[blahblahblah]

[quote=briansd1][quote=markmax33]

You seem to imply that Clinton didn’t benefit from Greenspan? Those low interest rates boosted tax reciepts and let him “balance” the budget. It wasn’t through Clinton’s intelligence or policy.[/quote]

So how come GWB took a surplus and created a huge deficit, with even lower interest rates?
[/quote]

Not taking sides here, but there really was no “Clinton surplus.” The illusion of a surplus was created by borrowing from social security. This article gives a pretty good overview of the trickery involved. During his time in office, the national debt increased 26% from $4.5T to $5.7T. You can see this for yourself over in the data section at treasurydirect.gov.

It’s also worth mentioning that this had been going on long before Clinton became president, so he isn’t to blame for coming up with it. And his government was a model of sound fiscal policy compared to the two knuckleheads we’ve had since then, so please don’t take this as criticism. I just don’t like to hear these old myths repeated as if they are facts. Spending has been out of control since Ronnie Raygun rode into town off of one of his B-movie sets.

[blahblahblah]

[quote=pri_dk]Check your numbers. If they are correct, then fire your accountant and redo your past years’ taxes.

It’s damn-near impossible for a married couple to pay more than 15% (in federal taxes) without earning over $100K from W2 wages.[/quote]

From the 2009 1040 table, a married couple with line 43 taxable income of $90K paid $14881 for a rate of 16.5%.

[blahblahblah]

Being rich and having a large income are two different things.

[blahblahblah]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]number ? PLEEEASE

We’ve already passed the sharks and zombies stage and have moved into the “if you don’t like it you can move to a different country” stage.

If we’re not careful we will reach the Hitler precipice, where all threads go to die.

So, what was the number ???[/quote]

Hahahahaha ROTFL.

Yes, the number please.

[blahblahblah]

[quote=AN]$236k[/quote]

Curse you! The old “Price is Right” trick. At least I know someone else is thinking the same way I am…

I’m guessing 1 person making $140K, the other making $96K, something along those lines.

As everyone knows, in the public sector it’s the benefits that really count…

[blahblahblah]

[quote=sdrealtor]Hey thats not fair! Credit where credit is due. I posted about Vermin Supreme over a week ago. My 11 year old son found him on You Tube and loved his position to eliminate our dependency on foreign oil by giving everyone in the US a pony.[/quote]

The pony program is interesting but I am more excited about Vermin Supreme’s proposal to harness the awesome power of zombies as an alternative energy source.

Zombie threadjack begins in 3…2…1…

[blahblahblah]

$235K.

[blahblahblah]

I, for one, am very upset about the media blackout of presidential candidate Vermin Supreme.

[blahblahblah]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CONCHO]How would you vote? [/quote]

I would have voted for the bill.

Now it’s your turn. Choose:

– Yay
– Nay
– Abstain (i.e. hide in the bushes with Ron Paul and hope no one notices)

Let’s hear it.[/quote]

Abstain. A “no” vote will be used against you in the next election by someone who would always vote yes on future NDAAs, no matter what sort of horrors were put in them (perhaps you could run — sounds like you’d fit right in). A “yes” vote means betrayal of core principles. Only the choice to abstain leaves the possibility of maintaining the house seat, where you can continue educating the public and influencing future legislation.

I guess you can call that playing politics, but it’s really just strategic thinking; very much in line with Washington’s 5th rule of military guidance: “Never do what the enemy wishes you to do.”

[blahblahblah]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CONCHO]Invalid comparison. The 2012 NDAA would either pass or not pass. An individual congressperson abstaining does not change the outcome.[/quote]

And who are those other folks in that big room whose votes passed the bill?

Individual congressmen. Every one of them.

You say an individual congressmen doesn’t make a difference? Using that logic, individual voters don’t make a difference either. So perhaps you should stop wasting forum space encouraging us to vote for your guy.

The only valid reason for a congressman to abstain from a vote would be a personal/business conflict of interest. Not an issue here.

Paul abstained so that his political opponents wouldn’t have ammunition – so they couldn’t criticize his actions on the job – because he chose not to perform at all.

Pure politics and borderline cowardice.[/quote]

Actually the pure politics is writing a bill so that people are forced to either vote for an entire yearly defense budget AND torture and indefinite detention without trial by jury OR against both of these.

How would you vote? Would you vote to torture and indefinitely detain people (including American citizens) without trial by jury in total violation of the foundation of western civilization since the Magna Carta, or will you vote against the troops and against the defense of this great country? Are you for torture and indefinite detention or are you weak on defense and against the troops? Let’s hear it.

[blahblahblah]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=markmax33]I suspect in the next 20 years we find ways to make cheap robots that automate the process and bring the jobs back home.[/quote]

Yes, all we need to do is follow the Constitution and the robots will save us.[/quote]

So let’s all just ignore it then, it is obviously no longer relevant.

[blahblahblah]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=CONCHO]Looks like he abstained, quite possibly because he actually does have principles. [/quote]

Or quite possibly because he was playing politics.

Leadership is about making choices when there are no easy answers.

Truman had the choice to invade Japan or drop the bomb. What if he had simply “abstained” because either alternative had downsides?

If Paul were president, he wouldn’t have the choice to “abstain” from signing/not signing the NDAA bill, would he? His actions as a congressman show he doesn’t have the leadership capacity to be president.[/quote]

Invalid comparison. The 2012 NDAA would either pass or not pass. An individual congressperson abstaining does not change the outcome. Not deciding to invade or drop the A-bomb on Japan would have changed the outcome (lengthening the war). To assume that Paul’s decision to abstain means that he would not be able to make a tough decision when it counts is silly.

[blahblahblah]

[quote=SK in CV]

But related to Paul….if he opposed the NDAA, why didn’t he vote against it?[/quote]

Looks like he abstained, quite possibly because he actually does have principles. The NDAA specifies the annual budget for the DOD. They throw all the torture and indefinite detention stuff in there because they know if any representative or senator votes against it, they are “voting against the troops” and are “weak on defense” and can be attacked mercilessly on that in the next election. If you vote “yes” on it then you support torture and indefinite detention without a trial by jury. You’re basically a f***ing grand inquisitor and would have been right at home in the days of Torquemada. Given those choices perhaps it is best to abstain.

It’s as if you are given a choice to vote on a bill which includes free lunches for grandmothers and the killing of puppies. If you vote “no” you are voting against free lunches for grandmothers and are a horrible person. If you vote “yes” you are for the killing of puppies and are a horrible person. How would you vote?

[blahblahblah]

I, as always, will vote for the man with the red tie.

Unless the man with the blue tie is taller or has a more soothing voice.

In that case I might vote for the man with the blue tie.

[blahblahblah]

The video is 100% phony. In fact there are 2 versions of this video, one supposedly created by someone backing Paul and one supposedly created by someone backing Santorum. Go to youtube and search:

NHLiberty4Paul

This is the phony user account for the tool that created this phony video. You can click on the name and see that they have uploaded only one video.

Now go to youtube and search:

NH4Santorum

Here is another phony user account for the same idiot that created this phony video. The video is IDENTICAL, except that in this one it tells you to vote for Santorum.

100% non-story and as phony as a $3 bill.

More discussion of this phony non-story here. And here, which claims that the Huntsman campaign actually uploaded the video. I’m not sure if that’s true or not but I am sure that this “story” is a bunch of hooey.

[Author]

Posts