published Sunday, July 17th, 2011

Credit Scores

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

91
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
blackwater48 said...

SORRY

You're giving republicans way too much credit.

July 17, 2011 at 12:02 a.m.
John_Proctor said...

Another GREAT one, Clay. And yes, this is way too much credit for the Rethuglicans.

July 17, 2011 at 12:48 a.m.

somewhat biased. I feel you're losing your objective touch

July 17, 2011 at 1:02 a.m.
joepulitzer said...

NASHVILLE — The Chattanooga Times Free Press won 23 journalism awards, including five first places, in the 2011 University of Tennessee-Tennessee Press Association State Press Contest...

Best graphics and/or illustrations, fifth place, Clay Bennett, Beck Towery and Laura W. McNutt.

John_Proctor, Bennett finished fifth in Tennessee, which means he barely beat the Cleveland Daily Banner.

July 17, 2011 at 7:34 a.m.
limric said...

Ah Blackwater. Pun intended yes? Not bad, not bad at all.

Republicans hide behind a mask of fiscal responsibility. But act more like Hannibal Lecter.

July 17, 2011 at 7:56 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Bennett just won a big prize in St. Petersburg, the Green Eye Shade award, which is for the southeastern U.S. journalists. Plus, he has won the Pulitzer Prize, joe pulitzer. You had to cherry pick through things to find that little tidbit, joe pulitzer.

Funny cartoon, Clay. The credit score number is way too high for the GOP, should have been 385. Perhaps, you wrote it wrong? Dyslexic, perhaps?

July 17, 2011 at 8:05 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

rebelliousnature said... "somewhat biased. I feel you're losing your objective touch"

Objective touch! Hilarious!

I think this might be the first time Bennett has weighed in on the budget battle. It has been front page news for months but Bennett spends his time with old news or issues on the margin. Why? Maybe he was having a hard time figuring out how to portray the whole thing a GOP problem without looking outrageously biased.

With this cartoon he once again demonstrates his militant bias for the Democrat (int) party.

I would love to know what The Wart gets paid for this third rate work.

July 17, 2011 at 8:26 a.m.
woody said...

There was a country song at one time long ago entitled, or with the line, "...if you can live with it, I can live without it...." To that end..I haven't always had 'a lot' in my life, but I've always been comfortable.

My family has done without at times, but was never denied the necessities..until now. Because now some 'well-meaning' (and again, I use the term loosely) individuals are defying the experts who have been telling them the U.S. is headed toward a possible financial collapse if they continue fighting the effort to raise the debt ceiling.

I'll give them this..I don't know if they are right but, by the same token, they will not admit to any possibility they are wrong..and they are willing to put our country's entire financial credibility and security at risk to prove their point.

That said..if my social security check doesn't arrive next month my wife and I will survive..we always have..it'll be tough..but not nearly as tough as it will be on everyone who allowed this dangerous game of 'one-upmanship' to get as far as it has gotten.

All I can really hope..at this point..is will it really be worth the outcome if..I humbly submit..you are wrong..Woody

July 17, 2011 at 8:39 a.m.
SeaMonkey said...

and what have the deomcrats done to deserve a high credit score?

bennett is vacant......

you can gather more insight from the back of a generic cereal box

you libs like him because he echoes your idealogy....but there's no insight there...nothing

republican party bad-democrat party...a chimp can pump out propaganda like that...

you can toss him in the pile with all the other propagandists over the decades,... you know, like all those forgotten bootlickers who created all that art for the communist chinese, the soviet union and nazi germany.

republican leaning and non-democrats on here have shown they are equal opportunity criticizers, you libs on here, like bennett, are just cheerleaders.

July 17, 2011 at 8:39 a.m.
mymy said...

Federal debt nearing 14.3 trillion and Consumer debt including mortgages 11.5 trillion at the end of the first quarter.

How many people just don't get it and want government to keep spending just like they do? How many think just like the “The Bomb” and are blowing up their own life as government is blowing up this country. What is the average personal credit score? How many understand what that means?

It's past time for everybody to get a grip on personal debt and insist government do the same.

July 17, 2011 at 9:22 a.m.
tderng said...

I wonder how short people feel about being portrayed as a bad risk,or as somehow less worthy than a tall person.The commercial that "inspired" this cartoon should cause boycotts by those less tall than the norm.Maybe demoncrats are for the common man only if he is tall?

July 17, 2011 at 9:25 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Woody - representatives King, Gohmert and Bachmann apparently can't hear your pain. They don't believe that we have a pending debt crisis and they will not vote to increase the debt limit. Yet, they are supporting legislation to prioritize spending after the nation goes into default and social security payments are not on their list. Ironically, they call it the "Promises Act". You paid payroll taxes with the promise that social security would be there for you in retirement. That apparently is one promise that the 3 representatives don't think is worth keeping.

July 17, 2011 at 9:31 a.m.
SeaMonkey said...

good points, mymy.....

i would add that many now feel hopeless and have a what's-the-point attitude because our government, under obama and liberals, has turned a recession into a near depression. they've spent/piled on more debt when the opposite was needed. the 1 trillion dollar stimulus has done nothing...and is obviously packed with pork and corruption. what a pile of crap. alan greenspan came out and said the "stimulus" has done nothing.

obama is using the justice department to once again apply pressure on banks to give loans to high risk "minority" individuals.........i thought we went through this already? purely an attempt by the democrat party to gain votes, economy be damned.

more people are using credit cards now to survive because they've lost their jobs. how many jobs have been lost since obumble head came on the scene?

tim geithner said a few weeks back we need to tax small businesses more in order to get rid of the debt. and there goes more jobs....

obama is allowing the epa to bankrupt coal fire plants...there goes more jobs.

July 17, 2011 at 10:15 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Good one tderng (Mighty Mouse)! You could start an advocacy group for the vertically truncated. You know how we democrats hate the disenfranchised... African-Americans, Indians, Hispanics, women, the poor, gay/lesbian citizens, stray pets, the Earth... Save all these creatures from us!

July 17, 2011 at 10:41 a.m.
fairmon said...

Which of the proposed and possible savings can you not do without:

o Amtrak subsidy 1.5 billion

o National endowment for the arts and humanities 335 million

o Duplicate education programs 1.3 billion

o John C. Stennis Center subsidy 430 million

o Community development fund 4.5 billion

o Federal travel budget at 50% 7.5 billion

o Weatherization programs for states 530 million

o Inter city and high speed rail grants 2.5 billion

o Agency for International development 1.39 billion

o Collect unpaid federal employee taxes to recover 1 billion

All are viewed as critical and important by someone but should we borrow 43 cents of every dollar spent to fund them? There are thousands of other examples for a few million here and a few million there. There are so many no member of congress is aware of all of them. In many cases a current or former member sponsor and got something passed and it just keeps happening year after year. A congree member says if it is not 20 million or more it is not worth the time required to realize the savings. Is government too big and too involved in state and local politics? Cut that program but not mine is the prevailing attitude. We either have to pay more taxes or give up something or a combination thereof. Who thinks congress has the right to obligate future generations that they cannot possibly pay?

July 17, 2011 at 2:24 p.m.
Rufus_T_Firefly said...

For many Republicans, it's an article of faith that lower taxes on the wealthy stimulate job growth. But it is increasingly difficult to find economists who agree.

The economy generated far more net new jobs during the ’90s (approximately 22 million during Clinton’s presidency alone), before the Bush tax cuts, than it has since (approximately zero).

Why didn't extending the Bush tax cuts lead to job creation - as the Republicans said it would?

10 years of Bush Tax cuts and NO JOBS!

Why do Republicans persist in this LIE? Greed?

So the numbers Boehner offers are accurate only with significant adjustments. Overall, we find his statement too flawed to give it a rating higher than FALSE.

"Job Killing Taxes" -Jon Kyl Republican Senator

If reducing taxes on Rich Americans creates JOBS, then where are the JOBS?

http://blog.stanleyyelnats.com/

July 17, 2011 at 2:26 p.m.
timbo said...

First, is a quote form someone on the debt limit. Guess which wild-eyed, tea party, conservative idiot said this: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." This was quote from SENATOR BARACK H. OBAMA, MARCH, 2006 just before he voted against increasing the debt ceiling. I agreed with him then, and I agree with the Republican now. That is called consistency. All you right wing and left wing idiots just don't get it. Your too stupid to see that they just play good cop/bad cop and switch sides on issues however it suits them at the time. Not only that the everything you guys said about Bush was true. The Republicans were no better than the stupid democrats. Both of them are progressives they just want to spend our money on different things. They are both arguing about peanuts. What a bunch of patsies you guys are.

July 17, 2011 at 4:27 p.m.
Rufus_T_Firefly said...

I read some of the comments and it is way too evident that some people read and listen (assuming they read) to entirely too much Rupert.

Rupert got them by the tail..............

July 17, 2011 at 7:08 p.m.
timbo said...

hey firefly. turn off m s n b c and expanding your horizons you might learn something something .

July 17, 2011 at 8:03 p.m.
fairmon said...

Those with higher incomes should pay more taxes and they do but they can pay even more which has nothing to do with businesses investing. Those high paid executives don't put their money in the business they manage they just live real well. Those hedge fund managers paying 15% instead of paying on their profits as normal income are not investors to grow a business, they live the good life. Increasing the tax on the wealthy to 70% will not come close to balancing the budget. So, we all will have to pay more or as the main man calls it participate in a shared sacrifice.

We are getting more than we are paying for. The solution is pretty simple, pay more or get less. What other insurance company would still be in business if they paid out 40% more each year than they had coming in from premiums and fees in medicare terms fees would be the taxes workers and employers are paying. Is medicare really insurance or is it welfare. The short fall is being paid with borrowed money so the short fall must be welfare until premiums and taxes are adjusted to cover the cost.

Medicare and social security are paid by those with incomes and their employer up to a capped amount. The cap protects those with higher incomes and employers. Remove the cap and reduce the medicare deficit significantly. Continue having those with an income over $85,000 per year pay a higher medicare premium. Why is this option not in either parties recommendations? Could it be that their wealthy supporters oppose it. Obama said he would do this when he was campaigning, now he doesn't mention it. If you think one party is good and the other is bad you are naive, they both are compromised so much they can't govern in a way that is truly best for the country.

July 17, 2011 at 8:13 p.m.
fairmon said...

The billions in foreign aid and the billions spent defending and having military in other countries is a political pay off to those with a special interest in our doing that and it gives some in congress exceptional power and control over a huge chunk of the economy. Eisenhower warned the country of just what is happening today. The military industrial complex is out of control.

The latest unverified news tidbit is the $900 million being spent by the state department upgrading and restoring Mosque in the middle east. This begs the question WTF are you doing? We are still trying to buy friends in a world where the majority hate us.

July 17, 2011 at 8:25 p.m.
fairmon said...

Bad credit means you can't get a loan. You need to pay off your debts and establish a good credit rating.

1-You can't borrow yourself into prosperity or out of debt.

2-You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

3-What one receives not worked for another must work for without receiving.

4-The government can't give anyone anything without first taking it from someone else.

5-Wealth cannot be created simply by dividing it.

6-Every great dynasty has failed when half decide they don't have to work because the other half will work and take care of them. Then, the other half decides it does no good to work because someone else is going to get what they worked for.

Are we close to this or have we already passed the tipping point?

July 17, 2011 at 8:48 p.m.
timbo said...

Hey harp3339. say hello to the others at the politburo wouldya comradee ?

July 17, 2011 at 8:51 p.m.
fairmon said...

Timbo,

Which of the six statements are wrong? Which proposed cut is it you think will harm the country? What is your solution or do you just like to snipe at others comments? Do you think just doing the same thing will not be a problem?

July 17, 2011 at 9:10 p.m.
tderng said...

harpp3339...your earlier post uses a quote by Kenneth W. Sollitt... "There are certain things that are true no matter how much someone may deny them. In the economic realm, for instance, you cannot legislate the poor into independence by legislating the wealthy out of it. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. Government cannot give to people what it does not first take away from people. And that which one man received without working for, another man must work for without receiving." - Kenneth W. Sollitt

I have used these quotes many times when "discussing" economics with liberals.

July 17, 2011 at 9:27 p.m.
MTJohn said...

tderng - you might not be able to legislate the poor into independence. But, you can legislate them into a perpetual cycle of poverty and we have been doing that in this country since our founding, beginning with slavery and our treatment of indigenous people.

July 17, 2011 at 9:42 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

IT'S ALL A MOOT POINT Part I

Republicans have no interest in negotiating. They haven't moved one millimeter off their original position, which is to oppose Obama, even if it means the Country goes off a cliff and they commit political suicide.

Timbo brought up the quote from 2006 and Obama has acknowledged it and apologized for it. He said he was young and trying to score political points, but also made sure the Bill was going to pass regardless of how he voted. This position is in stark contrast to republicans.

Michele Bachman claimed John Q. Adams was one of the Founding Fathers who worked tirelessly to end slavery. He wasn't. He was about 5 when Declaration of Independence was signed and he'd been dead about 20 years when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. But instead of admitting her mistake, she double downed and tried to prove her indefensible position. And she's repeated this same odd behavior time and time again.

Sarah Palin has had her own moments of cerebral flatulence, the most recent being her contention that Paul Revere actually rode out to warn THE BRITISH not to take our guns. And like Michele, Sarah double downed and tried explain how she was right.

To the original point, Obama has incorporated republican proposals and/or policy positions on more than one occasion and has met nothing but a stonewall of resistance. A few examples:

Health Care Reform. Way back when Bill Clinton tried, he proposed that employers should be legally responsible for insuring employees. The government could offset costs through tax credits and incentives, but that was basically it. Nope, said the GOP, don't punish business owners. The Health Care Bill should put the responsibility on everyone to buy insurance. Let's call it an INDIVIDUAL MANDATE. And gosh, republicans liked it so much even republican governor Mitt Romney insisted on the individual mandate when he reformed the Massachusetts health care system. Obama, being incredibly naive, incorporated the IM over the more popular Single Payer option believing he could get Republican support. The GOP response? 'Never heard of it,' and, 'Unconstitutional.' LOL!

Cap and Trade: a republican scheme to get around environmental regulation. Obama endorsed it, believing the GOP would support him. Republican response? 'Never heard of it,' and, 'Unconstitutional.' LOL!

The latest: Raising the debt ceiling to pay for stuff we already charged on our national credit card. A one sentence bill that both parties in both houses of Congress have historically agreed MUST be passed to maintain the full faith and credit of the United States. Obama wanted a clean Bill with no riders or conditions.

July 17, 2011 at 9:51 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

MOOT POINT PART II

Republicans, however, decide to try and score some political points and trap Obama by insisting that they would not vote to raise the debt ceiling without significant cuts in domestic spending. Nothing that would impact the overall debt, mind you, but symbolic cuts to traditionally Democratic pet projects. NPR, Planned Parenthood, Pell Grants, cancer research, so on and so forth.

This time, Obama lured the republican "negotiators" into talking about big cuts in domestic spending if they would agree to an increase in tax revenue. Not even on the tax rates, just shoring up loopholes to make the tax code a little more fair. Obama even referred to a study funded by the conservative American Enterprise that suggested that such a proposal consist of 85% spending cuts and 15% higher revenues. "Let's make the deal big," Obama said. "Let's cut $4 Trillion from the budget," over the next 10 years using numbers from a conservative think tank as our guide. He said everything could be on the table including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. If republicans had been serious, they would have gladly declared victory, boasted that they had FORCED the President into a deal to save America's economic bacon, and said YES!

Well, you saw what happened. When republicans realized that a) taxes that would adversely affect the filthy riche were involved, and, b) and that it wouldn't hurt Obama, they quickly waved the white flag. No deal, they cried. We can't take a chance on letting the President look GOOD.

Instead a deal that could help the United States, Mitch McConnell even suggested changing Congressional rules by turning responsibility of raising the debt ceiling over to the President. Talk about unconstitutional...

Tea baggers are not serious about solving problems. They're only serious about political posturing, talking points, and trying to make the President look bad. I don't know why Obama bothers talking to them at all.

Everything single thing a tea bagger says is a moot point.

July 17, 2011 at 9:51 p.m.
tderng said...

MTJohn...you are,unfortunately,correct.When the government tries to help a group of people it seems to only create a dependency on the government.It destroys someones drive to achieve.Keeps them poor and keeps them voting for the group who gives them very little hope for a brighter future.

July 17, 2011 at 10:03 p.m.
Oz said...

If every person in favor of raising the national debt had to sign a bank loan for their share. I wonder many people would sign up?

July 17, 2011 at 10:16 p.m.
tderng said...

oz...it doesn't really matter because there will probably not be a U.S. for the future generations to enjoy.I am sure glad that I was born when I was because I was able to enjoy a fair amount of freedom as a child and young adult,as I grow older I see the freedoms of Americans being slowly eroded away "for the greater good".The Entitled Generation is going to be in for a rude awakening when it all comes crashing down.

July 17, 2011 at 10:52 p.m.
fairmon said...

Rights have certainly gone far beyond life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The rights, with the help of congress, are now better described by if you have it I should have it also. Equality has become it is only fair if we are all equally impoverished.

Blackwater 48,

The republicans don't have to make Obama look bad. They are making him look better than he is. Obama surrounded himself with an incompetent staff and advisers that are doing a good job of making him look bad. Unfortunately he trust and depends on them for good advice and input on the positions he takes and what he says. Every president has to do that, the job is more than over whelming. He would be smart to have Bill Clinton advising him or just listen to what Clinton is trying to tell him now.

Loop holes should be closed and all subsidies, grants and incentives ended with a no exceptions business tax rate established.

July 17, 2011 at 11:50 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

WHAT?

Harp said, 'The republicans don't have to make Obama look bad. They are making him look better than he is.'

Sorry. I read that as two totally unrelated statements. Anyway, we learned a few things from this debt ceiling fiasco.

First, tea baggers are not interested in deficit reduction if their precious filthy rich are inconvenienced in anyway. The GOP had a real chance to address runaway spending but decided that protecting millionaires and billionaires was more important. Good grief. Ronald Reagan raised taxes ten or eleven times when he was in office.

Second, the republican candidates running for president would NOT raise the debt ceiling.

Third, the right wing of the republican party, headed by John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, is in open warfare with the far right wing of the republican party, headed by Eric Cantor and Jim DeMint.

Fourth, it's a loooooooong way until November of 2012.

July 18, 2011 at 2:26 a.m.
joepulitzer said...

NO, SANDY, I JUST PULLED IT RIGHT OUT OF THE LEFT LEANING TIMES. BENNETT IS ACTUALLY GOOD AT TIMES (NO PUN INTENDED), BUT MOST OF THE TIMES (hehehe), IS A TRUE JACKASS.

July 18, 2011 at 5:34 a.m.
twharr said...

Absolutely hilarious! Keep stick'n it to them Clay!

July 18, 2011 at 7:35 a.m.
timbo said...

Harp3339 problem with you is the length of your posts. they go on and on and on . it's like some preacher or college professor lecturing to the rest of us .little hands , when your post are so long and bellicose nobody has the time to understand what in the heck your talking about . be short , concise ,and to the point and maybe someone will read what you have to say . it isn't the quantity of your words ,it is the quality .

July 18, 2011 at 7:43 a.m.
MTJohn said...

tderng said...MTJohn...When the government tries to help a group of people it seems to only create a dependency on the government.It destroys someones drive to achieve.Keeps them poor and keeps them voting for the group who gives them very little hope for a brighter future.

tderng - while I agree that dependency might be the unintended consequence of some social services programs, that wasn't the point of my comment. Rather, I was referring to policies, either intentionally or through neglect, that favor one class of people and allow that class to take advantage of other folks.

July 18, 2011 at 8:31 a.m.
MTJohn said...

Oz said...

If every person in favor of raising the national debt had to sign a bank loan for their share. I wonder many people would sign up?

You have it backwards, Oz. We've already spent the money. Your signature and mine are already on that bank loan by implied consent. So, the question is whether we are going to man up and honor our commitments.

July 18, 2011 at 8:37 a.m.
tderng said...

MTJohn...I agree but I think its the political class who is taking advantage of the poor,historically,but now they are graduating to toking advantage of us all.They(both sides)tell us what we want to hear just to get re-elected then do not ever follow up on their promises.All politicians seem to demagogue constantly and nothing changes.Our so called leaders are selling this country down the road and the masses don't seem to see it.

July 18, 2011 at 9:38 a.m.

Clayduh steals a concept from a bad cable TV commercial, he alters it to meet his bootlicking needs, he notifies Blackwater and limric so they can be the first to comment, and he somehow wins a prize for this and similar work?

July 18, 2011 at 9:41 a.m.
MTJohn said...

tderng said...

MTJohn...I agree but I think its the political class who is taking advantage of the poor,historically,but now they are graduating to toking advantage of us all.

Not the political class but the people who have bought off the political class. And, what I don't understand is why the tea party folks continue to advocate for policies that would reinforce the stranglehold that the barons have on the rest of us.

July 18, 2011 at 9:58 a.m.
alprova said...

MyMy wrote: "Federal debt nearing 14.3 trillion and Consumer debt including mortgages 11.5 trillion at the end of the first quarter."

"How many people just don't get it and want government to keep spending just like they do? How many think just like the “The Bomb” and are blowing up their own life as government is blowing up this country. What is the average personal credit score? How many understand what that means?"

"It's past time for everybody to get a grip on personal debt and insist government do the same."

I'm confused by your statement. Are you suggesting that $11.5 trillion of the National debt is due to mortgages in default, or were you making some other assumption?

It's not that left leaning folk are not insistent that the Government cut spending. It's simply that it should not be done by walking on the backs of the poor, disabled, and the ill to do it.

Has one Republican proposed to cut what is spent by the Pentagon? Not that I have seen in print anywhere. $1.415 trillion is the current budget set forth for all of the Pentagon related expenditures.

Blaming the President for very much of the current debt is rather lame. His slice of the pie chart is minimal, but that does not stop people like yourself from making claims otherwise.

July 18, 2011 at 10:50 a.m.
eastridge8 said...

timbo...you think HARP goes on and on??? What the heck do you think blackwater is doing??? I can at least understand harp's point/position...

and Obama DOES surround himself with incompetents...that's WHY they're leaving to "spend more time with family"...

July 18, 2011 at 10:54 a.m.
mymy said...

POO: Federal debt 14.3 trillion and consumer/personal debt 11.5 trillion. Everybody has a spending problem and it's past time for everybody to get a grip on personal debt and insist government do the same.

There are many things that can be cut. The government is too large and a tangled mess. They need to clean up their act before going after everybody else. Don't hold your breath that the right things will be done! Taxing the rich will only be the start and will not solve the problem then guess who is next!

July 18, 2011 at 11:35 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

MTJohn said: You have it backwards, Oz. We've already spent the money. Your signature and mine are already on that bank loan by implied consent. So, the question is whether we are going to man up and honor our commitments.

Let’s face it, MTJohn, the Republicans in Washington operate on a complete double standard. Their “honor” rhetoric is only for show and shifts almost daily. When they were pushing President Bush’s so called bankruptcy reform legislation a few years ago, Republican politicians like Mitch McConnell were screaming about responsibility, the need to man up, and honor commitments. What a group of self-serving hypocrites.

July 18, 2011 at 11:37 a.m.
mymy said...

While cleaning out a very old file, I found this from the Clinton era. I just did a little substitution. Have fun makeing any changes from your personal views. Could be interesting.

LET US PRAY, Psalm 2009 – 2013, First Book of Democrats

Barack Obama is my shepherd, I shall not want. He Leadeth me beside the still factories. He restoreth my faith in the Republican Party. He guideth me in the path of unemployment. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Bread Line, I shall not go hungry. Obama has anointed my income with taxes. My expenses runneth over my income. Surely, poverty and hard living will follow me all the days of my life. The Democrats and I will live in the rented house forever. But, I am glad I am an American. I am glad I am free (so far). But, I wish I was a dog, and Barack Obama was a tree.

July 18, 2011 at 11:39 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Mymy said: “Taxing the rich will only be the start and will not solve the problem.”

Please, Mymy. Every knowledgeable American and economist knows that continuing these tax cuts for the wealthy will only expand the U.S. debt. The bottom line is that the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy should have been allowed to expire ages ago.

July 18, 2011 at 12:36 p.m.
timbo said...

eastridge8 sorry , I should have included blackwater . he is bellicose , misinformed ,and kind of wordy too. Harp3339 does make a little sense but when he said raise the tax bracket of the rich 70 percent he kind of lost me . that's when I called him comrade harp3339.

July 18, 2011 at 12:46 p.m.
timbo said...

mountainlaurel .....you said , "Please, Mymy. Every knowledgeable American and economist knows that continuing these tax cuts for the wealthy will only expand the U.S. debt. The bottom line is that the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy should have been allowed to expire ages ago."

that is bull hockey , that is your assessment . stop trying to look like some kind of expert while telling a complete falsehood. Who do you think you are , the times free press ?

July 18, 2011 at 12:56 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

OH YEAH?

Timbo wrote, "blackwater ... is bellicose , misinformed ,and kind of wordy too."

July 18, 2011 at 1:20 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

REVENGE OF TRICKLE DOWN!

This is too funny. Both L4F and timbo have stood up on the soap box and hailed the economic validity of trickle down economics.

Please, guys, discuss the federal deficit under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush Lite.

July 18, 2011 at 1:29 p.m.
MTJohn said...

blackwater48 said...Please, guys, discuss the federal deficit under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush Lite.

Two of the three raised taxes because it was the responsible thing to do.

July 18, 2011 at 1:33 p.m.
alprova said...

Timbo wrote: "eastridge8 sorry , I should have included blackwater . he is bellicose , misinformed ,and kind of wordy too. Harp3339 does make a little sense but when he said raise the tax bracket of the rich 70 percent he kind of lost me . that's when I called him comrade harp3339."

"that is bull hockey , that is your assessment . stop trying to look like some kind of expert while telling a complete falsehood. Who do you think you are , the times free press ?"

And who are you? With responses like that, you're going to make lots of friends in here.

July 18, 2011 at 1:34 p.m.
jimbob said...

I have known Clay Bennett since he worked at the St. Petersburg Times.(where I was born) have folled him for years. He really seems to pi-S A LOT OF U people off. That tells me he is doing his job and he is good at it. Keep up the good work Clay. Sea monkey u should go back to Chicago where there is some of the most corrupt mayors in the country. Daleys were nothing but a bunch of thugs. Ms. Blackwater thank you for ur posts.

July 18, 2011 at 2:19 p.m.
jimbob said...

Oh and by the way I lived in Apison for 12 years that's y I still read the TFP. People quit letting sea monkey out of his cage.

July 18, 2011 at 2:23 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Timbo said: "that is bull hockey , that is your assessment . stop trying to look like some kind of expert while telling a complete falsehood. Who do you think you are , the times free press ?"

Just applying a little basic math, a bit of common sense, and paying attention, Timbo. As an advocate for the wealthy, maybe you can tell us what happened to all of those big things the Republicans promised us when Bush was trashing the Clinton era surplus? Indeed, where are the jobs? And where is that dazzling economic growth the Republicans promised as a result of those tax cuts? I don’t see anything but debt and unemployment.

I keep thinking of all of the good things America could have done with that Republican era tax-cut money. For starters, I bet we could have retrofitted almost every household in U.S. with the capacity to generate alternative energy. As it stands, the only people to gain anything from the Republican era tax cuts was the wealthiest one percent in the U.S. And what did they do with their tax cut money? Spuce up the mansion? Buy another jet?

July 18, 2011 at 2:58 p.m.
Clara said...

MyMy, When, on this blog, did I ever mention the 1.???? trillion debt.

I think, you think I'm addressing this blog under a different name.

HAH! It's all I can do to remember my own name without adding another as a disguise.

July 18, 2011 at 3:14 p.m.
SeaMonkey said...

i agree, leslie. he's a one termer. i think that's all he wanted to be. he's got his name in the history books, he's got his fame, he can play all the bad golf he wants....whatever

i think it's a great way to get people to realize how immense the debt is...have them sign a document/contract saying they will pay their share..which is $534,000.

lets's see if they want it increased..

jimbob, you moron..why would i go back there? i escaped to a better part of this country. obama is just like them..exactly..he was mentored by the crud in that city...so i know a piece of crud when i see one.

July 18, 2011 at 3:18 p.m.
jimbob said...

good post mountainlaurel. I could use another stimulas check. I'm running low on ammo. I'm Native Amercian (Apache) and untill this country puts a Native Amercian in the white house I will not have a president.

July 18, 2011 at 3:22 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

There is a bi-partisan bill, that is it is being supported by both parties, called the one cent solution. I think it is one of the better plans I have seen out there.

Check it out. I think some on both sides of our little aisle here will like it.

http://www.onecentsolution.org/

July 18, 2011 at 3:24 p.m.
eastridge8 said...

timbo...OK..

blackwater...YEAH!

July 18, 2011 at 3:29 p.m.
limric said...

Breaking News: House Votes to Cut 0.001% of Deficit!

Washington DC, 7/18/2011: In an effort to break the budget and debt ceiling impasse, Virginia Rep. Eric (the Sissy) Cantor today offered a proposal to reduce spending by cutting benefits to poor mothers and sick people living in poverty. This partially offsets the tax breaks given to oil, insurance, and drug companies during the Smirking chimp years. The cuts to programs serving the poor are expected to save $7.8 billion per year, almost 5% of the amount given away by the Bush tax cuts. His offer also includes some subsidies to special interest groups, like a $1 billion present to the dairy industry.

Speaking on FOX news, Sissy Cantor said, “$1 billion in subsidies to the dairy industry makes perfect sense: if Democrat support for poor mothers is cut they will no longer be able to buy milk for their children, and so the dairy industry must be compensated for the lost revenues.

Democrats watching the Cantor interview sat slack jawed in silence for 5 minutes before offering to privatize Social Security as a counter offer.

July 18, 2011 at 3:42 p.m.
jimbob said...

people I'm 65 years old I do not draw SS or Medicare. I have never asked the gov. for any thing. My wife and 2 girls are well taken care off. I own my own home I don't use credit if I can't pay for it in cash then I don't need it. It's really simple a country boy can and will survive.

July 18, 2011 at 4:02 p.m.
Selah said...

Republicans your time is just up...you will hear the wrath of the people beginning in 2012!!! Get ready

Republicans have spent the last 10years protecting their own assests and lives. They have cared less about the majority of Americans who are struggling and losing their retirement accounts to the GREEDY. While they are not struggling to hold on to their fourth mansion and their brand new customized Lexus or BMW or Bently...the average American is struggling to make ends meet for their grocery bills and their ONE and only home and car.
GREED IS A SCARY THING AND someone once said the LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL...these last 10 yrs have clearly shown us this.

July 18, 2011 at 4:02 p.m.
acerigger said...

MyMy,I must say,your 11:29 post was the most stupid thing I've read in a looong time. It's good to clean out the file cabinet now and then,but please don't drop your trash here.

July 18, 2011 at 4:17 p.m.
mymy said...

Clara: should have put AL in front of POO. Was not talking to you although you are full of POO.

July 18, 2011 at 4:36 p.m.
Selah said...

acerigger...right on!!!

July 18, 2011 at 4:38 p.m.
fairmon said...

Timbo,

I think my saying you could raise the rate on the wealthy to 70% and it wouldn't help enough to measure. I'm not suggesting that the rate be changed that much and I do believe that would hurt the economy.

Mntlaurel,

If the Bush tax rates were rescinded and all rates revert to all the rates in effect before Bush did anything? That would seem fair to me and certainly do more toward addressing the deficit problem. That would fit the shared sacrafice criteria you advocate. I keep wondering why you resent successful people so much and why you think they should contribute a much greater percent then you do?

July 18, 2011 at 4:59 p.m.
fairmon said...

mountainlaurel said... Just applying a little basic math, a bit of common sense, and paying attention.

I guess we are entitled to do a self evaluation but it seems your math skills are weak and your understanding of economics and how the markets work may be even weaker. Common sense is not as common as one might think. Do you disagree with these common sense truths?

1-You can't borrow yourself into prosperity or out of debt.

2-You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

3-What one receives not worked for another must work for without receiving.

4-The government can't give anyone anything without first taking it from someone else.

5-Wealth cannot be created simply by dividing it.

6-Every great dynasty has failed when half decide they don't have to work because the other half will work and take care of them. Then, the other half decides it does no good to work because someone else is going to get what they worked for.

July 18, 2011 at 5:10 p.m.
jimbob said...

sea monkey, I didn't vote for obama nor did I vote for bush. As far as I feel kill em all let God sort them out. OOOOray

July 18, 2011 at 5:21 p.m.
jimbob said...

seay monkey, I'm sick and tired of you dumb ass yankes comeing down here trying to tell us how to live and take care of our lives. Take your sorry butt back across the Mason Dixion line.

July 18, 2011 at 5:32 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: “I keep wondering why you resent successful people so much and why you think they should contribute a much greater percent then you do?”

You’re making an emotional assumption that doesn’t apply, Harp3339, but I suspect you know this already. And I also suspect you know the real issue involving tax rates in the U.S., but for some reason you opt to ignore it. Oh, well, Harp3339, some people in top 1% income bracket don’t mind owning up to the truth. As Warren Buffett has repeatedly said, most of his income comes from dividends, which means his tax rate is less than the people who clean his office.

July 18, 2011 at 6:05 p.m.
jimbob said...

Nope Jack, it's called a trust fund. I do agree with your post.

July 18, 2011 at 6:54 p.m.
mymy said...
July 18, 2011 at 7:10 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: "It seems your math skills are weak and your understanding of economics and how the markets work may be even weaker."

In all due respect, Harp3339, you may want to consider spending a little time working on your personal reading comprehension skills before issuing an unsolicited critique of the math and market awareness skills of your fellow posters.

I’m saying because my post to Timbo pertained to the Bush/Cheney Administration’s tax cuts along with all of the grandiose claims that he and his fellow Republicans made during the big Republican tax cut era. The bottom line is that the Republicans claimed those tax cuts would bring about more jobs and a dazzling economic growth, but they didn’t. In the end, it's become pretty clear that the big Republican tax-cut era only helped to bring about a lot of debt, unemployment, and a lousy economy.

And for the record, it wasn’t the poor people in this country that made George W Bush and Dick Chaney lie about Iraq’s WMDs. . . And it wasn’t the poor people in the country who supported and told our politicians to borrow money from China so the U.S. could invade Iraq on behalf of the oil industry and corporations like Halliburton.

July 18, 2011 at 7:42 p.m.
Clara said...

MyMy,

I'm glad you told me that. It was a real compliment. Thank you POO

July 18, 2011 at 8:43 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Limric said: “Democrats watching the Cantor interview sat slack jawed in silence for 5 minutes before offering to privatize Social Security as a counter offer.”

Good grief, Limric. What a nightmare this would be. Surely, the Democrats are paying some attention to all of these polls. Speaking of which, I note a recent Pew poll only reinforces what the public has said over and over again:

“The poll asked respondents what is more important, reducing the budget deficit or keeping Medicare and Social Security benefits as they are. By an overwhelming 60-32 margin the public prefers to keep Medicare and Social Security as they are. . .

The public is also opposed to increasing the health care costs Medicare recipients are responsible for. By 61-31, the public believes people on Medicare are already paying enough of their health care costs. . .

Nor does the public see Medicaid benefits for low-income recipients as a legitimate target. By 58-37, they say that low-income people should not have their benefits taken away, rather than agreeing that states should be able to cut back on Medicaid eligibility to deal with budget problems.”

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/07/snapshot_071111.html

July 18, 2011 at 8:53 p.m.
tderng said...

mountainlaurel...its kinda funny that we went to war in Iraq for oil since we get less from them now than before the war.Imports from Iraq are paid for at going market prices.So this liberal mantra that we invaded Iraq for the oil is a load of bull perpetuated by the anti-oil loons.

July 18, 2011 at 10:19 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Going market prices? Is that before or after it runs through Halliburton? You idiots still believe we went there because of 9/11. Gotta give it to Cheney, though, he knew there were enough of you idiots around and that he could therefore pull it off. I think the stubbornness gene is the dominant trait passed on through inbreeding.

July 18, 2011 at 11:04 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

IF THEY SAY IT'S NOT ABOUT OIL, IT'S ABOUT OIL

Tderng wrote, "this liberal mantra that we invaded Iraq for the oil is a load of bull perpetuated by the anti-oil loons."

No offense, dude, but the depth of your ignorance is truly stunning. I'm not trying to crack wise or insult you. Ignorance is not the same as lack of intelligence. I'm ignorant about a lot of stuff but I continue to educate myself every day. I think that's a basic responsibility of American citizenship.

Anyway, allow me to enlighten you. Here is the capsule version of the original Cheney strategy as to WHY he (and those of his ilk) wanted to invade Iraq. Yeah, he sold Shrub on the invasion because Hussein plotted to kill Pappy Bush on his visit to Kuwait in 1993 to accept his $2 million in grateful gifts. Remember? Clinton ordered tomahawk missile strikes on Iraqi military targets?

Anyway, Cheney is a very intelligent guy. He served under Nixon and Ford and was elected to Congress in 1978. He had a front row seat of the OPEC oil embargo from 1973 - 74 and again in 1979.

His brilliant (no sarcasm) plan to fracture OPEC's control of world petroleum prices involved the U.S. invading a middle east country with significant oil reserves, and setting up a 'democratic government' friendly with and beholding to the U.S. in order to drive a wedge into OPEC's ability to control global oil prices. If OPEC slowed down production, there is enough Iraqi oil to make up the difference. And vice versa. OPEC would lose its economic punch and would become politically impotent. With OPEC weakened, American oil companies would have a greater power.

TD, to believe we really invaded Iraq as revenge for 9/11, or to prevent Hussein from developing nuclear weapons, is at best naive. Believe what you want. You apparently are comfortable with faith based economics and politics. Why wouldn't you believe in faith based foreign affairs?

One thing to keep in mind: the U.S. consumes 25% of the world's petroleum. Whenever you see the U.S. diplomatically, economically, or militarily involved with an Islamic Middle Eastern country, it's always about the oil.

July 18, 2011 at 11:54 p.m.
limric said...

There may now be three people on planet earth that don’t know the Iraq war was about oil, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and now tderng. So, just why did we invade Iraq?

C’mon man,

July 19, 2011 at 8:15 a.m.
tderng said...

so blackwater...I guess we are after Libyan oil?

July 19, 2011 at 9:55 a.m.
limric said...

Dude - we haven't invaded Libya.

But, France’s Defense Ministry admitted to arming Libyan rebels to help in their attacks against Gaddafi and his regime. Upon delivering assault rifles, handguns, and ammunition to the rebels, French officials took one look at the newly furnished army and surrendered.

July 19, 2011 at 2:08 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

I CHANGED MY MIND

TD, you're an idiot, and I apologize for trying to argue with a true believer intoxicated on faith and blind to the sobering realities of fact.

Of all the arguments you could have made, of all the counter positions you could have taken, you chose the one that had absolutely no merit. Limric is right.

WE DIDN'T INVADED LIBYA!!!!

Turn off Fox"News" and come up for air.

The fact that we did not invade Libya only supports my point. A key component to Cheney's strategy: gaining control of a country with SIGNIFICANT OIL RESERVES. Libya provides about 1 % of the global market. They haven't been producing anything for weeks now. See any big changes? No, because OPEC stated that their countries would make up for any shortage brought about by current unrest in Libya. How could you expect to drive an economic wedge into OPEC with limited resources?

Oh wait. I forgot. You're an idiot.

July 19, 2011 at 7:04 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.