In The Face Of Historically Low Taxes, O'Reilly Claims Taxation Is "Strangling The U.S. Economy"
Fox host Bill O'Reilly claimed that "rampant taxation" is "strangling the U.S. economy." But the total U.S. tax burden is "at [the] lowest level since [19]58," and the economy and employment grew at high levels under the Clinton administration, when federal income taxes were higher.
O'Reilly Claims Taxation Is "Strangling The U.S. Economy"
O'Reilly: "Your Take-Home Pay Is Being Gutted By The Rampant Taxation. That's What's Strangling The U.S. Economy." On the September 14 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly claimed that Americans' "take-home pay is being gutted by the rampant taxation" and concluded, "That's what's strangling the U.S. economy. ... Punishing taxation is bleeding us." From the broadcast:
O'REILLY: Now, the Obama administration says it will continue the payroll tax cut for working Americans, while it wants to increase the income tax rate on the affluent and corporations. But all Americans are being battered by a variety of hidden taxes. Here is the grim news: in New York state, where I live, not only do we pay a federal income tax, but also a state income tax, and in places like New York City, a local income tax as well.
New York gasoline tax, 45 cents a gallon, the highest in the nation. Cigarette tax, $2.75 a pack. Sales tax collections average about $1,700 per New Yorker. That includes Baby Huey. $1,700 for every man, woman and child living in the state -- sales tax. Property tax, close to $2,000 per person. Toll revenue, $86 a person. New driver's license cost you $80. Cell phone tax and fees, 23 percent of your bill every month.
The list goes on and on and on. I'm exhausted. I can't even list anymore.
So you can see if you're a working person in New York or California or New Jersey or Massachusetts or most other states, your take-home pay is being gutted by the rampant taxation. That's what's strangling the U.S. economy. Consumers can't buy stuff without incurring even more debt. Punishing taxation is bleeding us. And these taxes continue to go up because the states and cities are bankrupt. Why are they bankrupt? Because of pensions, health care costs, corruption, and general irresponsibility with our tax dollars. [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 9/14/11]
But Total Tax Burden Is "At [The] Lowest Level Since '58," And Federal Taxes Are At "Historically Low Levels"
USA Today: "U.S. Tax Burden At Lowest Level Since '58." In a May 5 article, USA Today reported:
Americans are paying the smallest share of their income for taxes since 1958, a reflection of tax cuts and a weak economy, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
The total tax burden -- for all federal, state and local taxes -- dropped to 23.6% of income in the first quarter, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data.
By contrast, individuals spent roughly 27% of income on taxes in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s -- a rate that would mean $500 billion of extra taxes annually today, one-third of the estimated $1.5 trillion federal deficit this year.
[...]
USA TODAY examined the full range of taxes that individuals pay to all levels of government. That includes income taxes for Medicare, property taxes for schools and gas taxes for roads.
At the national average, a person with an income of $100,000 would pay $23,600 in taxes today vs. $28,700 in 2000 and $27,300 in 1990. [USA Today, 5/5/11]
CBPP: "With [Obama's] Making Work Pay Tax Credit, The Median Family's Federal Income Taxes ... [Are] Lower Than In Any Year Since 1955 ... Except For 2009." A report updated by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) on April 15 found that "[m]iddle-income Americans are now paying federal taxes at or near historically low levels." From the report:
Middle-income Americans are now paying federal taxes at or near historically low levels, according to the latest available data. That's true whether it comes to their federal income taxes or their total federal taxes.
- Income taxes: A family of four in the exact middle of the income spectrum will pay only 4.7 percent of its income in federal income taxes this year, according to a new analysis by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. This is the third-lowest percentage in the past 50 years, after 2008 and 2009.
- Overall federal taxes: Middle-income households are paying overall federal taxes -- which include income as well as payroll and excise taxes -- at or near their lowest levels in decades, according to the latest data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
[...]
This year and last, the Making Work Pay tax credit, which President Obama and Congress enacted as part of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is providing a credit of $800 to married joint filers ($400 to single filers). A median-income family with two children thus will receive an $800 tax cut in the return it files this year.
With the Making Work Pay tax credit, the median family's federal income taxes will equal just 4.7 percent of its income in 2010. That is lower than in any year since 1955 (the first year for which these data are available) except for 2009, when taxpayers also received the Making Work Pay credit, and 2008, when another stimulus-related tax cut was in effect.
The post also included the following chart illustrating the average federal income tax rate since 1955:
[CBPP, 4/15/11]
Former Reagan Adviser Bartlett: As Percentage Of GDP, "Federal Taxes Are At Their Lowest Level In More Than 60 Years." Bruce Bartlett, former adviser to President Reagan and Treasury Department economist under George H.W. Bush, wrote in a May 31 post on the New York Times blog Economix: "The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget." From his post:
Historically, the term "tax rate" has meant the average or effective tax rate -- that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.
By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.
The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan's administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.
In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time. Revenues were 14.9 percent of G.D.P. in both 2009 and 2010.
[...]
The truth of the matter is that federal taxes in the United States are very low. There is no reason to believe that reducing them further will do anything to raise growth or reduce unemployment. [Economix, The New York Times, 5/31/11]
Bartlett: "[F]ederal Taxes Are Very Considerably Lower By Every Measure Since Obama Became President." In a March 19, 2010, post on Forbes.com, Bartlett wrote that "federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year":
As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama's stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.
According to the JCT, last year's $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama's policies. [Forbes.com, 3/19/10]
AP: "You Wouldn't Know It By The Tax Day Rhetoric, But Americans Are Paying Lower Taxes This Year." The Associated Press reported on April 14, 2010, "You wouldn't know it by the Tax Day rhetoric, but Americans are paying lower taxes this year, even with increases passed by many states to balance their budgets." While noting that in future years, some taxes may increase for some Americans, the article said that "Tax Day rhetoric" does not match the reality of Americans' tax burdens today. From the article:
Congress cut individuals' federal taxes for this year by about $173 billion shortly after President Barack Obama took office, dwarfing the $28.6 billion in increases by states
[...]
The massive economic recovery package enacted last year included about $300 billion in tax cuts over 10 years. About $232 billion was in cuts for individuals, nearly all in the first two years.
The most generous was Obama's Making Work Pay credit, which gives individuals up to $400 and couples up to $800 for 2009 and 2010. The $1,000 child tax credit was expanded to more families, and the working poor can qualify for as much as $5,657 from the Earned Income Tax Credit.
There were also credits for qualified families who buy new homes or make energy improvements to existing ones, as well as tax breaks to help pay college tuition or buy new cars. [AP, 4/14/10, via Yahoo Finance]
And Economic Growth Was High During Clinton Presidency, When Tax Rates Were Also Higher
PolitiFact: "Most [Economists] Agree That The [Clinton] Tax Increases Did Not Appear To Hinder Job Growth." In a July 6 post, PolitiFact fact-checked President Obama's claims about economic growth and taxes during the Clinton administration. While PolitiFact said that Obama went "too far" by "suggesting raising taxes created job growth," it also found that most economists agreed that higher tax rates under Clinton "did not appear to hinder job growth." From the post:
As for Obama's claim that in the years after the Clinton tax increase, job rates soared, the numbers back him up. Employment rates grew a healthy clip through the mid 1990s after Clinton's tax hike, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. And it's also true that jobs didn't grow as quickly after the Bush tax cuts were enacted.
So tax hikes equal job growth?
"The 1990s were very good, but not because of higher tax rates," said Dan Mitchell, an economist with the libertarian Cato Institute.
In an April 18, 2010, blog post, Mitchell argued that "while Bush had a better record (than Clinton) on taxes, he had a much worse record on spending."
Other economists say the trend at least shows raising taxes on the wealthy isn't going to cause the economy to tank.
"I don't think Obama was claiming that the higher tax rates in the '90s led to the boom, just that they did not prevent it," said Dean Baker, a liberal economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "Similarly, the tax cuts of the Bush years did not lead to strong growth. Most of the evidence shows that tax increases with a given level of deficits will have a modestly negative impact on the economy."
Higher tax rates in the top brackets does create some disincentive effect, Baker said, and some people work less, "but it is not a very big deal in the scheme of things."
"The idea that going back to something like Clinton era tax rates would be a disaster is nonsense," Baker said.
Said Gus Faucher, director of macroeconomics with Moody's economy.com: "I think he (Obama) is making the point that higher tax rates, at least at the levels under President Clinton, are compatible with strong economic growth, and the evidence is clear on that."
"You can argue that one reason we had strong growth in the 1990s is that Bush I and Clinton reduced the deficit (cut spending and raised taxes), bringing down budget deficits," Faucher said. "This, in turn, lowered long-term borrowing costs and made more capital available to the private sector. The strong growth then helped bring down the deficit further, and eventually we got surpluses. I think the fiscal discipline of Bush I and Clinton was a reason for the strong growth in the 1990s."
[...]
So where does this leave us? It is true that when Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate to 39.6 percent -- the same level Obama would like to return it to now -- the U.S. saw strong job growth in the ensuing years. But to the extent Obama is suggesting a cause and effect relationship between those two events -- and we think he certainly leaves that impression when he says we "should go with what works" -- that is dubious, according to the cross-section of economists we spoke to. There were many other economic factors that played a larger role in job growth, they said. However, most agree that the tax increases did not appear to hinder job growth, and that's significant given the dire warnings some Republicans have issued about Obama's plan to return the top tax rate to Clinton levels. Perhaps, as Foster argues, the situation is different enough now -- more precarious -- that a tax hike would have a more damaging effect. That's a matter for economists to debate.
When Obama says we saw job growth in the 1990s even as Clinton raised taxes, he's right. But to the extent that he's suggesting raising taxes created job growth -- as he appears to be when he says "we should go with what works," he goes too far. [PolitiFact, 7/6/11, emphasis added]
CBPP: "Job Creation And Economic Growth Were Significantly Stronger In the Recovery Following The Clinton Tax Increase Than They Were Following The 2001 Bush Tax Cut." In a May 13 post on CBPP's blog Off the Charts, economist Chad Stone wrote:
[Speaker Boehner] also repeats the Republican shibboleth that raising taxes is the enemy of growth. That's what they said in 1993 when President Clinton and a Democratic Congress -- with no Republican votes -- enacted a tax increase on top earners. As the chart shows, job creation and economic growth were significantly stronger in the recovery following the Clinton tax increase than they were following the 2001 Bush tax cut. And the Clinton policies produced a balanced budget.
Stone's post included the following chart:
[Off the Charts, CBPP, 5/13/11, emphasis original]
Former Reagan Adviser Slemrod: "It's Just Hard To Say That [Higher Marginal Taxes Are] The Kiss Of Death For Economic Growth." A June 2 Bloomberg article quoted Joel Slemrod, who served as senior staff economist for President Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, on the effect raising taxes has on the economy. From the article:
Economic growth also is affected by elements other than taxes, including interest-rate policy, the price of oil and other commodities, and the business cycle itself.
"High GDP countries are high tax countries," said Joel Slemrod, an economist at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business. "That doesn't mean high taxes cause the high GDP."
[...]
Slemrod, who served as senior staff economist for President Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, said raising taxes today would be risky because the economy remains fragile. But given the economy's performance in the 1990s, returning marginal rates to their Clinton-era levels in 2013, as Obama proposes, wouldn't be, he said.
"It's just hard to say that's the kiss of death for economic growth," Slemrod said. [Bloomberg, 6/2/11]
CBPP: "Under The Clinton Administration ... Small Businesses Generated Jobs At Twice The Rate As Under The Bush Tax Code." A March 26, 2009, CBPP report noted that "under the Clinton Administration, when the tax treatment of high-income families was very similar to what President Obama has proposed [ending Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000], small businesses generated jobs at twice the rate as under the Bush tax code":
Critics have claimed that President Obama's proposal to roll back tax cuts for families with incomes above $250,000 would kill job growth in the small business sector. But under the Clinton Administration, when the tax treatment of high-income families was very similar to what President Obama has proposed, small businesses generated jobs at twice the rate as under the Bush tax code.
Thus, the last two decades provide a useful test of the argument that the President's proposed tax changes would badly damage small business job creation. Small business employment rose by an average of 2.3 percent (756,000 jobs) per year during the Clinton years, when tax rates for high-income filers were set at very similar levels to those that would be reinstated under President Obama's budget. But during the Bush years, when the rates were lower, employment rose by just 1.0 percent (367,000 jobs). (See Figure 1.)
The post also included this graphic:
[CBPP, 3/26/09]
Teach THINKING not ideology or rote.
Teach THINKING not ideology or rote.
For example, you pay a local income tax in major metropolitan areas like New York City. You also get subways, world class museums, police and fire protection for a much higher population density, infrastructure and road maintenance with a higher volume of people and vehicles, and the list goes on and on.
It all boils down to Bill wanting to live and work in a world class city, but not wanting to pay for it. Who will pay for it, Bill?
Then he talks about consumption taxes. Be careful Mister O'reilly, those are the most regressive and burdensome to the poor. We wouldn't want to cut the poor a break when you can make up excuses for why the wealthy elite "job creators" need to pay less taxes so they can sit on piles of capital and transfer American jobs overseas.
But wait, as you have done previously while masquerading around here under all your banned screen names, you like to order people around and tell them who they should or should not respond to - you know, your laughable hall monitor antics? And you have now started telling people to ignore jamesB, yet you incite a conversation with him, post #1. That is not only slightly curious, but ignoring your own demands. So it's ok for you to engage him, but nobody else? Are those your "rules" now?
A leopard never changes her spots.
And repeated dishonest arguments should be highlighted and stopped in their tracks. I didn't "incite a conversation" with him/you. I called out his/your dishonest argument and pointed out that it's the same argument that O'Reilly is making. "right ON/jamesB/westla" can't defend that dishonest comment, and so I clearly wasn't inviting a debate with him!
And the only "people"/screen names who object to having you/him called out for that behavior are his sockpuppets, since others appreciate the info and he won't reply to my posts. But you, as one of the multiple screen names that he uses, will 'defend' him/you.
jonimacaroni1, I really don't think it's wise to conclude from an absence of replies that people support what you've written.
And in this case specifically, am I to understand that jonimacaroni1 is accusing this westla, the one who's been posting here since at least February of 2009 according to Google, of being the same person as jamesB, and right ON? That's rather remarkable, isn't it? Is there some evidence to support this allegation?
And then this same behavior gets repeated by the new screen names that he's brought here.
Oh, and just because a screen name shows that it's posted here for a while doesn't mean that the screen name has posted here for that long - you can change your screen name, and so you can post as one person, then when that one screen name loses all credibility, you can simply change your screen name. That's what the human being behind all these screen names did with the original "right ON". If you look for his posts, you'll see all of them under "southerngal". Sometimes the post will say "southerngal", but the replies will reference "right ON" because that's the original screen name that posted those posts.
And yeah, I've repeatedly provided those links showing that too, and I'm not going to do it again.
All that acting as though there can't possibly be evidence of this when I've provided it repeatedly does is facilitate the efforts of the troll poster. Good job.
Then you won't be surprised that I'm not satisfied by your claims that the conclusive proof has been posted but cannot be repeated.
By refusing what?
I'm aware that when someone can change a screen name, the name is retroactively changed on all previous comments that have been made by that account. Do you have any reason to believe that the person now posting as westla isn't the same person whose comments in 2009 are listed under the name westla?
Thanks. I see that all the conclusive proof that you've collected and shared once but refuse to find has done worlds of good stopping "the troll poster."
Here's three links to proof that "right ON" was using "southernlady" and "southerngal" in an effort to pretend that I was using multiple screen names at the same time.
Here's one where "eLeetist's" posts are now showing up under "right ON's" name - that's because they're the same human being using multiple screen names - like I said above. If you read the posts, posters are talking about "eLeetist", but somehow there aren't any posts by "eLeetist" in the thread - only "right ON".
Here's what the post looks like now.
See that? "right ON" is claiming that he's not "RO(right ON)". Huh? Well, it's because the poster who was calling himself "eLeetist" changed his screen name back to "right ON" at some point in time, and so all the posts that used to belong to "eLeetist" now say that they belong to "right ON".
So, that's two screen names that I've proven belong to "right ON/tommy" - "eLeetist" and "southernlady".
Here's where he outed himself as "CenterRight".
Do the rest of the research yourself. The problem is not that I have refused to find it. It's that it's a pain to try to do a search for it when I've already provided it time after time after time before! I have provided conclusive proof of everything I've claimed.
"right ON/jamesB" won't reply to me. But he can't resist replying to me at times, and so he pulls out these other screen names, people who magically appear, out of the blue, to interject when I make a point he wants to reply to but can't.
I've explained this countless times. I'm right. There's a clear pattern by the human being behind "right ON" and all the other screen names, including "westla".
You're the one who said that I thought that from an absence of objections, I believed something. You were wrong, and I pointed that out to you, yet you failed to acknowledge your error.
And above, I give you incontrovertible evidence of the dishonest usage of multiple screen names, and all you can do is harp on one?
You don't deserve any more attention from me on this topic. I've done as much research for you for links I've provided many times in the past that I'm going to do.It's your turn to stop being a jerk here.
That's not true. I acknowledged my mistake directly to you and apologized.
Yes, jonimacaroni1, because your accusation in this thread was against "jamesB/right ON/westla" in response to a post "by westla". The search that I had done showed that "westla" had been posting since 2009, and that most of those early posts had been well received.
Thank you for posting links. I would reply to you about them, but since you've declared that I "don't deserve any more attention from" you "on this topic", there wouldn't be much point.
For the record, I really don't think I've been impolite or unreasonable, jonimacaron1. I certainly made a mistake, but I did acknowledge it and I did apologize.
Indeed, you weren't impolite or unreasonable. And frankly, the endless posts about who's using multiple names is really boring.
That, and I wanted to raise my voice in objection to these games of accusation and suspicion, which bore me to death, too.
I haven't done that. I provided plenty of evidence for you that I'm not, in fact, doing that, and you still accuse me of it?
I identified "eLeetist" as a sockpuppet of "right ON" well before he actually outed himslf as being "right ON". I figured out that "southernlady" was "right ON" after her first post. I identified "slooop" as being one of "right ON's" multiple screen names with "slooop's" first post.
There's a clear pattern that has been followed, and multiple screen names have taken on these roles. Recognizing that pattern and calling it out for all to seee has significant value.
It's not a "witch hunt" and never has been. If you don't understand how someone's lack of credibility is relevant, then you need to figure that out. There's been no unfair persecution of an imaginary enemy going on here. Screen names who appear only to bolster other screen names, when all of the screen names are controlled by one human being, is a real problem, not an imaginary one.
If what you're doing is fair, then please explain to me what evidence I could provide to defend myself from a charge of using multiple identities concurrently.
Furthermore, the kind of evidence that you've called "incontrovertible" seems quite dubious to me, for reasons that I'd be happy to explain... if you're actually willing to listen. But again, but since you've declared that I "don't deserve any more attention from" you "on this topic", there wouldn't be much point. I have no reason to believe that you won't resort to calling me a jerk when I disagree with you and ask for evidence to support the specific charges you leveled in this thread, no matter how politely.
I don't make the accusations lightly. I did research, a lot of it, and I've posted links, yet even after I posted quite a few, and told you that I'd done a lot more, and that YOU could find the info if YOU really wanted it, you demanded that I provide you with the info - info, like I said, that I've provided countless times before!
That's unreasonable on your part. That's the issue I have. That's the behavior you should be looking at.
My accusation on this thread was about serial dishonesty by a human being. In fact, if you'll reread my first post, I don't mention "westla" at all, do I? Nope. And so your assertion that I had to talk about "westla" is ridiculous. The human being behind all these screen names has used many of them, in the past, to get around the assertion by a few of them that he won't reply to me - "westla" was an incidental part in this thread - it's the screen name he logged into in this particular place.
I have a history here of providing links. I have a history here of making good analogies, of nailing dishonest people to the wall, and so, when I said that I'd provided links in the past, you had no reason to disbelieve me, and if you were really interested in seeing the evidence, you could have done the searches yourself. There's no reason to continually clog up these threads with the evidence and links over and over again. But you insisted, so I did. It was unreasonable of you to insist upon that.
vysotsky was more than respectful and reasonable with you, yet you call him a jerk. You have managed to do what DellDolly and all your incarnations before her did, muddy up a thread to set sail on your screen name journey.
Once again, you are completely responsible for transforming yourself from a smart poster with strong liberal arguments into a paranoid pathetic silly girl.
Haven't you learned your lesson? If not, start searching for a new screen name, you'll need it jonimacaroni - you've managed to drop yourself in boiling water and are about to be cooked, again.
I didn't muddy up this thread. You did with your baseless assertion that I was "inciting a conversation" with him. First off, that screen name won't reply to me - the human being behind that screen name will, as evidenced by your reply to me, but you won't reply to me using "jamesB/right ON/tommy." Secondly, pointing out that this posting by Media Matters is a recycling of the argument we've seen before, and citing the person who's made that bogus argument before? There isn't anything wrong with that.
And your concern trolling about how I'm hurting myself. Shove it where the sun don't shine, because that's the appropriate place for the value of that contribution.
jonimacaroni1, why would I want to present my doubts about your "incontrovertible" "evidence" when you've already made up your mind that it's incontrovertible?
I disagree with you. That's not being a jerk.
You accused westla of being a sock puppet for someone else. You replied with links about other account names. I asked you specifically about westla and you called me a jerk. You suggested that I somehow should be responsible for searching for evidence to support your conclusions. And you said that I wasn't worth further discussion.
I don't see the point in contesting anything with someone who refuses to even discuss the matter with me.
I hope you and yours are having a lovely weekend,
Best,
-vysotsky
I hope you and yours have a good weekend.
Best,
-Vysotsky
How about frivolously? Seriously, who gives a (s)hit if some moron thinks it's clever to post under several names?
"I did research, a lot of it, and I've posted links,..."
Perhaps you need a hobby.
"My accusation on this thread was about serial dishonesty by a human being."
ON A DOPEY (F)UCKING WEBSITE! Jesus, how about some perspective? F'rinstance, how about the serial dishonesty of the multimillionaire cretin at the top of this page? remember him?
"The human being behind all these screen names has used many of them, in the past, to get around the assertion by a few of them that he won't reply to me - "
Well, that's egregious! I think the death penalty applies here.
"jamesB/right ON/tommy/JamesBond/westla/etc/etc" has, and you know this, and so the hypocrite here is you.
Of course most don't call you out on it, with the exception of thoughtful posters like bintx and vysotsky, because many agree with most of the arguments you make, including me - so you get a pass, but not out of some grateful appreciation. Many of your posts are filled with informative intelligent points, but when you go off on sleuthing and sniffing-out of your who's who identity nonsense, you lose credibility. Mainly because you are the biggest offender of duplicate or multiple identities, own it.
Stick to your arguments and lay off the minor league detective work.
And she can go right ahead and give some thumbs-down to me as well; I'll wear them as a badge of honor.
I've never posted using multiple screen names at the same time, nor logged in and out again using multiple screen names to uprate or give the thumbs down to anyone.
Not only do most not call me out on it, but most appreciate it, and most everyone hates your behavior of using multiple screen names, so your whining here about how abused you are and your concern trolling are noted and ridiculed as they provide no value.
I have never posted with multiple screen names at the same time.
You, on the other hand, tried to pretend that I was using multiple screen names at the same time when you posted as "southernlady"! Remember, you got caught - you outed yourself as "right ON" posting as "southernlady" when you forgot to log out and log back in again!
You're the one who tried to make it appear like I was doing the thing that's the problematic behavior that you yourself had been caught at - and you did that because you know that it's problematic behavior.
You can't fool anyone with your dishonesty.
I ask because this is one of the terms of use for this forum:
If nothing else maybe she will stop her phony charade and her hypocritical crusade, time will tell.
Thanks vysotsky.
The issue is also extremely simple,clear-cut and VALID. and it's hardly the only points joni makes. I'm glad she keeps nailing the multi-named trolls.
And you don't find that hypocritical? It surely is. You may not have a problem with it, but I would imagine the moderators here do, and they should.
Unless you don't think her previous identities have been banned? Which would make no sense as to why she would create a new one.
She is violating the terms of use on this website, she should refrain from posting.
Your conclusion is absurd. Again, lousy attempt at parsing.
Quite some time ago Dell Dolly posted on Nice Guy Eddie's In My Humble Opinion web site. That she had gone back to work for her old employer Dell and they told her she could not use that name on blogs and that she would be changing her name on MMFA.
I wonder why she didn't just change her name? She set up a whole new account with a new identity. All the old Dell Dolly posts are still on this web site. When you simply change your name all your old posts are change to the new name as well.
If the person posting as "jonimacaroni1" has been banned and created a new account to get around that ban, then yes, that person most certainly is in violation of the terms to which everyone else here has agreed as a condition of participating in this forum:
Just out of curiosity, why did you change your name? This isn't a trick question, I assure you. I'd just like some insight into why one would change names on a discussion forum that's already anonymous. Did you create an entirely new account or did you just change screen names? I've had reason to consider doing either, so I'm kind of perplexed about what would motivate such action.
PS it's taken so long to respond because I was traveling and unable to return to the computer after the short time I spent on it the other day until I got home.
If one just changes their screen name then why deny it, you didn't. However, if one gets banned, then the denial makes perfect sense.
No "huge" IF at all.
I don't think jonimacaroni1 has ever actually denied that, at least not to my knowledge. jonimacaroni1 has simply denied using two different names actively at the same time.
This is why I asked jonimacaroni1 directly about whether and why s/he might have used a different name previously. It wasn't an accusation and obviously I would have no way of confirming or refuting the answer to that question with certainty. I was just asking.
How dare I do such a thing, right?
But you are right, none of this is provable so at best it's educated conjecture. And nobody would care except that she appoints herself the pit bull for website violations while she clearly spits directly in the face of them. So she is responsible for the scrutiny and she has earned the charge of hypocrisy.
And No, don't ever challenge her, that was your first mistake. :-)
And you're "right ON/pongotwhistleton/jamesB/JamesBond/CenterRight/eLeetist/southernlady/southerngal/etc/etc."
I'm not disrespecting the other posters at this site like you are by using multiple screen names in a dishonest way.
I have absolutely no way of confirming or refuting any answer you give me, so this is simply a matter of your good word.
Thanks for your understanding,
-Vysotsky
I just found it odd that she would set up a new account with a new identity and not just simply change her name on her old account.
It's a bit difficult for me to tell which people you had in mind in this comment, but I hope you're not including me in "they". I've never claimed that DellDolly was banned. I've only asked if the person now posting under the name "jonimacaroni1" previously used a different account here, and whether any account on this forum that's ever been used by that person was ever blocked or banned.
I was curious to why "they" claim "DellDolly" was banned. What would have gotten her banned?
For the reasons I stated in my first (the double) post above, I do believe DellDolly did set up a new account and identity, which I find odd. Why didn't she just simply change her name, if changing her name was necessary?
I don't like accusing posters of being sockpuppets of another poster. As it is impossible for the accused to prove that they are not that poster. And many posters have similar writing styles or adapt similar writing styles.
by jonimacaroni1 (March 17, 2011 12:18 pm ET)
I have no idea who "DellDolly" is - doing some research, she/he appear to be a former poster.
I disagree. And for the horrible crime of suggesting that when an accusation of identity-spoofing is leveled against someone in this thread, perhaps the accuser should have the burden of presenting evidence to support the accusation here, jonimacaroni1 calls me a jerk and declares me unworthy of further conversation.
Here's my concern. I've been posting here for years, and this is the only name I've ever used. I've never been banned, I've never logged in under any other name, and I've never changed my name. But I can't prove that. There's absolutely no evidence I could point to that would persuade jonimacaroni1 that I'm the same person who has posted here under this name since 2006 if jonimacaroni1 became convinced otherwise. If jonimacaroni1 detects some correlation between comments under this name and comments under another's and decides that it must be the work of the same person, how exactly can I defend myself from this charge conclusively? When an accusation is not subject to falsification, you're dealing with a witch-hunt.
This is an anonymous forum. And one of the virtues of an anonymous forum is that attention should, ideally, be drawn away from the identity of the commentator and towards the quality and substance of the comments. Accusing people -- even those who may be guilty -- of using multiple identities brings attention back to the commentator and away from the arguments.
And if jonimacaroni1 has violated the rules of this forum -- the rules by which I've abided in good faith -- then yes, I do take issue with his or her sanctimoniously policing the identities of every other commentator.
Of course, I have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not jonimacaroni1 has ever posted here under another name or was banned. And even if jonimacaroni1 claimed to have been banned previously, I have no way of confirming this. So I have neither the capability nor the responsibility of policing another commentator's identity. Just like jonimacaroni1 and everyone else here.
And, as I said quite explicitly in the comment to which you replied, even if jonimacaroni1 claimed to have been banned, I would have no way of confirming this.
But look at you, demanding that I prove that I haven't changed names without being banned... in response to the very comment in which I argue that there's no way I could possibly defend myself against that charge.
I repeat: When an accusation cannot be falsified, you're dealing with a witch-hunt.
You were a jerk. You had no reason to doubt me. First, I have a history of honest posting. Secondly, many others support my accusations, and have been previously convinced by the proof I've provided. Third, had you just made a few attempts at searches, you could have found the info out for yourself. So stop whining about being called a jerk. You were.
And your strawman argument, that I'm lodging accusations willy-nilly, also doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There are clear patterns of behavior, how people post, etc, and you don't follow that pattern at all.
For example, "eLeetist" did what you did above - complain about my post calling out "right ON/et al" but didn't post in other places, and didn't suddenly appear out of nowhere to go after me. And later, we find out that my accusations that "eLeetist" was truly "right ON" in disguise was proven right. As was my accusation that "southernlady" was "right ON" and that several others were one human being with multiple screen names.
I don't overreact when I see someone disagree with me or my methods and assume they're a sockpuppet. Could you be a lurker troll? Sure - anyone can be - but there's nowhere near enough evidence to make that guess, and there's a lot of evidence that you're not one.
And so you're again a jerk for assuming that I make my claims based upon flimsy evidence!
Part of the "quality" of the comment is its credibility. And the credibility of the comment is what I'm drawing attention to. At times, the way to question the credibility of the comment is to highlight who's making the comment. Bringing up their lack of credibility goes directly to the quality of the comment and the respect and attention it should receive.
If you don't want to do the work to identify trolls and human beings who use multiple screen names, no one is demanding that you do so, but claiming that it's not possible to accomplish that goal is not accurate. I have done it, and will continue to do it.
With respect, jonimacaroni1, I had every reason to doubt you. I asked why you thought westla was a sockpuppet for someone else and you provided links that never mentioned westla. I asked you for evidence specifically relating to westla and you called me a jerk and then said I wasn't worth further discussion.
I genuinely do believe that an accuser is responsible for supporting an accusation with evidence. Every time. I dont find your evidence incontrovertible, jonimacaroni1, but you've said that it is, that's it's incontrovertible, that it cannot be controverted. There's no use in my disputing something with you that you've already decided cannot be disputed.
Is there any evidence that anyone could possibly present that would convince you that you've falsely identified a screen name here as a sock puppet or someone's multiple identity?
I ask in case someone falsely accuses me. I'd really like to know how I'd go about proving to another anonymous user that I'm only using one account on an anonymous discussion forum.
And the issue is the what the human being behind all the screen names I've cited - their dishonesty. They unfairly try to bolster their credibility by replying to posts as though they are multiple human beings behind these posts who support one another. They enable one another to derail threads. They pretend that the human being behind the screen name is above the fray, when that same human being gets down and dirty with a different screen name.
That's the issue here. And the one human being who is using multiple screen names at the same time in all these dishonest ways is trying to distract from his sin by making false allegations.
And be sure to not forget that this same human being was definitively outed by himself as creating and using "southernlady." And that was the poster who would stalk my posts and agree with me - the poster had a freakin' brown nose, for cripes sake! But it was "right ON" who was behind that poster. He was trying to pretend that I, one human being, was using multiple screen names at the same time, just like that other human being had been caught doing!
If you let this proven dishonest poster lead you by the nose anyplace, you're messing up.
How is accusing people of using multiple accounts working out for you?
So, there goes your strawman argument.
It does stink that they all behaved that way, I agree.
If anyone takes that name from me and starts using it now, I'm going to throw an absolute freaking fit.
Any product sold is profitable by it's DEMAND.
It's profitability is NOT dictated by taxes...
Companies grow because DEMAND dictates production cycles.
Politicians are not profitable.
"We've cut taxes and cut taxes for over a decade now in pursuit of your claim. So where is the job growth?"
The Bush years saw the worst job growth record in decades. Obama has continued to cut taxes. We have the lowest rates of taxation in half a century. Businesses are sitting on more cash than ever before and in many notable cases paying ZERO U.S. taxes.
WHERE ARE THE F....ING JOBS????!!!!!
And given the fact that the facts clearly do NOT support the claims that more tax cuts will produce more jobs, why are we now talking about $1.4 to $4 trillion MORE tax cuts via the Super Committee? Kent Conrad needs to be locked up in an isolation cell.
Independent voters understand that tax rates (especially income tax) rates are at historic LOWS. We have been continually cutting taxes since the Nixon administration but have very little to show for it economically. We cut taxes even further during the George W. Bush years and ended the decade with the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.
Why is it that economic growth was much stronger during the Eisenhower years when income tax rates were upwards of 80%?? Why is it that slashing taxes never seems to "trickle down"?? Wages along with economic growth are at historic LOWS as well... Where is the evidence that cutting taxes is the best way to produce economic growth???
I can't believe you just asked that. Are you serious?
Have you not been watching Fox News? They have business leaders, Republican congresspeople, and "scientists" on nearly every day to tell us that cutting taxes is the answer. What more evidence do you need? Fox News told you it works. Now, who are you going to believe, Fox News or your lying database of millions of historical records?
Man, some people just can't be pleased....
Get with it people!!
You cant see anything. You are too brainwashed and stupid to even recognize reality. You are also a LIAR. You rightwignuts seem to realy exclusivly on telling constant lies lately. GOD but you are pathetic.
You punks have lost the popular vote in four out of the last five presidential elections. Your wishful fantasies are nothing short of hiliarious.
Buhs's policies caused this economic disaster and that is plain to anyone with a brain. This sadly leaves you out. You are stupid. You have no brain. You have only a tape recorder to remind you what Rush told you to think.
It is so sad to watch a moron like you regurgitate stupid talking points with no intellectual capacity whatsoever to understand how he is being used, spewing lies he is too stupid to understand. After the S&L scandal, the current economic crisis, the Gulf oil spill, you are STILL so stupid you whine about regulations. How pathetic and ignorant do you WANT to be anyway?
Do the human race a favor. Dont wait. Just in CASE your level of abject stupidity is contagious
"Oh, you know, all of them..." - Sarah Palin
We've been trending towards lower effective tax rates for a couple of decades, and so anyone who carps about how high taxes are right now is being 100% dishonest or they don't know what they're talking about.
And these are percentages, so growth won't have any effect!
..
The next day they claim 51% of Americans pay no taxes at all.
And their viewers don't even register a blip.
Well, the fact is that the middle class and below have already been "contributing" by having their wages stagnant for the past 20-30 years! The idea that they need to be bled more in order for them to show that they're going to sacrifice too is obscene - absolutely obscene. There's already plenty of evidence that they've already sacrificed - like the fact that our poverty level reached levels it hadn't it in almost 20 years!
This was the first piece of info that Media Matters provided - which shows us that you didn't even bother to read that far before commenting.
You have no credibility, even when you say something reasonable. You have to disavow the usage of multiple screen names in order to regain credibility. Then you'd have to stop the word parsing, the false equivalency arguments, and the repeated efforts to derail threads.
NYC has always had multiple extra taxes they charge residents and people who work in the city. O'Reilly fearmongering about those extra taxes that most people in America don't pay is dishonest on his part.
You are so stupid. It is plainly sad how stupid you are. Obamas first deficit was LOWER than Bushs last and MOST of the new spending is trying to get out of the economic crater Bush left us in. I could explain why that is necessary but I have done that a dozen times and you are too stupid to understand it anyway. You are like a crackwhore except without the dignity or self respect
Is it possible that someone, an actual adult, is ignorant enough to continue to trumpet supply-side Economics while asking other people for evidence that their economics ideas will work? WOW. That is a special kind of ignorant.
How the heck can you spend this much money, poor 20 billion down a rat hole on green energy jobs that didn't happen and claim you have reduced the deficit? This is the site of the mentally ill.
I am sorry that you are so STUPID. Too stupid apparantly to know the difference between the deficit and the debt. It is a plain undeniable FACT that Bush's last deficit was HIGHER than Obamas first. The fact you are stupid, brainwashed and refuse to ACCEPT reality doesnt mean reality changes.
Bush actually added FIVE trillion to the debt. It was 5.7 when he took office and 10.7 when he left.f YOU are the one lying. You lie constantly. You may be too stupid to know you are regurgitaing lies since you just spew what you were told to think but you are sill lying. What is sad is that you are so STUPID you dont know what is a lie.
Obamas first deficit was 120 billion dollars less than Bushs last.
You are a LIAR. The US exported almost 2 BILLION in green tech last year. My GOD but you are stupid
That $2 trillion on hand isn't enough for them to create jobs yet? Obama's plan called their bluff by giving tax incentives for hiring. The "job creators" just want to hoard the money.
What is strangling the economy is a lack of demand for goods and services. The private sector seems paralyzed by a lack of confidence and the public by a lack of political will.
Keynes is not that complicated (even with my HS education): By investing in gov't works projects, and giving money to the poor & unemployed - who spend every penny they get ahold of - priming the pump, to create/enhance demand - businesses will take in more money and need more help to meet their higher workload. They will then hire, putting more money in these workers' pockets to spend on other goods, making other businesses' demand to increase, so they hire more, and so on. It's an upward spiral.
Keynes also works in reverse: Businesses fear a drop in demand, so they ley off workers, which decreases demand - maybe not on their own business, but on someone's. This decreased demand causes more businesses to lay off workers, thus further decreasing demand, and needing more layoffs to cope with even lower levels of demand... This is a downward spiral.
No business wants to hire ahead of demand - bad for profits - in order to prime the pump. So, it falls to government to create the demand, since gov't doesn't have the profit motive pressure.
Supply side says that if you give massive tax cuts to the wealthy and big business, they will - out of the goodness of their hearts - hire people and up demand by spending. The trouble with this philosophy (actually it's an ideology - unaffected by facts) is that the wealthy don't have the pent-up demand for goods & services that just needs money to cause spending. They already have all the money they need to buy all they want - that's what wealthy means - so they just bank/invest the extra money. So, NO GROWTH!
Is it THAT hard to understand? Are these GOP voters that stupid, or do they think they're going to be made rich by the tax cuts their candidates promise?
I can see BillO (and Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity) with 8-figure income will do MUCH better under the SS plan, but everyone else - up to mid-6-figures - does better when Keynesian policies are applied.
..
This never comes up when the usual Congressional Troglodyte Handpuppets appear on the "News" Networks and propose more tax cuts as the only way to create jobs. The so-called "journalists" on these shows just sit there and nod, drooling on their microphones.
So many arrows in liberal quiver yet most right-wing talking points go unchallenged...
- Income tax rates at historic lows
- Loopholes keep business tax rates effectively low
- Corporate profits are at historic highs
- Deregulation of Wall Street and financial industry
- Welfare rolls at historic lows
- Poverty levels at historic highs
- Globalization moving industrial base overseas
And the list goes on...
So, even if (when) they know the Pubbies are lying, THEY will benefit from fat high-end tax cuts. Witness GWB's 2000 campaign: He was running at the middle (or lower) of the pack, until he revealed his massive tax-cut plan - weighted as it was toward the rich. The media's group swoon was remarkable, vaulting Bush to the front of the pack, never to be deposed.
Even the denizens of the so-called liberal media were cought up in this effect. Witness David Gregory: having just landed in Russert's big chair on MtP - with the 8-figure salary to match - would badger every Obama official he interviewed. Starting just after the '08 election, he'd pepper them with the GOP platitudes "you can't eaise taxes on ANYBODY during an economic downturn!" and variations thereof. He'd spend at least half of the "interview" arguing for even lower taxes on multi-millionaires, with Gregory practically BEGGING by the end of the segment!
..
See the problem is you are stupid and brainwashed. You are a Randinista who thinks the talking points you were programmed with are DOGMA given you by GOD. No matter WHAT happens you want to talk about the crushing regulations that exist mostly in your head and are what FOX is telling you to think.
Nah, the EPA isnt helping, who wants clean air, clean water, what is wrong with toxic waste dumps being paved over and turned into housing projects?
You spew the stupid like the good little propaganda parrot you are. Too bad actual higher brain function is FAR beyond your wildest dreams
I know you are stupid. I know that you never know what you are talking about. You have no brain. You regurgitate what you were told to think and project your pathetic ways on to the liberals here. You know you are stupid. How could you not?
You are in fact so STUPID you think you are listening to GOD when you are being brainwashed with this Randinista idiocy.
I am not a huge Obama fan. You are a liar but this is how pathetic you are. Rush told you to think us lefties are all entrance by Obama when we give him lots of grief. Just not about STUPID lies like you do.
YOu are ignorant. You will never understand anything because you simply do not have the intellectual capacity and you never will have. That is your sad fate. Stupid brainwashed and disgustingly ignorant is how you will go through life.
Paperwork is keeping companies from hiring?
Businesses are wanting to expand but, instead, have decided to sit on record amounts of cash why? Paperwork and crushing regulations? Which regulations do you use to convince yourself of such nonsense? It is almost impossible for someone to be this ignorant about basic business and brag about it.
See this is how stupid you are. This is how brainwashed you are. You have no examples. You have no idea what regulations you mean. You are just spewing out what you were told to think and they didnt TELL you which regulations to spew about, you are far too stupid to thing for yourself so you just dance this pathetic dance.
You dont KNOW. You are a propaganda parrot.
You are too stupid to educate anybody and it is OBVIOUS to everyone here you have no idea what you are talking aobut. You are stupid kidney, you are brainwashed and patehtic and that is all there is to it.
Before I'm accused of being a binary thinker, it's MMFA pushing the narrative that higher taxes are good for the economy in this article.
My but you are stupid.
The "narrative" mmfa is push is that contrary to o'loofa, taxes are historically low.
You are a liar. Your strawman argument stupidity is dishonest and stupid. Like you. You are trollscum. No interest in discourse. You think you are clever and you want to annoy us. Too bad for you that you are so STUPID all you can elicit is pity
THIS
Is a strawman argument as NO ONE is specifically making this argument today and it is a LIE because MMFA is NOT making it as he said they were.
Adult education, look into it
Oh, but we're supposed to think that it's simply coincidence.
You're talking about two different animals. Keeping the payroll tax low can stimulate consumer activity, since the people who will benefit most from it are more likely to spend it. Millionaires don't even notice the payroll tax, since it barely touches their income.
However, despite what the Troglodytes insist, there is no evidence that lowering income taxes for Billionaires will spur job creation.
In order to prevent that from happening, you are going to need to cite the paragraphs from which you derived that:
"MMFA pushing the narrative that higher taxes are good for the economy in this article"
Pointing out that taxes are not strangling the economy and that taxes are at historical lows is not the same as claiming that higher taxes are good for the economy. If you understood basic logic, you would know that. So you are a binary thinker.
When taxes on the wealthy are higher, they are more likely to re-invest their profits in their businesses - to grow them and hire more workers - than to take large salaries.
I read that somehwere, might have been Krugman...
Judith H. Christ. Would it kill this character to speak in complete sentences? Of the nine sentences in that paragraph, six do not contain a verb. His staccato phrasing is almost as grating as Paul Harvey's was.
He was raised on Long Island and his father was an oil company executive. He has one sibling.
Bill and I are the same age. No one in my extremely large Irish Catholic family, where our fathers were hourly workers and our parents and aunts and uncles averaged 6 children each, would describe our beginnings as humble.
He claims that his father made $35,000 a year which today would be adjusted for inflation to at least $100,000 per year.
So Bill comes from humble beginnings, has been in combat and is an Independent politically?
I'd like to see him go into my old neighborhood and make any of those claims.
Taxes in New York are determined by the POTUS?
Yes it is purely brainwashed. You are a LIAR. In Dagget California Edison has run a solar powered generating plant for DECADES and it is profitable. I have friends who have worked there since the 70's Once a solar panel is made it pays for itself many times over
As usual you are far too stupid to know what you are talking about and just repeating what you were TOLD to think. What part of whe EXPORTED about 2 BILLION in solar last year are you just too STUPID to understand?
You are responding to someone so much smarter than you will ever be that you are just too stupid to understand him. That is what you virtually always do. Respond with the talking points you were brainwashed with and are too stupid to understand to people much smarter than you will ever be which constitutes virtually the entire human race
Yes it is purely brainwashed. You are a LIAR. In Dagget California Edison has run a solar powered generating plant for DECADES and it is profitable. I have friends who have worked there since the 70's Once a solar panel is made it pays for itself many times over
As usual you are far too stupid to know what you are talking about and just repeating what you were TOLD to think. What part of whe EXPORTED about 2 BILLION in solar last year are you just too STUPID to understand?
You are responding to someone so much smarter than you will ever be that you are just too stupid to understand him. That is what you virtually always do. Respond with the talking points you were brainwashed with and are too stupid to understand to people much smarter than you will ever be which constitutes virtually the entire human race
The C. in C. is getting us out of Iraq. Why did your man crush George W. Bush take us there in the first place?
How is that company doing today?
Anything posted by you, Tommy, can be dismissed right away as intellectually dishonest and therefore can be quite easily dismissed. Your economic knowledge has proven time and again to be lacking.
Dismissed.
Someone pulled james the brainwashed Randinistas string and we got the chatty Kathy talking points he was told to think. SSSKKKWWWAAKKKK higher taxes SSSSKKKWWWWAAKKKKKK regulation SSSSKKKWWWWAAKKKK. Its stupid, its been debunked, its utterly moronic but hey a propaganda parrots gotta skwwaakk out what he was told to think. It isnt like he has a brain of his own
Of COURSE you dont. You ONLY believe what you were TOLD to believe by the Randinista screechmonkeys that do your thinking for you. DESPITE demonstrable facts to prove how utterly uninformed you are. The Government financed rural electrification. That gave a demand for a LOT of products when the work was done to satisfy that demand TONS of wealth was created. The Government CREATED the internet. How much wealth was created by THAT? Facts mean nothing to you because you are brainwashed and think the Randininsta ideology that you were programmed with is DOGMA given you by GOD
You may believe that, but there is absolutely no proof that this belief is true. When Americans paid higher taxes, America had a better economy. You seem to think that stating talking points constitutes an argument.
Whatsamatta, BO, all that money you had to cough up to Andrea Mackris wasn't deductible?
Boo-fckin'-hoo, Billy.
EduMacate Us all pLease....
Please I beg you...
VOID "faux spews"
America.
These idiots have no shame.
The fact that Obama is still going down this path so blindly, even though his Stimulus 1 was a miserable failure - suggests to me that Obama has no clue what to do.
I think right now he is just spreading the wealth around his beloved black community
Tell us which networks and / or cable news channels are mostly reporting the "historically low taxes".
John
Typical Randinista. You always have a good reason to give money to wealth and power and corporations but you whine and cry like a crackwhore with a stabwound if ANY money is spent to help your fellow citizens. You are selfish, soulless, and have no decency
You told us that giving home loans to those who couldn’t afford them would make
the American dream achievable for all.
You told us that paying into the Social Security “Trust Fund” would guarantee
a comfortable retirement for everyone.
You told us that allowing teachers to unionize in public schools would help
inner city students reach for the stars.
You told us that the federal government could run a guaranteed, affordable
health care program for seniors forever.
You told us that the new employment paradigm consisted of millions of
“green jobs”.
You told us that their support for immoral and criminal behavior wouldn’t
result in the breakdown of the two-parent family.
You told us that spending trillions on Stimulus programs would heal
a damaged economy.
You told us that raising taxes on corporations and “the rich” would
create more jobs.
You told us that our borders were “as secure as they’ve ever been”.
You told us that intentionally restricting access to our own sources of
energy would reduce dependence on foreign oil.
You told us that spreading unemployment benefits and food stamps
far and wide would help the economy.
You told us that, despite other failed government health care programs,
they could successfully take over the entire medical system.
You told us that their record-breaking borrowing could never result in a
downgrade of the United States’ AAA credit rating.
You told us that “the Constitution doesn’t matter”.
You told us that anyone who opposes their unconstitutional, un-American,
reckless and failed policies are racists.
Well, I’m here to tell you:
Everything You told us was a lie.
Everything You told us was wrong.
Intentionally, diabolically, criminally wrong.
And if we don’t vote out every Democrat politician — at every level of government — in 2012, this beautiful Republic, this magnificent country, this bastion of free enterprise and private property rights, this shining city on a hill… well, it will be finished.
GOD but you are stupid. A plagiarist, a LIAR, a brainwashed moron and stupid beyond hope. You are a lost cause.
You are a LIAR. Sure you cut and pasted that because even something as stupid as that list is far beyond your capabilities.You are a MORON
LIAR no one said it would CURE poverty just emiliorate the suffering of poverty
Liar not one told banks or made banks make loans to those who couldnt afford them
LIAR SS was never meant to be a comfortable pension plan. THAT would be what Europeans have. Before it however half of all seniors died in poverty and now about 10% do
I could go on and on. These are all misrepresentations and outright LIES
You are stupid. You just swallow whatever idiotic lies you are told to think. That is sad.
If brainwashed, retarded, Randinista morons ever take power it will be the end of civilization itself since THAT is what you guys want. You selfish,soulless, black hearted fascists are the most disgusting human beings on the planet
in 2017 to 2019 gas will reach $26./ gallon.. still want to give the oil companys their big tax breaks???
Bill O'Reilly whining about the rich having to pay taxes.
Bill-O is just doing his job, speaking up for all the Scrooge McDucks who don't want to hand over any of their precious wealth to Uncle Sam.
MMFA really needs to expose the identity these McDucks who are funding this clown. (Besides Rupert M. and his media empire)