published Thursday, January 26th, 2012

Decision 2012

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 ...

110
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.
onetinsoldier said...

He is trying to figure out what the incentive is! Not much there!

January 26, 2012 at 12:19 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

TOUGH CALL

How does one choose between a corporate lobbyist and a vulture capitalist?

Down here in Florida the slimy TV ads are flooding the airwaves. I've watched a few but they are disgusting and afterward I feel like taking a shower. Good thing we record all our shows on DVRs.

Shocking to realize that after decades of catastrophic failure the GOP is still peddling supply side economics.

January 26, 2012 at 12:29 a.m.
joneses said...

Shocking to see the dummycrats cannot comprehend that 16 trillion dollars of debt cannot be paid back even if they were to tax everyone 100%. Yet they keep spending and destroying the middle class to implement their total control of every aspect of everyones life by pforcing more people everyday to be in poverty by depending on the government for their survival. It is disgusting and pathetic how the dummycrats want to ruin this country.

January 26, 2012 at 4:35 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Ha. Huge deficits--demand side politics--obviously do not work, so it is time to try the alternative. Gingrich for President and Ron Paul for OMB director.

January 26, 2012 at 5:45 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Speaker Gingrich balanced the budget and reformed welfare while the economy grew. President Obama? Partisanship and excuses.

January 26, 2012 at 5:56 a.m.

Don't state facts here, there are those that will only turn them around to make their party or person they voted for look as if they are the best person to have ever held an office.

January 26, 2012 at 6:55 a.m.
fairmon said...

Ron Paul makes people a lot of people including politicians uncomfortable with his common sense logical approach to governing. Regardless of what Obama said we are a country in decline losing the respect and confidence of other nations. Unfortunately the other party doesn't offer a good alternative. The republicans no tax increase and the democrats no meaningful reductions but increased spending and debt are ridiculous. Tax increases on individuals with zero deductions, zero subsidies, zero grants, zero pet project spending and other tools of manipulation will at some point become necessary to avoid being a bankrupt nation. Obama is a talented speaker that can talk at length and say nothing. Newt is the only opponent with comparable talent but he is vulnerable to his history. Obama will be elected again not due to his performance but his speaking ability and his ability to make promises and have people think he can make chicken salad out of chicken droppings.

Both parties will continue to intervene and interfere with free markets while taxing and regulating manufacturing to extinction in the U.S. Both parties support policing the world and forcing our ideas on other countries. There cannot and will not be a middle class without successful manufacturing businesses that provide no less than 25% of the jobs in America. Keep insisting on taxing successful businesses and buying those imported products while bad mouthing American companies to do your part in the destruction. It is amazing how many people don't realize that taxes and other legislatively imposed cost at the local, state and federal level are included in the price they pay for goods and services.

January 26, 2012 at 7:02 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Get the sedagive ready, they both look like Abby somebody...

January 26, 2012 at 7:16 a.m.
rogerdodger said...

I have always heard that Republicans will shove their opinions down your throat and will not listen to reasoning, but looking back at several post here that does not hold true. The Democrats on this board will take every opportunity to bash anyone that does not conform to their logic or way of thinking.

January 26, 2012 at 8:02 a.m.
davisss13 said...

joneses said... Shocking to see the dummycrats cannot comprehend that 16 trillion dollars of debt cannot be paid back even if they were to tax everyone 100%. Yet they keep spending and destroying the middle class to implement their total control of every aspect of everyones life by pforcing more people everyday to be in poverty by depending on the government for their survival. It is disgusting and pathetic how the dummycrats want to ruin this country.

The fiscal crisis is nothing but another GOP panic issue to generate hatred and rage... again.

The Gospel truth is you degenerate scum had absolutely no problem with spending, the debt or the deficit when you tools had your filthy, unethical hands on the federal money spigot. You hypocrites even had evangelical Christians feeding at your corrupt trough, bribing them for support.

You can't use 9/11 or bin Laden because he was killed under Obama's watch. You can't use morals and Christian values because you're a bunch of lousy Christians who use the religion as a mask for unethical and illegal activities.

In other words, you have -0- credibility. YOU are ruining this country.

January 26, 2012 at 8:16 a.m.
hambone said...

Supply-Side Economics, Trickle-Down Economy = cutting taxes for the "job creaters". Where are the jobs?

Try cutting taxes for the "DEMAND CREATERS"!!

January 26, 2012 at 8:18 a.m.
davisss13 said...

rogerdodger said... I have always heard that Republicans will shove their opinions down your throat and will not listen to reasoning, but looking back at several post here that does not hold true. The Democrats on this board will take every opportunity to bash anyone that does not conform to their logic or way of thinking.

I don't believe you for a minute. I think YOU are a Republican.

Here's a clue for you, Cletus, if either you or the GOP spit in my face and insult me for twelve years straight, call me and my veteran father a traitor for supporting Democrats and a terrorist lover for opposing torture don't expect a birthday card or a handshake.

GOP Atwater/Rove acolytes are the most disgusting pigs I have ever seen in my life. They'll use ANYTHING for political advantage.

January 26, 2012 at 8:25 a.m.

It’s about time for the “trickle-down” and “voo-doo” augurs to assemble with their pitchforks. The problem is that you’ve tied “the monster” of an investment (vs. control) economy to presidents of only one party. It’s funny how you can blame Reagan for wrecking the economy with his nutty ideas about capitalism, while admitting that he knuckled under to Congressional Democrats’ demands to raise taxes and increase government spending.

The economic boon of the 90s occurred, not because Democrats were given free rein to sap private investment capital so that government could micromanage the economy. To a large extent, it was the result of the public balking at Clinton’s initial command-economy agenda, giving control of Congress to the party of “no,” and forcing the president to admit that the era of big government was over. (Ha-ha) He was forced to go along with Republican proposals for reforming federal programs and redirecting resources away from the terror-inspiring state welfare monster and toward private sector organizations that are much more effective at helping people in need. He benefited from defense budget scale-downs made possible by the end of the Cold War. And he had the party of “no” to temper his nanny state ambitions.

G.W. Bush was about as committed to supply-side economics as Obama is really committed to helping small businesses. (Not very.) With the enthusiastic support of congressional Democrats, Bush drove up domestic spending to unprecedented levels, to say nothing of his mistake of going along with Democrat and (eventually) public demands to commit troops to Iraq. When the war turned out to be as difficult as Republicans had warned in the 90s, Democrats and the public washed their hands of it and jumped into the Monday-morning quarterback recliner.

The results of Obama’s policy fantasies of a state-managed recovery are self-evident.

There is a monster, but it is not a free economy. Take your hands out of the public’s pockets and direct your pitchforks elsewhere.

January 26, 2012 at 8:40 a.m.
rogerdodger said...

davisss I must have hit a nerve. But your reactions are exactly what I was talking about. The name calling and angry response were not warranted. I appreciate the fact your father served this country, as a retired military person I know and understand the sacrifices he made.

January 26, 2012 at 8:52 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

77 more cartoons to go on this subject for the year, what a grind.

I suppose this cartoon implies that Bennett is a proponent of government spending to get us out of a financial crisis created by bad debt created by the government. That's kind of funny after yesterday's cartoon. Someone needs to Photoshop The Wart's head onto they guy wearing the "Stupid" Tee shirt.

January 26, 2012 at 9:18 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

If the TFP really wanted to make these pages hot they would give us a way to upload pictures into a post. Lord, I could have some fun with that!

They could get hundreds of cartoons and illustrations, much more entertaining and thought provoking than The Wart's, for free!

January 26, 2012 at 9:23 a.m.
joneses said...

davisss13

You are so wrong. We Americans did have issues with the 5 trillion dollars President Bush spent in 8 years. We did not agree with the unfunded prescription drug plan you dumycrats and the Republicans supported. We hated that. What I find interesting is this pathetic fool we have as president now said when he was campagning he would cut the debt in half and you believed him. He is a pathetic liar that has spent 6 trillion in 3 years. If you looters elect this fool again the total debt will go from 16 trillion dollars now to 26 trillion dollars. Our debt is on track where there will not be enough money in the world to pay it. How can you suppot this idoit knowing this is what he wants to do? Are you that stupid? LOL

January 26, 2012 at 9:28 a.m.
davisss13 said...

davisss I must have hit a nerve. But your reactions are exactly what I was talking about. The name calling and angry response were not warranted. I appreciate the fact your father served this country, as a retired military person I know and understand the sacrifices he made.

That sure wasn't what they said. If you didn't tow the GOP line you were worse than al Queda.

The angry response is NOT WARRANTED? Says you. I see. You teabaggers can take to the streets, wave your AKs, scream about the 'blood of patriots feeding the tree of liberty' and 'second amendment solutions' and THAT anger is patriotism. You're pathetic.

I don't want to make peace and cooperate with the GOP. There is nothing worth saving in that party. I used to vote for GOPers until they went berserk.

You people act like we weren't even there or paying attention. You think I'm EVER going to forget the McCarthyite atmosphere you degenerates made and used ruthlessly after 9/11?

You act like bullies for twelve years straight and now you cry like little babies when the country has gotten sick of your degenerate show and reacted.

You're in for quite a shock.

January 26, 2012 at 9:28 a.m.
davisss13 said...

joneses said... You are so wrong. We Americans did have issues with the 5 trillion dollars President Bush spent in 8 years. We did not agree with the unfunded prescription drug plan you dumycrats and the Republicans supported. We hated that.

Oh bull. lol. Revisionist history again. Oh, you'll magnify the few who did speak out but the truth is the entire Republican leadership was in on that one. Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert twisted arms, bribed GOPer Nick Smith, held the vote open late... the GOP did everything they could to pass that bill. Billy Tauzin shepherded it through then took a 2 million a year job with the pharmaceutical industry. Like I said, you 'patriots' think no one was paying attention. WRONG.

What I find interesting is this pathetic fool we have as president now said when he was campagning he would cut the debt in half and you believed him. He is a pathetic liar that has spent 6 trillion in 3 years. If you looters elect this fool again the total debt will go from 16 trillion dollars now to 26 trillion dollars. Our debt is on track where there will not be enough money in the world to pay it. How can you suppot this idoit knowing this is what he wants to do?

Again, you 'patriots' just distort and twist everything around so it's all Obama's fault. You never consider the disastrous years of the Bush administration and GOP policies that have raped the United States for the benefit of a few.

Are you that stupid? LOL

I would never believe a rihtwing 'patriot' like you.

You are a cancer on this country. Your ethics, faith and religion are situational at best.

January 26, 2012 at 9:44 a.m.
timbo said...

The body lying on the table is Obama, ...he has no head. This has been the dumbest 3 years of liberal hogwash in my life time. I keep reading you libs and none of you ever see the big picture. Also, if one of you socialists worked for me and I knew you were on this page making fun of the the "job creators" you would be on the street. I don't mind a difference of opinion but I won't let someone insult the hand that feeds them. They can go find themselves a government job which makes them happy. Maybe we evil job creators should only hire people like us that agree with free enterprise and leave you lefties either jobless, collecting unemployment, or working for you first love the government. Maybe then we just might get a little respect.

January 26, 2012 at 10:39 a.m.

And just what do you call Obaby's economic philosophy? It's called chaos, debt, dejection and hypocracy. Damn you leftists are a boring bunch of babies who just want to make sure you're taken care of.

January 26, 2012 at 10:43 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

davisss13 said... "Again, you 'patriots' just distort and twist everything around so it's all Obama's fault. You never consider the disastrous years of the Bush administration and GOP policies that have raped the United States for the benefit of a few."

What a crock. You leftists keep bringing Bush into the argument so you can try to hide from Obama’s failures. Please point to one “patriot” that is not willing to admit that Bush did some pretty stupid things during his 8 years and that the Republican party shares plenty of blame for the state we are in.

The leftists, on the other hand, are not willing to admit one failure of the Obama administration. Your Guy walks on water in your propaganda infested minds.

January 26, 2012 at 10:47 a.m.

EXACTLY RIGHT BRP, EXACTLY. We can say Bush paved the way for this moron Obaby, and that Republicans do share blame for the state we are in. On the other hand, you Democrat leftists are incapable of self-examination because YOU'RE the goose steppers and you WILL have your agenda no matter what reality is.

January 26, 2012 at 11:12 a.m.
alprova said...

lovetheusaorleave wrote: "Don't state facts here, there are those that will only turn them around to make their party or person they voted for look as if they are the best person to have ever held an office."

Why don't you get busy proving those "facts" that you dumped in here yesterday? I proved you were wrong and can still offer more proof if you so desire it.

Don't be a sore loser. Just admit you were guilty of repeating a false statement and move on. Try it one time. You'll find it most liberating.

January 26, 2012 at 11:16 a.m.
sage1 said...

Personally, I can't wait for the Obamacrats to usher in the new socialist-euphoric-style of government. THEN we can ALL quit our jobs and sit on our butts waiting for that guberment check to come in the mail. Hmmm…better yet, maybe EVERTHING will be free and government subsidized!!! WOW. What a great idea!

But wait. Where will the money to support me come from? Hmmmm…..Maybe I better think about this one for a while.

January 26, 2012 at 11:52 a.m.
GatorFan said...

Since when did those two idiots become the only option? What about the best option this country has...Ron Paul? I like how both dems and republicans pretend like he doesn't exist. They all know that he is a threat to both corrupt establishments. I usually don't comment on Clay's idiotic cartoons but I felt the need.

January 26, 2012 at 11:54 a.m.
joneses said...

davisss13

You are an arrogant pathetic communist fool. This fool you have as a president has one goal, to destroy the middle class. He knows the biggest obstcle to communism is the middle class. As long as morons like you think having 20 trillon dollars in debt is a good thing he will continue on his path with Bill ayers to destroy this country. You are a hypcrit and a liar just like the communist agenda you support. I would bet you are one of those pathetic looters who has to depend on the government to take care of them. That is why you hate Republicans, youare afraid they will put your lazy ass to work. LOL!

January 26, 2012 at 1:02 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

GatorFan said... "Since when did those two idiots become the only option? What about the best option this country has...Ron Paul?"

I could not agree more. If you look past the media fog there is only one candidate for president that has a plan to get this country back on a path of growth and stability. Ron Paul.

January 26, 2012 at 1:27 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Franken-mitt or Franken-newt? . . . Indeed, Mr. Bennett, what scary choices . . . Either one translates into a living nightmare for the America we all know and love.

With Franken-mitt, the pretense will finally be over. The White House will be re-located to the Cayman Islands; all natural and legal rights of we the people will be officially signed over to a select group of billionaires; America’s working class and their children will be sold to the highest corporate bidder; and the poor, the sick, the elderly, the unemployed, the disabled, and the mentally-ill will be shipped off to another part of the world like Bangladesh.

With Franken-newt, what else can any sane person say - only God knows? On good days, he might court a new first lady. On bad days, he might nuke a couple of Nations.

January 26, 2012 at 2:22 p.m.
tipper said...

Someone tell me exactly when supply-side economics and the trickle-down theory ever really worked for the middle class and working poor. I haven't seen it, unless you consider all of the bubbles that have bursted and have cost you and me billions. For more than 30 years we have beaten this dead horse, and it hasn't gotten up yet.

January 26, 2012 at 2:31 p.m.
miraweb said...

As much as it pains me to say it, BRP may have a point. The Bush years were 8 of the worst years for America in living memory.

However, neither Bush nor Obama could hold enough power alone to justly take blame for all the misery.

I think Clay's cartoon is dead on. If the GOP takes back any real power, then the plush appointments will be given to the very same people that screwed up last time and who have been puttering about in think tanks, lobbying firms, and as 'news consultants' since 2008.

I wonder which job Karl Rove is eyeing.

January 26, 2012 at 2:39 p.m.
miraweb said...

The Guardian has a breakdown of Romney's charitable contributions.

Seems he put $2 million (of the $3 million in charitable contributions that he reported) into his own foundation. The foundation wrote checks for $647,500.

$145,000 of that went to the Mormon Church $100,000 to the George W. Bush Library $ 75,000 to a pediatric MS unit $ 25,000 to Brigham Young University $ 10,000 to the Harvard Business School $ 10,000 to Dana Farber $ 10,000 to the JC Equestrian Team Foundation (rest on Page 33 of the link below)

Of his $3 million, half went to the Mormon Church. He also deducted $2 million in stock donations from companies acquired by Bain.

The Boston Globe has posted copies of the Tyler Foundation documents online here.

Romney paid $48,000 in investment fees and reported earning $182,000 in interest.

He has the funds parked at Goldman Sachs.

January 26, 2012 at 3:13 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

tipper said... "Someone tell me exactly when supply-side economics and the trickle-down theory ever really worked for the middle class and working poor. I haven't seen it, unless you consider all of the bubbles that have bursted and have cost you and me billions. For more than 30 years we have beaten this dead horse, and it hasn't gotten up yet"

The US became the most successful country in the world and has brought more people a great standard of living than any other nation on the planet. Our poor have a standard of living that is higher than of most of the rest of the world's population. Period. That was all done with a free market economy.

The more we dabble in Socialism and Keynesian economics the less the distinction between us and the rest of the developed world. As we shift towards the behavior of the less successful nations it is harder to maintain our lead. When the winner starts acting like a loser he starts losing. Dough!

How obvious does it have to be in order for some people to understand?

tipper, I am sure it is hard to get a historical understanding from Clay Bennett’s “funnies” but if you want to read a little history you might find your answer.

January 26, 2012 at 3:20 p.m.
HighFastHard said...

I'm waiting for someone to start quoting the Bible with the mistaken assumption that it will somehow magically make their opinion more credible or believable. It never fails ... someone always does. LOL

January 26, 2012 at 3:50 p.m.
HighFastHard said...

You ROCK nooga....

January 26, 2012 at 4:05 p.m.
fairmon said...

nooga...

Why not come back as a community organizer that becomes wealthy then POTUS. Do you really think there is a tinkers damn difference in the two parties? Ron Paul understands the dilemma and knows what needs to happen but the media and other politicians keep trying to ignore him and have too many people either scared to or incapable of evaluating his logical positions.

I agree with simplifying the tax code and have no problem with the mega wealthy paying more taxes on personal income from any source. But, there has to be $4 reduced spending for each new dollar in tax revenue. We owe more than we have if all cash people have were confiscated.

Listen to the speech where he says no bail outs, no sell outs, no cop outs then later says we will help people refinance their house(bail out), continue government being a capital investment operation (like Solyndra, General Motors, Fannie and Freddie). He is a good orator but talks in circles.

January 26, 2012 at 4:52 p.m.

jones, harp3339, I notice a common theme in both of your posts about the debt. You seem to think that the debt needs to be paid off in one single large lump sum.

Why are you thinking that? Do you not understand the concept of a loan involves payment over time, not just one single instant return? It was accrued over time. It will be paid off over time.

That's how debt works. The Treasury is not run by idiots who think they need to pay off everything at once, you do not need to act like it is the case. The more you act that way, the more you show how futile it is to try to talk with either of you. You don't have a frame of reference that is congruent with the reality of the situation.

Besides, the US has a GDP of around 15 trillion. That's hardly an onerous debt-load. Japan has a far worse ratio. Think about it terms of home ownership. Would you be upset at somebody who makes 100,000 a year and has a mortgage for 150,000? 200,000? 300,000?

No?

Then why are you freaking about the US's debt load. You would do better to concern yourself with the deficit, but you don't even bother to distinguish between it or anything else.

So you want to concern yourself with the deficit now, though? Ok, let's take your ratio harp3339. Call the deficit 2 trillion for simplicity. That means you'd need to increase revenue by four hundred billion, with your idea about cutting spending? Not that your idea is reasonable, but that's another problem. Do you think that's impossible to do?

I wouldn't.

You're also confused, if you think paying the federal deficit with the actual cash in circulation is desirable, there's a reason why the money supply is primarily accounts based, not currency, let alone bullion. It is not directly associated with the national debt. If you wish to switch from fractional-reserve banking to full-reserve, I would expect you to find severe resistance from a number of quarters.

January 26, 2012 at 10:08 p.m.
fairmon said...

happywithnewbulbs said... jones, harp3339, I notice a common theme in both of your posts about the debt. You seem to think that the debt needs to be paid off in one single large lump sum.

I went back and read my post. I can't see how you reached such a ridiculous conclusion. My only point is quit increasing the debt. Do you have any idea how many years it would take to pay off 17 trillion dollars if at a $1 million per day pay back rate?

Are you suggesting if those buying our bonds decide to quit buying them and want their principle returned it is not a cash transaction? The annual deficit and debt increase is not the same as a bank but even banks have limits on how much they can leverage.

It will take a significant revenue increase and reduced spending to reduce the 1.3+ trillion annual deficit without reducing the debt and the $200 billion annual interest. I would suggest increasing taxes on every citizen not just the wealthy so more people would know what they insist on and ask of the government cost. I do think it is very possible and reasonable to reduce spending by no less than 30% with realistic but unpopular action.

January 26, 2012 at 11:27 p.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "I do think it is very possible and reasonable to reduce spending by no less than 30% with realistic but unpopular action."

Where would you cut spending? What "unpopular" cuts do you think need to be made? Please be specific.

January 26, 2012 at 11:31 p.m.
alprova said...

Did anyone else watch the final Florida debate tonight? It was most entertaining. Romney was ready for every attack that Gingrich lobbed. Gingrich lost ground big time tonight. Santorum was definitely sounding strong, but he sounded extremely angry when he went on the attack. And poor Ron Paul...he just sounded goofy as ever, tripping over his words several times.

January 26, 2012 at 11:41 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

SOME PEOPLE JUST DON'T GET IT

BRP, bless his cold little heart and thick little skull, tried to answer tipper's straightforward question: Someone tell me exactly when supply-side economics and the trickle-down theory ever really worked for the middle class and working poor. I haven't seen it...

BURP replied, The US became the most successful country in the world and has brought more people a great standard of living than any other nation on the planet. Our poor have a standard of living that is higher than of most of the rest of the world's population. Period. That was all done with a free market economy.

(I was going to put in a joke here that, yeah, the poor have it so great republicans love expanding the pool.) BRP, try to read this slowly. Supply Side Economics is a specific economic philosophy. It differs from the more common Keynsian Economics, but both were based on your free market principles.

Until you actually understand the difference, BURP, please stop chumming up the water with your pointless, subjective, blather. Tipper asked the same question I've been asking for months, and still no takers. (Each time I asked all I heard were crickets.)

All you Reagan lovers and Bush apologists please point out when supply side economics ever accomplished what it promised: That the government would balance the federal budget with tax cuts for the rich and increased defense spending. Oh, and they all promised to shrink government but they lied about that, too.

And that's the point of this cartoon. Both Newt and Mitt have promised to resurrect the dead, rotting corpse of supply side economics, but the only people who seriously believe we need to put republicans back in office - with the same demented economic agenda that achieved record deficits and our recent economic collapse - are people like BRP. People who don't know. They think they know, but they don't.

And they probably never will.

January 27, 2012 at 1:47 a.m.
anniebelle said...

Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer Date: 26 January 2012 Time: 10:29 AM ET A new study finds links between low intelligence and racism, prejudice and homophobia. There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy. The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

January 27, 2012 at 5:46 a.m.
woody said...

I realize this comment is already quite late, but..it looks like a 'no brainer' to me....Woody

January 27, 2012 at 6:52 a.m.
fairmon said...

anniebelle said... A new study finds links between low intelligence and racism, prejudice and homophobia. Research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults.People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

Why did it take a study to know this? It is evident that prejudice and putting people in a group and viewing them all as being the same or liking or not liking them based on ethnicity or other factors is ignorant. How was the "study" conducted? Were IQ test followed by validated questions utilized? Actually it sounds like the professor is displaying his own prejudice and your referencing it says something about you as well. I would guess you don't agree with Ron Paul's very liberal social agenda, does that suggest you are somewhat conservative?

January 27, 2012 at 7:17 a.m.
joneses said...

I guess that is why the pathetic fool we has as a president's speech the other night was written read from a teleprompter to appeal to those with an 8th grade education. The pathetic fool is appealing to his dummycrat base whose average intelligence is around an 8th grade education at best. His goal is to make the dumb get dumber by keeping them stupid so they will have to depend on the government for their survival and follow him like a bunch of lemmings. Now you know why our government school's education system is ranked one of the worst in the world even behind some third world countries. The more people he can keep stupid, dependant on the government and keep in poverty the more votes he can buy by promising them more and delivering nothing.

January 27, 2012 at 7:47 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Your education is suspect, joneses. I listened to the speech and did not hear that at all. Listening comprehension issues maybe? Or were you hearing exactly what you wanted to hear?

January 27, 2012 at 8:23 a.m.
davisss13 said...

jonses, stay the course, wingnut. I do believe you folks have achieved cult level thinking.

Mission accomplished!

January 27, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.
onetinsoldier said...

Joneses said; "His goal is to make the dumb get dumber by keeping them stupid"

Do you ever read the stupid stuff you write? Only an idiot could fashion that group of words into a sentence. You are obviously of low intelligence and almost every post you have ever made is evidence. You have now received the attention you were after today. Please spend the rest of the day stewing about the attention you received, so you will be fresh tomorrow to look even more ignorant than you did today.

January 27, 2012 at 9:25 a.m.
timbo said...

blackwater48...Your posts are always demeaning and condesending. I will only answer one of you rantings. I won't argue the merit of supply side economics, but I do know the outcome of our recent Keynesian orgy with Obama. There is a fact that you and your liberal sycophants can't escape. Bush was awful. Real conservatives know that except for the tax cuts, Bush and the Republican congress acted like a big spending democrats. You should have loved Bush. Even with his big spending ways, he increased the deficit by $5 trillion dollars. Obama increased the deficit more ($6 trillion) in half the time. He has made it so much worse. Now, make all the excuses about "investment," bailouts, and blame it on Bush, but you cannot escape the numbers.

As far as reduction of the debt, it is hopeless. We are running $1 trillion deficits each year under Obama. There is no way you can cut $1 trillion is spending or raise that much revenue by increasing taxes. Even if you did, it is only getting close to the tip of the iceberg. The iceberg of debt hasn't even been touched. The debt and the debt service payments are still there forever. After cutting or tax raising $1 trillion dollars, the public, especially the 50% who don't pay any taxes or the government workers will already be howling like banshees. Do you think that cutting another $250-300 billion a year to pay down the debt will go over very well. I don't think so.

We are headed for economic armegeddon. There is nothing that can be done. It can only be slowed down. Since Bush's rate of increase of the debt was 1/2 the Obama rate. It is only logical that the Republicans will give me more time to get ready for the economic collapse.

So, Mr. blackwater48, you are probably some democrat party minion who get's on this page and pontificates about things you know nothing about posing as some democrat sage.You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool Timbo any time.

January 27, 2012 at 9:26 a.m.

harp3339: Allow me to quote the most particular sentence:

"We owe more than we have if all cash people have were confiscated."

That implies a line of thinking that there is any sense whatsoever in that statement. That somehow a 100% payment cash would be involved in zeroing out the debt. That's not even a rational idea on its own. The US government doesn't need to pay its debt off at once.

And cash is not the only representation of monetary wealth, nor would such an idea even be considered reasonable. There is a reason why the money supply is composed of numerous elements, only a small portion of which is considered cash.

Your fears about every customer suddenly deciding to skip the bond auctions are also groundless, a massive asteroid strike is far more likely than that kind of concerted and suicidal behavior. It would hurt the global economy to a degree that would be utterly unsustainable. In any case, the US's total wealth is considered to be around 50-80 trillion dollars depending on who you ask, so if you want to talk leverage, there is plenty to go around.

Why you think a blithe statement of not being able to pay it off in cash means anything, I don't know, you couldn't run the US economy if everything had to be managed with the current cash supply. I'm pretty sure no major nation could operate with just a cash-based system.

You're also a bit misguided if you think raising the taxes on every American is prudent, or necessary. All of the Americans who pay no direct federal income taxes still pay other taxes, but more importantly, many of them are low-income senior citizens who already paid plenty of income taxes in their productive years, while others are simply disabled and will never comprehend anything you ask of them. Stop looking at them as the monolithic mass of welfare leeches that conservative rhetoric would have you believe, it's just not at all accurate.

January 27, 2012 at 10:03 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

CONGRATULATIONS TIMBO

Timbo raised the white flag when he wrote, I won't argue the merit of supply side economics...

That is the topic being discussed. That is the subject of Clay's cartoon. Supply side economics is both the threat and the promise of all republican candidates running for President in 2012.

Since Obama took office the private sector has added 3 million new jobs. That's three times the number of jobs created in the previous eight years. Dependence on foreign oil is down. Exports are up. GM is alive. Bin Laden is dead. More jobs means two things: more payroll taxes and more money being spent by consumers. Remember, 70% of our economy is fueled by consumer spending. Raising the tax rate on millionaires to Reagan era levels is just common sense.

You say you can't argue the merits of supply side economics. Good for you. Tell that to the republican candidates who still haven't seen the light. They still want to coddle the so-called 'job creators' with more tax cuts. Romney's plan would cut HIS taxes but raise taxes on half of middle class families with children. Gingrich would eliminate capital gains taxes entirely.

By the way, Bill Gates just said, “There is no strong correlation between job creation and what the tax environment has been at any point in time...”

If we can't go back to supply side economics we must go forward with a president who has prevented the second great depression and has the country slowly, over steadfast opposition by congressional republicans, improving.

By the way, even though I don't see the relevance, I'm a registered independent. My family has been republican for generations. My grandfather ran for mayor as a republican, but this goes beyond partisan politics.

You're entitled to your opinions, Timbo. You've given up. You're saying, Let's get it over with. Vote republican.

January 27, 2012 at 10:46 a.m.
potcat said...

How anyone could come away thinking blackwater48's post are demeaning and condesending are just delusional and can't accept the truth about being an Republican, because they know blackwater is right.

Timboo said, you can't escape the numbers, you sure the hell can't timmy, and there lies your problem with every thing you post.

Oh how all these CONSERVATIVEs try to distance themselves from their appointed manufactured cowboy Bushie, its a just don't fly LIE.

By the way Bushie and the Repubtards got the US in the hole and kept digging more than "the only" appointed President EVER. Obama hasn't come close to the debt bush put the US in. He and the Republicans spent like drunken sailors i.e. bush probaly was, or i should say borrowed more money from Communist China,and Obama has had to deal with that debt from day one. Obama got the Repubs debt spending problem, and that timboo is a FACT.

Timboo no one is trying to fool you, you do a good enough job of that all by yourself.

January 27, 2012 at 10:49 a.m.
joneses said...

onetinsoldier,

Again like all communist liberal dummycrats you attack the messenger versus the message. Obama's and the dummycrats goal is to degrade the government schools so much that the students attending them do not have the education to better themselves, therefore thier the only solution is to be wards of the government. Do you not understand more people are on food stamps under this pathetic fool you call a president than any president ever? And you continue to prove your stupidity by telling us he is doing a wonderful job. With yours and other misguided puppets help we will all be wards of the government and be under total control of the self appointed elite. These elite through thier propoganda spread by the elite news (CNN, ABC,CBS, NBC, and others will still have you gullible misinformed fools convinced that it is all the Republicans fault. A perfect example is they have you convinced that Obama's relationship with noted communist terrorist Bill Ayers never existed. You are disgusing sheep being lead by a sick pathetic dog. This pathetic fool you call a president and you idolize is a liar and and gets away with it because of fools like you that fall for his crap. When a state passes a bill to better the lives of the citizens of that state which does not adhere to this fool you call a presidents libera communist agenda he sues the state. He is that pathetic and you should be ashamed of him. This is the first time in the history the Senate, lead by the patheticincompetant harry Ried, has not passed a budget in over a 1,000 days. How can you support this lack of leadership? You must be a really sick individual to think all this is good. I want to get back to work now. Try it, you might find it rewarding versus mooching off us hard working taxpayers. Onetinsoldier? I find it amusing you call yourself a soldier but support a party that think it should be against the law to even own a gun. Change your name to "one tin pathetic soldier", it is more fitting.

January 27, 2012 at 11:10 a.m.
potcat said...

joneses, what planet are you living on. The millions of people attending Goverment schools are in every profession i can think of. They become wards of the state,have you completly lost your mind!!!

More people are on Foodstamps because of unemployment and stagnant wages they can't live on, and thats Obamas fault! I have a LoT of problems with Obama, but Foodstamps are not one of them.

Your post is one of the stupidest i have ever read on this thread, and thats saying a lot.

Goverment schools, i am assuming you mean Public schools, you have lost your grip on reality, maybe you should see a Doctor, although he more likely than not attended a Goverment i.e. Public School!

In my family every one went to Public Schools, and are Teachers, nurses and computer Tech's ETC. very productive menbers of the US, whats wrong with you?

Bill Ayers, really, get a grip.

Democrats degrade Public Schools or is it goverment schools, lay down the crack pipe long enough to write a halfway truthful post.

January 27, 2012 at noon
timbo said...

blackwater48.... I see you got your democrat talking points today. In any event, I said I won't argue the merits of supply side economics. I did not give an opinion of it's effectiveness. So now I will. Supply side lite does work. Most people with money will invest more if the tax rate is lower. The problem is the Republicans want it both ways. They want the tax cut but aren't willing to not spend money. That is why Bush was a failure. I despise the establishment elites of the Republican party. They are the ones that bought votes just like democrats. Democrats, on the other hand, have it dead wrong with environmental lunacy and this Keynesian hogwash of government spending. The problem is the Democrats don't lie about it. They say they want to raise taxes and increase government. On the other hand, establishment Republicans do lie. They say one thing and do another. Democrats can't be trusted with their flawed philosophy and Republicans can't be trusted because they lie about what they will do.

So what are we left with? These lame attempts on both sides to defend a failed system whatever philosophy is used.

By the way your statistics suck. Obama may have...I said may have had 3 million jobs created but he lost around 4 /12 million. That means he still has a 1.5 million job deficit under his watch.

As far as GM goes, it is unconstitutional and just plain wrong for the government to pick the winners and losers. Why should my tax money go to a private business. I need my money to run my own company in this sorry economy. GM is not out of the woods yet, by the way.

No matter the President, Bin Laden would have be caught. I give him credit for making a decision.

The bottom line is that we need targeted tax cuts and tax increases to fix our problems. Until there are politician we can trust to actually cut significantly I am not willing to support tax increases on anyone. They will just spend the money.

By the way, I am a conservative independent. Both parties suck.

January 27, 2012 at 12:01 p.m.
timbo said...

blackwater48....To be honest, I think we need the same kind of system used in the mid-nineties with Clinton and Gingrich. Targeted tax cuts and increases spurred the economy. The dot.com boom also happened but to this day, some establishment Republican hate Gingrich for working with Clinton. That was the real reason the conservatives wanted him out. They like the same gridlock we have now. Gingrich scares the Republican party because he can't be controlled. That isn't the case with Romney. He will do whatever he is told.

January 27, 2012 at 12:15 p.m.
onetinsoldier said...

Joneses you have the wrong guy. I'd like to have coffee with Bill Ayers myself. I'm not a democrat. They are too far right for my taste. The only politician I give a rats --- about is Bernie Sanders. As far as food stamps go. Every American, or person for that matter, should never have to worry about food. Idiots like you would allow starvation to those you don't like. Every American should get medical care from birth to grave. You would leave some to suffer and you do. You and your ilk are sociopathic and a little starvation and illness would do you well.

January 27, 2012 at 12:15 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Blackwater said: “Tell that to the republican candidates who still haven't seen the light. They still want to coddle the so-called 'job creators' with more tax cuts. Romney's plan would cut HIS taxes but raise taxes on half of middle class families with children. Gingrich would eliminate capital gains taxes entirely.

Speaking of the Republican trickle downers, Mitt Romney, flawed thinking, and an unfair tax structure, I believe Jared Bernstein at Center on Budget Policy Priorities brings up some good discussion issues involving the type of loopholes and policy changes made during the 1980s and 1990s. Bernstein suggests it’s not a coincidence that these loopholes and the policies that support them have occurred during a period of sharply increasing inequality, weak job creation, and stagnant incomes for the middle class.

“One reason multi-millionaire investors like Gov. Romney face 15% tax rates is because they engage in corporate activities but avoid corporate taxes. They do so by taking advantage of policy changes that have made it easier to pass capital gains through the corporation to their personal income, where, in the case of private equity managers, they tap a double loophole. First, capital gains are taxed at less than half the rate of normal income, and second, even though these gains are really earnings for the fund managers, they get to claim them as capital gains (this is the notorious "carried interest" loophole).

As my Center on Budget and Policy Priorities colleagues Chuck Marr and Brian Highsmith wrote here:

'Although businesses operating through C corporations [standard corporations] are subject to corporate taxes, the capital income of non-incorporated businesses is "passed through" to the business owners. These owners benefit from the same tax deductions and credits as do corporations, but are taxed only at the individual level. Over the past half century, and particularly during the 1980s and 1990s, states and the federal government significantly expanded the legal benefits of pass-through entities. These changes have made it easier for firms to operate through such legal structures as S corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, and sole proprietorships -- while also benefiting from limited liability and other provisions that formerly were available only to corporations.' . . .

. . . The elasticities attached to changes in tax rates are wildly exaggerated by conservatives and trickle downers who argue that the slightest increase will end the economy while any decrease will trigger boom times. The evidence belies their view in terms of jobs, investments, and growth."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/mitt-and-the-1_b_1236529.html

January 27, 2012 at 3:11 p.m.
  1. Congress is in charge of allocating tax money not the president.
  2. There is no difference between democrats and republicans. They are both bending us over without proffering any lubrication.
  3. Isn't that Jay Carney as the mad scientist?
  4. This is what Obamacare is all about. Think progress!
January 27, 2012 at 4:37 p.m.
alprova said...

Timbo wrote: "By the way your statistics suck. Obama may have...I said may have had 3 million jobs created but he lost around 4 /12 million. That means he still has a 1.5 million job deficit under his watch."

Not that any President deserves credit or criticism for jobs created or not created in the private sector, for the last 15 months straight, there have been a net gain of 2.95 million jobs. The last month where there was a net loss in jobs occurred way back in September 2010.

The massive job losses that occurred that you claims reflects on him, were during the first 13 months of Obama's presidency. Clearly and indisputably the net job loss trend was ongoing a full year before he assumed office.

With the exception of June, July, August, and September 2010, net gains have been seen in jobs for 18 months out of the 36 months he has been in office. January 2009 was the absolute worst month for net jobs lost and the trend has been going north ever since, with brief one month dips.

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4edfe187eab8eaab3600001b/chart-unemployment-rate-and-jobs-added-during-the-great-recession-dec-7-2011.jpg

January 27, 2012 at 7:19 p.m.
alprova said...

Timbo wrote: "As far as GM goes, it is unconstitutional and just plain wrong for the government to pick the winners and losers."

The decision to bail out several private enterprises is hardly unconstitutional. Just because a specific action taken does not appear in the Constitution, that does not translate into it being unconstitutional. The General Welfare clause in the taxing and spending section of the Constitution covers what was done quite sufficiently.

But of course, since such decisions by the Government to step in like they did in the case of GM, have no direct benefit to you, it's easy to understand why you would feel that way.

"Why should my tax money go to a private business. I need my money to run my own company in this sorry economy. GM is not out of the woods yet, by the way."

GM is going to be just fine. And the money that likely can be attributed to having come from your personal pocket to save them is around ten bucks or less, depending on your tax rate, you really don't have very much to bitch about.

January 27, 2012 at 7:30 p.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "I’m going to start by claiming that no economic policy has actually balanced the federal budget since 1951."

You're still maintaining that, eh? You're utterly and completely confused. Spending budgets for the Government can be balanced, as they were for four years in a row beginning in 1997 through 2000, which is completely different than someone saying that the excess funds were applied to pay down the debt, which we know did not take place.

The only thing true in what you are attempting to state is that the national debt has not had funds from any surpluses that have occurred, applied to reduce the national debt, since 1951.

January 27, 2012 at 7:39 p.m.
dude_abides said...

onetinsoldier... come by and visit me first, as I have a surprise you can offer tu_quoque in return.

January 27, 2012 at 7:53 p.m.
BobMKE said...

We as Conservatives have been proved right over the decades. Some major examples are President Johnson’s Great Society and the welfare state which has destroyed the family. Busing, which has destroyed tour major cities school systems and caused white flight. The Conservatives were called racists and uncaring. The present entitlements are approaching the bewitching hour and the people depending on the Government are told that they will be pushed off a cliff and will have to eat dog food. This is liberal speak and the libs know that if they can control the language then they can control the argument. Obama is now trying to level the playing field and starting Social Justice. All of the above ventures made them feel good and they feel superior to everyone else. The base their decisions on emotion not logic. Conservatives use logic and know what is right or wrong and as stated above, they have been proven right. The libs yell out, “tax the rich,” and make demons out of people who are successful. They are ideological bullies. They don’t want to hear about logic and common sense because they prefer the warm and fuzzy feeling they get when they think they are helping out the little guy. All they are doing is putting people in a class which they can’t get out of. They are taking these people off the hook and their plight is someone else’s fault. The Conservatives want an opportunistic society which is merit based. The libs want an entitlement society which gives them the power to run people’s lives.

The biggest fraud ever being pulled on man is Global Warming. Oh, I’m sorry it’s now Climate Change. I forgot about liberal speak. The prediction for the new century was that the plant is going to be warming. Nothing happened over the last decade. We had a few hurricanes and they predicted ever more. Nothing much happened except Al “Girly Man” Gore became a billionaire. Our children are being brain washed over this. They should be studying math, science, social studies, and English. The doubters are being ridiculed just like Christopher Columbus, and the others, who were saying that the earth is round.

January 27, 2012 at 8:37 p.m.
potcat said...

Part 1

The real reason that we should be concrerned about private equity's expanding power lies in the way these firms have become increasingly adapt at using financial gimmicks to line their pockets, deriving enormous wealth not from management or investing skills but, rather, from the way the U.S.tax system works. Indeed, for an industry that's often held up as an exemplar of the free-market capitalism, private equity is surprisingly dependent on GOVERMENT SUBSIDIES FOR ITS PROFITS. Financial engineering has always been central to leverage buyouts. In a typical deal, a private-equity firm buys a company, using some of its own money and some borrowed money. it then tries to improve the performance of the acquired company, with an eye toward cashing out by selling it or taking it public. The key to this strategy is debt: the model encourages firms to borrow as much as possible, since, just as with a mortgage, the less money you put down, the bigger your potential return on investment. The rewards can be extraodinary: when Romney was at Bain, it suppoedly earned eighty-eight percent a year for its investors . But piles of Debt also increase the risk that companies will go bust.

January 27, 2012 at 10:12 p.m.
potcat said...

Part 2x

As if this weren't galling enough, tapayers are left on the hook. Interest payments on all that debt are tax-deductible; when pensions are dumped, a federal agency called the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation picks up the TAB; and the money that the dealmakers earn is taxed at a much lower rate than normal income would be, thanks to the so-called "carried interest" loophole. The money Romney made when he was at Bain Capital was compensation for his ( apparently excellent) work, but, instead of being taxed as income, it was taxed as capital gain. Its a very COZY ARRANGEMENT.

If private-equity firms are as good at remakiny companies as they claim, they don't need TAX LOOPHOLES as they claim, If we capped the deductibility of corporate DEBT,and closed the carried -interest LOOPHOLES, it would not prevent private- equity firms from buying companies or improving corporate performance. But it would reduce the incentives for financial GIMMICKRY and SAVE TAXPAYERS BILLIONS every year. Private-equity firms are excellent at GAMING THE RULES. Time to change that, don't you think?

I could go on and on , but it makes be mad, i think you get it. Its the Rich crook that wants to be President, is this all they got, WOW!!

January 27, 2012 at 10:44 p.m.

BobMKE, you might want to avoid posting an attack screed against another ideology while complaining that they are the bullies. It doesn't exactly serve as a very persuasive argument.

But you're misinformed about Columbus. He wasn't ridiculed because of any significant belief about the world not being round. He was called on his mathematics being in error. Which they were. He estimated that the world was several thousand miles smaller than it actually is, and only the fortuitous (for him) presence of the Americas kept him from failure. The "doubters" as you call them, were correct. Columbus would have died on his voyage if he had not been lucky enough to find land he wasn't expecting within the range of his ships.

January 27, 2012 at 11:48 p.m.
fairmon said...

happywithnewbulbs said... harp3339: Allow me to quote the most particular sentence:

"We owe more than we have if all cash people have were confiscated."

I should have used income instead of cash with the intent being to illustrate that taxing higher income people more would do little to reduce the annual deficit and the rapidly increasing national debt.

Please spare me more condescending lectures since I understand non monetary wealth, cashless transfers of wealth.

hwtnbs said....

Do you not understand the concept of a loan involves payment over time, not just one single instant return? It was accrued over time. It will be paid off over time.

I understand perfectly the loan concept and the need to pay it over time. However the amount of the loan is being increased with no indication that even a small payment on it will be made in the foreseeable future.

hwtnbs said.....

Besides, the US has a GDP of around 15 trillion. That's hardly an onerous debt-load. Japan has a far worse ratio. Think about it terms of home ownership. Would you be upset at somebody who makes 100,000 a year and has a mortgage for 150,000? 200,000? 300,000?

Comparing to Japan to justify our irresponsible behavior is like a kid justifying doing something when they say every body is doing it. I could care less if you make 100,000 with a mortgage of 300,000 if I don't have to pay it for you and rest assured I am not willing to help pay anything on your loan. At some point I would bet the lender would quit allowing you to increase the loan amount and ask that at least the interest be paid to avoid an increase in the amount owed.

January 28, 2012 at 12:32 a.m.
potcat said...

You stupid pig, i was not at all trying to fool anyone and pass off this post as my own words. This is an article i read in which i believe was correct, relevant and reliable.

Bust me? really, how do you think anyone gets information, its from reading.I mearly wrote verbatin from a reliable article i had just read and found interesting. I don't believe any one with a ounce of sense believes those were my words and i never intended for them to think so. I don't roll that way!

As a matter of fact its a piece in The New Yorker by James Surowiecki, The Financial Page. i should have said so, but i figured everyone would know that these are not my words.

you are a bully and arse hole, i don't like you and sure as hell don't believe you, so what you thought was a i got you , was nothing more than a kids mentality of "i got you" , only thing you got was how stupid you looked.

Did any one on this thread think for a second i was trying to lie and pass those words as mine?

January 28, 2012 at 12:51 a.m.

Harp3339, which takes us back to the concept of paying off the debt in one fell swoop. So you would be just wrong with that phrasing, there is no conceivable reason to try to pay off the debt that way either. You are only illustrating your own ignorance, not making some grand point about the national debt. There is no sensible reason to pay off the entirety of US federal debt (which is owed to a wide variety of parties, including itself, so even thinking they would act in concert is silly), so why would you complain about it not being possible from income? If anybody were to want that, they go for wealth, and you might want to look at the actual assets of the United States. Quite a lot of it.

You want to be spared condescending lectures, then refrain from statements that show not the slightest understanding of the situation. You think there is no indication of the surety of the United States? Then you had better not take that attitude to a Treasury Auction, unless you want to be disillusioned. Plenty of faith and credit in the US government to be found. Apparently major bankers do not agree with your assessment for some reason.

And ignoring the state of other countries debt is like a kid screaming that they are different or special, and that the observation of others means nothing. So you frame it as justifying, I frame your rebuttal as a plea to narcissism and groundless fear. Especially since you clearly don't understand that the bonds are being paid off under the terms they were issued. That more debt is being issued is part of the process of government, it being something that does not just end, but instead keeps growing.

But really, your complaint about the debt and not being able to pay it off, stop with the idea. It doesn't work that way, and no the bankers can't just decide to modify the loan agreements with treasury bonds as if they were some back alley mob shark with a bunch of thugs. The situation is a lot more balanced than that. Fortunately. Because those bankers have shown they are quite dishonest. Unfortunately, they lobbying hard to get what they want. Pity that.

January 28, 2012 at 1:14 a.m.
fairmon said...

happywithnewbulbs said... Harp3339, which takes us back to the concept of paying off the debt in one fell swoop.

I know the debt cannot be paid off in my 12 year old daughters life time and did not suggest it actually be paid in one lump sum or any time soon. However, continuing the current annual deficits and allowing the resulting increased debt to continue is ignorant and irresponsibe governance. I also know bonds will continue to sell but at higher interest rates at some future point. Apparently you and former VP Cheney think debt is good and annual deficits that will double the debt in ten years is not a problem. Keep believing that and hang around to see what happens, I think it will end badly and you think spending 43% more than you make each year is OK. Yes, expiring bonds are paid at the interest rate in effect when purchased. Those depending on treasury bonds for part of their income are screwed if they renew them. Many are turning to highly rated tax exempt municipal bonds instead which may be a mistake if they don't avoid California and a few other poorly managed states.

Are you suggesting there is no need at some point to actually stop the rate of debt growth and that is OK to continue living way beyond your means? Are you suggesting there is no need at some point to begin reducing the debt which someone posted has not occurred since 1951?

January 28, 2012 at 5:57 a.m.

harp3339, my problem has been with your expression of it not being paid off in a year.

I may disagree or agree with you on the principle of debt retirement, but that can be a discussion on perspective of economics. We aren't having that discussion though. Why? Because of the wording of your complaint above.

Trying to reduce it to a year's time, as if it were a meaningful complaint to say that, as opposed to just a foolish statement of an unreasonable situation, that's been what I've been talking about.

It's not saying anything useful, or meaningful. It's just making a grandiose complaint that sounds good, but doesn't measure up.

You want to complain that the US may reach a point of unsustainable debt load? Do it without the rhetorical statements that only offer ignorance. And preferably, retract the ones you have made.

Then at least, there's a chance the discussion won't be one of futility.

And yes, I do believe the US government could adopt a program to pay off its debts, whether or not I agree with such a policy would depend on the terms of it. I do think anybody who tries to act as if it needs to be rushed to the point of starvation on other terms needs to be removed from the discussion though.

That would be you, with what you said above. But hey, ok, you want to have a productive discussion, just promise to refrain from the irrational rhetoric.

January 28, 2012 at 9:56 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

ALL HAIL THE RETURN OF TQ THE TROLL!

The Troll wrote, I recall that we were going to debate this subject (trickle down economics) on an earlier thread until you surrendered and left the field.

Must be nice living in fantasy land. Actually, Troll, when I cornered you into presenting factual, verifiable examples of supply side economics ever balancing the budget and reducing unemployment you claimed you had never heard of trickle down and requested a laundry list of qualifiers.

So, by claiming to have never heard of trickle down economics, how could you defend it? Wow. So clever. That bowling ball sharp wit of yours is certainly something to behold.

Okay, I'll give you home field advantage and assume (incorrectly) that the federal budget hasn't been balanced since 1951. Your example, I'll beat you on your field. Okay, Troll, kindly present how the debt and deficit were affected by the Presidencies of Reagan, George H.W. and George W. Bush.

That is, show us the annual federal debt and deficit from the years 1981 to 1993 and from 2001 to 2009. Good luck with that, sport.

Can hardly wait to see the amusing pile of troll poop you'll fling back at me!

January 28, 2012 at 11:49 a.m.
BobMKE said...

happywithnewbulbs, Thank you for your response. You did cherry pick it though. What about my other major points? Agree or not? I'll stick by my bully statements. Just pull up pictures of the tea party rallies and compare them to the 99% and the thugs who ralled here in Wisconsin backed by the union thugs. It's their way or the highway. The libs say that they are the party of tolerance and they are not.

January 28, 2012 at 3:53 p.m.

BobMKE, I really was primarily concerned about your misunderstanding of the opposition to Columbus. Correcting you on that was the main focus of my post, as many people have been mislead over that particular myth.

Since that was my intent, I felt discussing anything else in your post in detail would have been counter-productive since it would be distracting from that point, which unlike the others, would be readily testable since it's a bit divorced from current passions.

If you wish me to reply to something else of yours, then why don't you rewrite your post with that correction in mind?

January 28, 2012 at 4:22 p.m.
BobMKE said...

Happy,

Thanks again for your reply. Couldn't you just delete the Columbus part and pretend it wasn't there?

January 28, 2012 at 4:35 p.m.

It's really too hard for me to take it seriously when I know it's ending in what's really a misconception. So I'd rather not risk being unfair to you over you falling victim to an unfortunately common historical misconception and using that as your conclusion.

Same issue I have with harp3339, a gross error in a piece of rhetoric, that distracts from the discussion. Though I will give you substantially more credit for owning up to your mistake by saying it should be excised. But it's already there, and I just do not feel comfortable with your post including it.

Maybe next time you wish to say something, you can try to avoid that particular mistake.

January 28, 2012 at 4:54 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.