Scorched earth, here we come.

You say "It's rather a given, at this point.", then complain that I don't offer specifics?

Here's some specifics, from the people who would know -- business owners:

In recent months, however, that relationship has begun to fray. First, Democrats included a provision in the health-care bill -- over the Roundtable's objection -- that reduced corporate subsidies for drug coverage to retirees, a move that could cost big companies millions of dollars. Then the EPA unveiled rules to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions even without climate-change legislation, creating uncertainty about the future cost of energy.

The final straw, said Roundtable president John Castellani, was the introduction of two pieces of legislation, now pending in Congress, that the group views as particularly bad for business. One, a provision of the administration's financial regulation overhaul, would make it easier for shareholders to nominate corporate board members. The other would raise taxes on multinational corporations. The rhetoric accompanying the tax proposals has been particularly harsh, Castellani said, with Democrats vowing to campaign in this fall's midterm elections on a platform of punishing companies that move jobs overseas.​

So I guess conservatives would prefer that Medicare Advantage continue to be subsidized out of the general Medicare fund because those insurers cover things Medicare doesn't, such as hearing aids and eyeglasses, which every person over 65 will need one or the other by then. It's the reason those items were never included in Medicare coverage in the first place. A no-brainer, because Medicare would have been bankrupt in the first five years.

So I guess conservatives would prefer that the financial institutions continue to play Russian Roulette with other people's money. (Sorry, we just don't have the money you put in and don't know when we will. Funny that the credit card companies don't buy that excuse for individuals.)

So I guess conservatives would prefer that "Buy American" is a lost cause and that it's fine and dandy that tradition is gone with the wind, as well as America seeing any financial benefit at all by way of taxing those companies. So be it. This is NOT the American way that I grew up with. It is NOT an attitude that has made America the greatest leader in the world and why governments of other countries who wish to succeed try to emulate us. It IS the attitude that has made the populations of other allied nations scoff at our greed and intense need to prove that material stuff is what's most important to well-being and all the pushing and shoving that goes along with it is far more important. Animals do that because that's all they know. People should know better.

Need some help moving those goalposts?

Look, when you own and operate a business, your opinion might be worth something. I'll continue listening to those who are familiar with the problems. You keep listening to people who don't own businesses.

 

[oreo]

Dear Speaker Boehner,

As a Republican, I have followed your handling of the debt ceiling negotiations, and the future of the federal budget, with mounting concern. You appear to be engaged in a game of partisan brinksmanship with our nation’s financial future. Now is not the time for scoring political points or playing to the fantasies of the anti-government libertarian zealots within our Party.

Your handling of the debt ceiling negotiations, and the prior budget proposals advanced in Representative Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity,” makes it clear that the GOP is more concerned with protecting the interests of America’s most wealthy citizens, even to the detriment of the rest of us, and to the common good. For example, it is farcical to frame the debt and the deficit as merely problems of spending — they are, in fact, issues created by both expenditures and revenues. Nor is taking an axe to the federal government an acceptable solution — traditionally, we conservatives have been in favor of a limited government, not an eviscerated one. In the end, we simply have to pay for the services we expect government to provide. As such, a discussion of raising additional revenue — taxes — must be a part of any long-term solution.

Read more of his letter here:

Dear Speaker Boehner: An open letter on the debt and the budget | Coffee Party

Today--there are 18,000 baby-boomers entering social security/medicare daily and this will continue for the next 15 years--resulting in another 64 trillion in unfunded liabilites--on top of the 14.3 trillion in red ink we're at now. This results in $534,000.00 per household federal government debt--to pay this tab.

There simply is not enough WEALTH--including your weekly paycheck--to pay this bill.

Currently the Federal Government is borrowing .46 cents on every dollar it spends. The Federal government is now wanting to raise their credit card limit so they can borrow and spend more.



1 billion dollars--$100.00 bills stacked on palets.



1 trillion dollars--$100.00 bills stacked on palets.--NOTE: How small the man is in this chart.

Now--if you can tell me how and whom we're going to tax to come up with 79 of the above trillion dollar chart--please let us all know---

 

[MaggieMae]

You say "It's rather a given, at this point.", then complain that I don't offer specifics?

Here's some specifics, from the people who would know -- business owners:

In recent months, however, that relationship has begun to fray. First, Democrats included a provision in the health-care bill -- over the Roundtable's objection -- that reduced corporate subsidies for drug coverage to retirees, a move that could cost big companies millions of dollars. Then the EPA unveiled rules to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions even without climate-change legislation, creating uncertainty about the future cost of energy.

The final straw, said Roundtable president John Castellani, was the introduction of two pieces of legislation, now pending in Congress, that the group views as particularly bad for business. One, a provision of the administration's financial regulation overhaul, would make it easier for shareholders to nominate corporate board members. The other would raise taxes on multinational corporations. The rhetoric accompanying the tax proposals has been particularly harsh, Castellani said, with Democrats vowing to campaign in this fall's midterm elections on a platform of punishing companies that move jobs overseas.​

So I guess conservatives would prefer that Medicare Advantage continue to be subsidized out of the general Medicare fund because those insurers cover things Medicare doesn't, such as hearing aids and eyeglasses, which every person over 65 will need one or the other by then. It's the reason those items were never included in Medicare coverage in the first place. A no-brainer, because Medicare would have been bankrupt in the first five years.

So I guess conservatives would prefer that the financial institutions continue to play Russian Roulette with other people's money. (Sorry, we just don't have the money you put in and don't know when we will. Funny that the credit card companies don't buy that excuse for individuals.)

So I guess conservatives would prefer that "Buy American" is a lost cause and that it's fine and dandy that tradition is gone with the wind, as well as America seeing any financial benefit at all by way of taxing those companies. So be it. This is NOT the American way that I grew up with. It is NOT an attitude that has made America the greatest leader in the world and why governments of other countries who wish to succeed try to emulate us. It IS the attitude that has made the populations of other allied nations scoff at our greed and intense need to prove that material stuff is what's most important to well-being and all the pushing and shoving that goes along with it is far more important. Animals do that because that's all they know. People should know better.

Need some help moving those goalposts?

Look, when you own and operate a business, your opinion might be worth something. I'll continue listening to those who are familiar with the problems. You keep listening to people who don't own businesses.

That's a pretty presumptuous statement. And you know that how?

Here's the problem, in a nutshell.

TIME: Fareed Zakaria

"Conservatism is true." That's what George Will told me when I interviewed him as an eager student many years ago. His formulation might have been a touch arrogant, but Will's basic point was intelligent. Conservatism, he explained, was rooted in reality. Unlike the abstract theories of Marxism and socialism, it started not from an imagined society but from the world as it actually exists. From Aristotle to Edmund Burke, the greatest conservative thinkers have said that to change societies, one must understand them, accept them as they are and help them evolve.

Watching this election campaign, one wonders what has happened to that tradition. Conservatives now espouse ideas drawn from abstract principles with little regard to the realities of America's present or past. This is a tragedy, because conservatism has an important role to play in modernizing the U.S.

Consider the debates over the economy. The Republican prescription is to cut taxes and slash government spending — then things will bounce back. Now, I would like to see lower rates in the context of tax simplification and reform, but what is the evidence that tax cuts are the best path to revive the U.S. economy? Taxes — federal and state combined — as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest level since 1950. The U.S. is among the lowest taxed of the big industrial economies. So the case that America is grinding to a halt because of high taxation is not based on facts but is simply a theoretical assertion. The rich countries that are in the best shape right now, with strong growth and low unemployment, are ones like Germany and Denmark, neither one characterized by low taxes.

Many Republican businessmen have told me that the Obama Administration is the most hostile to business in 50 years. Really? More than that of Richard Nixon, who presided over tax rates that reached 70%, regulations that spanned whole industries, and who actually instituted price and wage controls?

In fact, right now any discussion of government involvement in the economy — even to build vital infrastructure — is impossible because it is a cardinal tenet of the new conservatism that such involvement is always and forever bad. Meanwhile, across the globe, the world's fastest-growing economy, China, has managed to use government involvement to create growth and jobs for three decades. From Singapore to South Korea to Germany to Canada, evidence abounds that some strategic actions by the government can act as catalysts for free-market growth.

 

[MaggieMae]

You mean key words like North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement?

What is the north atlantic free trade agreement

There is no such thing as North ATLANTIC Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA is for North American Free Trade Agreement, signed by the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico creating a trilateral trade bloc in North America.​

Well pardon me all to fucking hell. I don't pretend to be perfect, unlike some assholes here.

No, you just lecture others on doing research.

I learned looooong ago that on message boards, one must back up statements with facts. Too bad you don't. Apparently just because you say something, it should be taken as gospel truth.

 

[MaggieMae]

I haven't heard anyone saying those things, either. If it's so common, you won't have any problems providing links, will you?

Quotes and links from individuals? Sorry, that's a usual way to deflect the problem: Asking someone to spend hours searching for direct quotes.

When someone claims people say something, asking for quotes is not a deflection.

Looks like your assertion is unproven, then. If you don't care enough to back it up, why should I? I'm not doing your homework for you.

Believe whatever you want. Sorry, but you're not going to goad me into arguing with an idiot any longer.

 

[MaggieMae]

Of course those capitalists have figured it out. The left is screeching about the trillions they're sitting on instead of expanding business.

The reason they're not expanding business is because this government is hostile towards business.

Once again, how?????????? No specifics, as usual. The government gave businesses every tax break imaginable during the initial meltdown in order to boost incentives, and some, such as not waiting a year to take deductions for depreciation of business equipment will remain in place for at least another two years.

To listen to you people go on about this, one would think that business and industry is operating under some giant thumb belonging to Barack Obama where none of them stands a chance of being successful until he is gone from office. WTF? Any business man or woman with any common sense knows that the whiners who complain the administration is being "hostile" is simply not true. Not when they STILL can take advantage of ALL OF THESE PERKS, none of which has been eliminated:

Small Business Expenses and Tax Deductions | SBA.gov Business Expenses

Small Business Expenses and Tax Deductions | SBA.gov Capital Expenses

So you're saying the business owners are lying, and the government is telling the truth?

You really wanna go with that?

I am saying that the ones who do the most complaining are the ones who don't give a shit about how they make their money. If it means screwing the working middle class, so be it. Heaven Forbid they should "sacrifice" any of those precious profits by way of taxes on those profits. Heaven Forbid they should take a risk and use some of those windfall profits to expand and hire so that people will be able to afford their products.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yes, because right-wing judges tend to use the actual Constitution when deciding a law's constitutionality.

You mean like calling corporations "people"??

Corporations are groups of people.

Did you now know that?

You're really dumb. I'm amused whenever you say "YOU don't "get it."

 

[MaggieMae]

Dear Speaker Boehner,

As a Republican, I have followed your handling of the debt ceiling negotiations, and the future of the federal budget, with mounting concern. You appear to be engaged in a game of partisan brinksmanship with our nation’s financial future. Now is not the time for scoring political points or playing to the fantasies of the anti-government libertarian zealots within our Party.

Your handling of the debt ceiling negotiations, and the prior budget proposals advanced in Representative Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity,” makes it clear that the GOP is more concerned with protecting the interests of America’s most wealthy citizens, even to the detriment of the rest of us, and to the common good. For example, it is farcical to frame the debt and the deficit as merely problems of spending — they are, in fact, issues created by both expenditures and revenues. Nor is taking an axe to the federal government an acceptable solution — traditionally, we conservatives have been in favor of a limited government, not an eviscerated one. In the end, we simply have to pay for the services we expect government to provide. As such, a discussion of raising additional revenue — taxes — must be a part of any long-term solution.

Read more of his letter here:

Dear Speaker Boehner: An open letter on the debt and the budget | Coffee Party

Today--there are 18,000 baby-boomers entering social security/medicare daily and this will continue for the next 15 years--resulting in another 64 trillion in unfunded liabilites--on top of the 14.3 trillion in red ink we're at now. This results in $534,000.00 per household federal government debt--to pay this tab.

There simply is not enough WEALTH--including your weekly paycheck--to pay this bill.

Currently the Federal Government is borrowing .46 cents on every dollar it spends. The Federal government is now wanting to raise their credit card limit so they can borrow and spend more.

View attachment 14300

1 billion dollars--$100.00 bills stacked on palets.

View attachment 14301

1 trillion dollars--$100.00 bills stacked on palets.--NOTE: How small the man is in this chart.

Now--if you can tell me how and whom we're going to tax to come up with 79 of the above trillion dollar chart--please let us all know---

We know all that. Your point? The discussion is about how to cut spending on entitlement programs and not injure future generations, as well as revenue increases, both of which are necessary in order to fix the deficit problem.

 

[daveman]

So I guess conservatives would prefer that Medicare Advantage continue to be subsidized out of the general Medicare fund because those insurers cover things Medicare doesn't, such as hearing aids and eyeglasses, which every person over 65 will need one or the other by then. It's the reason those items were never included in Medicare coverage in the first place. A no-brainer, because Medicare would have been bankrupt in the first five years.

So I guess conservatives would prefer that the financial institutions continue to play Russian Roulette with other people's money. (Sorry, we just don't have the money you put in and don't know when we will. Funny that the credit card companies don't buy that excuse for individuals.)

So I guess conservatives would prefer that "Buy American" is a lost cause and that it's fine and dandy that tradition is gone with the wind, as well as America seeing any financial benefit at all by way of taxing those companies. So be it. This is NOT the American way that I grew up with. It is NOT an attitude that has made America the greatest leader in the world and why governments of other countries who wish to succeed try to emulate us. It IS the attitude that has made the populations of other allied nations scoff at our greed and intense need to prove that material stuff is what's most important to well-being and all the pushing and shoving that goes along with it is far more important. Animals do that because that's all they know. People should know better.

Need some help moving those goalposts?

Look, when you own and operate a business, your opinion might be worth something. I'll continue listening to those who are familiar with the problems. You keep listening to people who don't own businesses.

That's a pretty presumptuous statement. And you know that how?

Here's the problem, in a nutshell.

TIME: Fareed Zakaria

"Conservatism is true." That's what George Will told me when I interviewed him as an eager student many years ago. His formulation might have been a touch arrogant, but Will's basic point was intelligent. Conservatism, he explained, was rooted in reality. Unlike the abstract theories of Marxism and socialism, it started not from an imagined society but from the world as it actually exists. From Aristotle to Edmund Burke, the greatest conservative thinkers have said that to change societies, one must understand them, accept them as they are and help them evolve.

Watching this election campaign, one wonders what has happened to that tradition. Conservatives now espouse ideas drawn from abstract principles with little regard to the realities of America's present or past. This is a tragedy, because conservatism has an important role to play in modernizing the U.S.

Consider the debates over the economy. The Republican prescription is to cut taxes and slash government spending — then things will bounce back. Now, I would like to see lower rates in the context of tax simplification and reform, but what is the evidence that tax cuts are the best path to revive the U.S. economy? Taxes — federal and state combined — as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest level since 1950. The U.S. is among the lowest taxed of the big industrial economies. So the case that America is grinding to a halt because of high taxation is not based on facts but is simply a theoretical assertion. The rich countries that are in the best shape right now, with strong growth and low unemployment, are ones like Germany and Denmark, neither one characterized by low taxes.

Many Republican businessmen have told me that the Obama Administration is the most hostile to business in 50 years. Really? More than that of Richard Nixon, who presided over tax rates that reached 70%, regulations that spanned whole industries, and who actually instituted price and wage controls?

In fact, right now any discussion of government involvement in the economy — even to build vital infrastructure — is impossible because it is a cardinal tenet of the new conservatism that such involvement is always and forever bad. Meanwhile, across the globe, the world's fastest-growing economy, China, has managed to use government involvement to create growth and jobs for three decades. From Singapore to South Korea to Germany to Canada, evidence abounds that some strategic actions by the government can act as catalysts for free-market growth.

Bullshit article is bullshit.

Okay, saying Obama's the most hostile Administration to business in 50 years is nonsense -- most business owners today didn't own their businesses during the Nixon Admin.

Yet they own businesses now, and are trying to operate in the climate that the Obama Admin is influencing. And they're saying this Admin isn't business friendly.

 

[daveman]

Well pardon me all to fucking hell. I don't pretend to be perfect, unlike some assholes here.

No, you just lecture others on doing research.

I learned looooong ago that on message boards, one must back up statements with facts. Too bad you don't. Apparently just because you say something, it should be taken as gospel truth.

You're kidding, right? You mean you back up statements like "conservatives want to eliminate 100% of welfare"?

When I asked you to do that, you whined about how it was a deflection.

So -- it looks like once again an assertion of yours has failed.

 

[daveman]

Quotes and links from individuals? Sorry, that's a usual way to deflect the problem: Asking someone to spend hours searching for direct quotes.

When someone claims people say something, asking for quotes is not a deflection.

Looks like your assertion is unproven, then. If you don't care enough to back it up, why should I? I'm not doing your homework for you.

Believe whatever you want. Sorry, but you're not going to goad me into arguing with an idiot any longer.

Gosh, Maggie -- it sounds to me like you're wanting me to take something as gospel truth simply because you said it.

Hypocrite.

 

[daveman]

I am saying that the ones who do the most complaining are the ones who don't give a shit about how they make their money. If it means screwing the working middle class, so be it. Heaven Forbid they should "sacrifice" any of those precious profits by way of taxes on those profits. Heaven Forbid they should take a risk and use some of those windfall profits to expand and hire so that people will be able to afford their products.

Not only did you drink the Kool-Aide, you farking drowned in it.

Never mind. I wouldn't dream of expecting you to ever criticize Obama. You might burst into flames.

 

[daveman]

You mean like calling corporations "people"??

Corporations are groups of people.

Did you now know that?

You're really dumb. I'm amused whenever you say "YOU don't "get it."

You're calling me dumb?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Another one of those "Republicans love only the rich" yawn.....

You mean to tell us you’re so used to the GOP working for the rich against the poor and middle class that it doesn't even faze you any more?

That is a sad statement indeed Willow...

I'm convinced that people on message boards who post agreement with the extremist right wing ideologies of today never had to worry about where their next rent or mortgage payment was going to come from; never were forced to apply for food stamps to feed their families; never had an astronomical medical bill that they lost sleep over how to pay for it; and of course, never been unemployed for REAL lack of work for long periods of time to the point it affects them financially, physically, and mentally. Not yet, anyway.

Hold it... I've never worried about having a roof and a meal and I rarely post agreement with the 'republicans can do no wrong' crowd.

Does that make me weird?

 

[AVG-JOE]

But I wouldn't sweat the Coffee Party. That half a dozen member voting block per State could not get a dog catcher elected.

Yet.

 

[AVG-JOE]

He's actually taking the position of a SANE Republican. You know, those folks who at one time were, in fact, "compassionate" conservatives, while maintaining their fiscal conservative ideologies.

He is being a dishonest sleazy hack parroting demo talking points by rote.

I can get along with a democrat who is frank and honest about our differences of opinion. You have your priorities, theories of taxation and the importance of maintaining a certain level of debt and I have mine. We can argue them out in an adult manner any time you feel in the mood.

But this business of some coyote in sheep's clothing mouthing.... "I am a true republican" (that phrase right there makes me want to start counting the silverware) " but I think we should trample on principle and swallow the Democrat's codswallop, because after all they are right" does not inspire me to anything except anger at folks who would peddle such organic fertilizer as true metal.

Seriously?

You LIKE the current status quo?

You think the current tax code is fair?

I'll respect your right to believe it if that's how you feel, Bro' but Seriously?