Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 42401 - 42420 of total 52587 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>

Apr 13, 2013 - 03:35pm PT

"Nobody in their right mind would be so stupid as to give Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, and Wolfowitz the authorization to go to war without knowing they will actually take us to war."

Had we known about the Bush admin what we know today, he wouldn't have gotten authorization to walk (or paint) his dog. There was nothing is US history to compare to that level of dishonesty and incompetence. No one would have believed that a president would cook the intel books as the justification to invade and occupy a foreign country that posed no threat to us.

So, yes - voting for authorization, when we didn't know we were being lied to, and didn't realize how incompetent they were, can certainly be defended.

Social climber
An Oil Field
Apr 13, 2013 - 03:36pm PT
The left has always been a mish mash without any coherent message. They are made up of groups with highly different goals.

When you vote for a Republican from state house on up, he has been to Republican School for most of his life, has a bunch of pages with talking points at his disposal, and is totally inflexible.

Republicans can't govern. All they can do is go to war, which is the easiest thing that a president and a party can do. Fixing Medicaire and Social Security are beyond them.

This country has been spending like we are on a free ride at the carnival for thirty two years nigh to the day, when Reagan started his insane military spending. Clinton cut the snot out of the military after the end of the cold war, as he should have, but now the Right is for only one spending program: the Military. Every military dollar spent is an embezzlement of resources from the human race. While military contractors can become rich, it is at the direct expense of the American People, with checks with the U.S. Treasury on top of them, much like your tax refund check.

Who else receives checks from the federal government? Farmers come to mind right off the bat. I have a lot of experience dealing with farmers, who seem to listen to a lot of Beck and Limbaugh up in their enclosed tractors.

At the same time they get actual checks (not counting tax breaks) from the U.S. treasury for crop subsidies and CRP payments. There is a full database online at a website called "The Environmental Working Group." I have no idea what environmental function they serve, it seems like just a big database. Our of that lot comes the red state characters. They will fight for that ethanol subsidy until the end of time, even though anyone with a pulse knows that it is a complete waste of money to take corn, one of the most income producing crops on its own, and then subsidize its use as a fuel. The whole equation loses money every year to the farmers.

Farmers are the biggest leaches in the country. I do have some good stories to tell about those characters.

Military contractors
Homeland defense contractors

They all rip us off blind. Banks were OK until Clinton ended the Glass-Steagall act, which had forced banks to play it safe with capital reserves since they almost killed us in the Great Depression. When Clinton ended the rules on banks, banks made insane loans and blew their capital reserves.

Obama was forced to bail them out. He dropped the ball by not sending 10,000 thieves to prison. No banker has been convicted over the whole subprime derivative market. Many were investment banks that weren't subject to FDIC insurance, but to save the economy, we all ended up paying for that massive loss in the form of new debt.

I'm also shocked and surprised that Republicans have positioned themselves as the party of financial responsibility, when only a few years before Obama was first elected, Cheney was quoted as famously saying: deficits don't matter. By all rights, the tea party should be democrats. The democrats are the only ones to actually pay for all of the special spending by raising taxes. It never occurred to democrats to just spend money without a way to pay for it.

There will be no monuments built to celebrate GW Bush or Dick Cheney. They robbed us blind with their lies.

And now? The right is totally batshit crazy. Don't they get it? Republicans are poised to go straight down the toilet in the next ten years.

Somewhere out there
Apr 13, 2013 - 03:42pm PT
Good point dropline……

Except that those three guys that you mention that helped in deregulating the banks, securities and insurance companies…. what were they, might I ask?

If only it wasn't for republitards in 1999 that drop line mentioned, among the countless others since then and before then who have totally screwed up this country for the common man…

BTW - Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia), the co-sponsors of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Apr 13, 2013 - 04:21pm PT
Locker wrote: and as odd as it may seem, people still defend that idiot...

And comparing him (Obama) to Bush is just as idiotic.

Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 13, 2013 - 08:01pm PT
There is nothing more stupid than the old "They are both the same" line of BS

we've heard it a million times, and proved them wrong every time

When you give money to a Democrat, you are sponsoring him to continue the liberal agenda

When you give money to a Republican, you are paying him off for the favors he will provide you. The Conservatives have made it more profitable for them with Citizens United, They have rigged the system for More big money.

The Dems have tried to get the Big lobbyist Money out of politics, but are being out funded 100 to 1, so it will get worse until we stop the Conservatives agenda, take over the country.

The list goes on, I proved to rong once and for all with an example of one big difference...
The Democrats had a Veterans Jobs Bill they were trying to pass, it would of given 10000s of jobs to Veterans, The Republican Filibustered it, so there will be No jobs for the veterans.

To make it simple for him, it basically came down to this
Jobs for Veterans vs. No jobs for Veterans
Dems vs. Repubs
Support the troops and their service to the Country vs. thanks for letting us F-you, you loser

Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 13, 2013 - 08:02pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.
Vote out the Republicans, so there will be a difference
A positive Difference
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 13, 2013 - 08:15pm PT
Cheney's Halliburton Made $39.5 Billion on Iraq War


By Angelo Young

Source: International Business Times

Sunday, April 07, 2013

The accounting of the financial cost of the nearly decade-long Iraq War will go on for years, but a recent analysis has shed light on the companies that made money off the war by providing support services as the privatization of what were former U.S. military operations rose to unprecedented levels.

Private or publicly listed firms received at least $138 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for government contracts for services that included providing private security, building infrastructure and feeding the troops.

Ten contractors received 52 percent of the funds, according to an analysis by the Financial Times that was published Tuesday.

The No. 1 recipient?

Houston-based energy-focused engineering and construction firm KBR, Inc. (NYSE:KBR), which was spun off from its parent, oilfield services provider Halliburton Co. (NYSE:HAL), in 2007.

The company was given $39.5 billion in Iraq-related contracts over the past decade, with many of the deals given without any bidding from competing firms, such as a $568-million contract renewal in 2010 to provide housing, meals, water and bathroom services to soldiers, a deal that led to a Justice Department lawsuit over alleged kickbacks, as reported by Bloomberg.

Who were Nos. 2 and 3?

Agility Logistics (KSE:AGLTY) of Kuwait and the state-owned Kuwait Petroleum Corp. Together, these firms garnered $13.5 billion of U.S. contracts.

As private enterprise entered the war zone at unprecedented levels, the amount of corruption ballooned, even if most contractors performed their duties as expected.

According to the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the level of corruption by defense contractors may be as high as $60 billion. Disciplined soldiers that would traditionally do many of the tasks are commissioned by private and publicly listed companies.

Even without the graft, the costs of paying for these services are higher than paying governement employees or soldiers to do them because of the profit motive involved. No-bid contracting - when companies get to name their price with no competing bid - didn't lower legitimate expenses. (Despite promises by President Barack Obama to reel in this habit, the trend toward granting favored companies federal contracts without considering competing bids continued to grow, by 9 percent last year, according to the Washington Post.)

Even though the military has largely pulled out of Iraq, private contractors remain on the ground and continue to reap U.S. government contracts. For example, the U.S. State Department estimates that taxpayers will dole out $3 billion to private guards for the government's sprawling embassy in Baghdad.

The costs of paying private and publicly listed war profiteers seem miniscule in light of the total bill for the war.

Last week, the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University said the war in Iraq cost $1.7 trillion dollars, not including the $490 billion in immediate benefits owed to veterans of the war and the lifetime benefits that will be owed to them or their next of kin.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 13, 2013 - 08:30pm PT
Here is a Dem that is doing something, give her more power with a filibuster proof majority, and a Democratic House, and we will get some real action, and put the bankster mafia and corrupt power in jail, like they belong.

Elizabeth Warren Rips Federal Regulators A New One (VIDEO)

By Leslie Salzillo

Well forgive me for jumping the gun here, but believe I’ll vote for this woman when she’s ready to run for president.

In the calmest sounding voice, and with the most ferocious demeanor, Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) ripped into government regulators during a Senate Banking Committee hearing Thursday morning. As you will see in the video, Warren relentlessly demanded facts about banks that fraudulently foreclosed on homeowners during 2009 and 2010. She wanted, not some, but ALL of the figures, bank by bank, case by case. For a minute I imagined her as my IRS auditor. I had to get up and leave the room.

Warren would not let up. She wanted to know why there were no records containing the number of illegally foreclosed homes. It’s a fair question. Apparently the Independent Foreclosure Review was abandoned. It got too messy, and they decided to go with Door Number Two: a $9.3 billion settlement. That might sound good for the homeowners, but it only equates to $1,000 per home. That’s right. Your home is illegally foreclosed on, you lose your home through fraudulent bank practices, and the settlement to you is $1,000.

Warren and other legislators have, for months, repeatedly asked bank regulators at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve, for information and accountability as to why the review was dropped in January in favor of settlement. Her concern is that the homeowners should know all the facts, especially if they chose to sue the bank. As I watch this video clip, I find myself feeling bad for the dastardly regulators – the ones who’ve been putting the banks’ interest over the homeowner’s welfare. Wait a minute. Never mind.

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Apr 13, 2013 - 08:42pm PT

Credit: locker

Credit: locker


Apr 13, 2013 - 09:05pm PT
"Last week, the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University said the war in Iraq cost $1.7 trillion dollars"

But of course, the war paid for itself, as did the tax cuts that "paid" for it

Just like the Heritage Foundation said they would, hahahaha

But if $1.7 trillion rids the earth of the repub party -which so far, it is - it'll be a bargain.

Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 13, 2013 - 09:19pm PT
The Republicans spent all the other peoples money, and out of of pure selfishness, make sure they spend as little of their own money as possible, "screw the people, screw them all, it's Mine!!!, it's my money, you can't have it!"

Very unpatriotic, you know, we are all in this together, it's the cost of being a civilized country

We really don't appreciate that your selfishness is taking us all down.

I say we Kick them off the ship, walk the plank matey!
They're hogging all the good stuff for themselves, while the rest of people That paid for it, just get the left over crumbs.
Free loders, takers, moochers....

Stair climber, lost, far away from Poland
Apr 15, 2013 - 10:38pm PT

Two days without a post???


Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Apr 16, 2013 - 07:31am PT
Ah,yes the hard work myth. I know people who make ten times that and who work a 40hr week, and I've met plenty of minimum wage workers pulling two jobs seven days per week who can't make ends meet.

Our national shame is that we have a group of people that is referred to as "the working poor."
The Warbler

the edge of America
Apr 16, 2013 - 08:14am PT
From the NYT

One of our other national shames, and another despicable republican plot:


U.S. Practiced Torture After 9/11, Nonpartisan Review Concludes

WASHINGTON — A nonpartisan, independent review of interrogation and detention programs in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks concludes that “it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture” and that the nation’s highest officials bore ultimate responsibility for it.

The sweeping, 577-page report says that while brutality has occurred in every American war, there never before had been “the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody.” The study, by an 11-member panel convened by the Constitution Project, a legal research and advocacy group, is to be released on Tuesday morning.

No surprise for reasonable thinkers, but I'm sure right wingers are still in denial that the guys they voted for and admire are lying war criminals.

Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 16, 2013 - 08:40am PT
A Tax System Stacked Against the 99 Percent


LEONA HELMSLEY, the hotel chain executive who was convicted of federal tax evasion in 1989, was notorious for, among other things, reportedly having said that “only the little people pay taxes.”

As a statement of principle, the quotation may well have earned Mrs. Helmsley, who died in 2007, the title Queen of Mean. But as a prediction about the fairness of American tax policy, Mrs. Helmsley’s remark might actually have been prescient.

Today, the deadline for filing individual income-tax returns, is a day when Americans would do well to pause and reflect on our tax system and the society it creates. No one enjoys paying taxes, and yet all but the extreme libertarians agree, as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, that taxes are the price we pay for civilized society. But in recent decades, the burden for paying that price has been distributed in increasingly unfair ways.

About 6 in 10 of us believe that the tax system is unfair — and they’re right: put simply, the very rich don’t pay their fair share. The richest 400 individual taxpayers, with an average income of more than $200 million, pay less than 20 percent of their income in taxes — far lower than mere millionaires, who pay about 25 percent of their income in taxes, and about the same as those earning a mere $200,000 to $500,000. And in 2009, 116 of the top 400 earners — almost a third — paid less than 15 percent of their income in taxes.

Conservatives like to point out that the richest Americans’ tax payments make up a large portion of total receipts. This is true, as well it should be in any tax system that is progressive — that is, a system that taxes the affluent at higher rates than those of modest means. It’s also true that as the wealthiest Americans’ incomes have skyrocketed in recent years, their total tax payments have grown. This would be so even if we had a single flat income-tax rate across the board.

What should shock and outrage us is that as the top 1 percent has grown extremely rich, the effective tax rates they pay have markedly decreased. Our tax system is much less progressive than it was for much of the 20th century. The top marginal income tax rate peaked at 94 percent during World War II and remained at 70 percent through the 1960s and 1970s; it is now 39.6 percent. Tax fairness has gotten much worse in the 30 years since the Reagan “revolution” of the 1980s.

Citizens for Tax Justice, an organization that advocates for a more progressive tax system, has estimated that, when federal, state and local taxes are taken into account, the top 1 percent paid only slightly more than 20 percent of all American taxes in 2010 — about the same as the share of income they took home, an outcome that is not progressive at all.

With such low effective tax rates — and, importantly, the low tax rate of 20 percent on income from capital gains — it’s not a huge surprise that the share of income going to the top 1 percent has doubled since 1979, and that the share going to the top 0.1 percent has almost tripled, according to the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. Recall that the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans own about 40 percent of the nation’s wealth, and the picture becomes even more disturbing.

If these numbers still don’t impress you as being unfair, consider them in comparison with other wealthy countries.

The United States stands out among the countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the world’s club of rich nations, for its low top marginal income tax rate. These low rates are not essential for growth — consider Germany, for instance, which has managed to maintain its status as a center of advanced manufacturing, even though its top income-tax rate exceeds America’s by a considerable margin. And in general, our top tax rate kicks in at much higher incomes. Denmark, for example, has a top tax rate of more than 60 percent, but that applies to anyone making more than $54,900. The top rate in the United States, 39.6 percent, doesn’t kick in until individual income reaches $400,000 (or $450,000 for a couple). Only three O.E.C.D. countries — South Korea, Canada and Spain — have higher thresholds.

Most of the Western world has experienced an increase in inequality in recent decades, though not as much as the United States has. But among most economists there is a general understanding that a country with excessive inequality can’t function well; many countries have used their tax codes to help “correct” the market’s distribution of wealth and income. The United States hasn’t — or at least not very much. Indeed, the low rates at the top serve to exacerbate and perpetuate the inequality — so much so that among the advanced industrial countries, America now has the highest income inequality and the least equality of opportunity. This is a gross inversion of America’s traditional meritocratic ideals — ideals that our leaders, across the spectrum, continue to profess.

Over the years, some of the wealthy have been enormously successful in getting special treatment, shifting an ever greater share of the burden of financing the country’s expenditures — defense, education, social programs — onto others. Ironically, this is especially true of some of our multinational corporations, which call on the federal government to negotiate favorable trade treaties that allow them easy entry into foreign markets and to defend their commercial interests around the world, but then use these foreign bases to avoid paying taxes.

General Electric has become the symbol for multinational corporations that have their headquarters in the United States but pay almost no taxes — its effective corporate-tax rate averaged less than 2 percent from 2002 to 2012 — just as Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee last year, became the symbol for the wealthy who don’t pay their fair share when he admitted that he paid only 14 percent of his income in taxes in 2011, even as he notoriously complained that 47 percent of Americans were freeloaders. Neither G.E. nor Mr. Romney has, to my knowledge, broken any tax laws, but the sparse taxes they’ve paid violate most Americans’ basic sense of fairness.

In looking at such statistics, one has to be careful: they typically reflect taxes as a percentage of reported income. And the tax laws don’t require the reporting of all kinds of income. For the rich, hiding such assets has become an elite sport. Many avail themselves of the Cayman Islands or other offshore tax shelters to avoid taxes (and not, you can safely assume, because of the sunny weather). They don’t have to report income until it is brought back (“repatriated”) to the United States. So, too, capital gains have to be reported as income only when they are realized.

And if the assets are passed on to one’s children or grandchildren at death, no taxes are ever paid, in a peculiar loophole called the “step-up in cost basis at death.” Yes, the tax privileges of being rich in America extend into the afterlife.

As Americans look at some of the special provisions in the tax code — for vacation homes, racetracks, beer breweries, oil refineries, hedge funds and movie studios, among many other favored assets or industries — it is no wonder that they feel disillusioned with a tax system that is so riddled with special rewards. Most of these tax-code loopholes and giveaways did not materialize from thin air, of course — usually, they were enacted in pursuit of, or at least in response to, campaign contributions from influential donors. It is estimated that these kinds of special tax provisions amount to some $123 billion a year, and that the price tag for offshore tax loopholes is not far behind. Eliminating these provisions alone would go a long way toward meeting deficit-reduction targets called for by fiscal conservatives who worry about the size of the public debt.

Yet another source of unfairness is the tax treatment on so-called carried interest. Some Wall Street financiers are able to pay taxes at lower capital gains tax rates on income that comes from managing assets for private equity funds or hedge funds. But why should managing financial assets be treated any differently from managing people, or making discoveries? Of course, those in finance say they are essential. But so are doctors, lawyers, teachers and everyone else who contributes to making our complex society work. They say they are necessary for job creation. But in fact, many of the private equity firms that have excelled in exploiting the carried interest loophole are actually job destroyers; they excel in restructuring firms to “save” on labor costs, often by moving jobs abroad.

Economists often eschew the word “fair” — fairness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. But the unfairness of the American tax system has gotten so great that it’s dishonest to apply any other label to it.

Traditionally, economists have focused less on issues of equality than on the more mundane issues of growth and efficiency. But here again, our tax system comes in with low marks. Our growth was higher in the era of high top marginal tax rates than it has been since 1980. Economists — even at traditional, conservative international institutions like the International Monetary Fund — have come to realize that excessive inequality is bad for growth and stability. The tax system can play an important role in moderating the degree of inequality. Ours, however, does remarkably little about it.

One of the reasons for our poor economic performance is the large distortion in our economy caused by the tax system. The one thing economists agree on is that incentives matter — if you lower taxes on speculation, say, you will get more speculation. We’ve drawn our most talented young people into financial shenanigans, rather than into creating real businesses, making real discoveries, providing real services to others. More efforts go into “rent-seeking” — getting a larger slice of the country’s economic pie — than into enlarging the size of the pie.

Research in recent years has linked the tax rates, sluggish growth and rising inequality. Remember, the low tax rates at the top were supposed to spur savings and hard work, and thus economic growth. They didn’t. Indeed, the household savings rate fell to a record level of near zero after President George W. Bush’s two rounds of cuts, in 2001 and 2003, on taxes on dividends and capital gains. What low tax rates at the top did do was increase the return on rent-seeking. It flourished, which meant that growth slowed and inequality grew. This is a pattern that has now been observed across countries. Contrary to the warnings of those who want to preserve their privileges, countries that have increased their top tax bracket have not grown more slowly. Another piece of evidence is here at home: if the efforts at the top were resulting in our entire economic engine’s doing better, we would expect everyone to benefit. If they were engaged in rent-seeking, as their incomes increased, we’d expect that of others to decrease. And that’s exactly what’s been happening. Incomes in the middle, and even the bottom, have been stagnating or falling.

Aside from the evidence, there is a strong intuitive case to be made for the idea that tax rates have encouraged rent-seeking at the expense of wealth creation. There is an intrinsic satisfaction in creating a new business, in expanding the horizons of our knowledge, and in helping others. By contrast, it is unpleasant to spend one’s days fine-tuning dishonest and deceptive practices that siphon money off the poor, as was common in the financial sector before the 2007-8 financial crisis. I believe that a vast majority of Americans would, all things being equal, choose the former over the latter. But our tax system tilts the field. It increases the net returns from engaging in some of these intrinsically distasteful activities, and it has helped us become a rent-seeking society.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We could have a much simpler tax system without all the distortions — a society where those who clip coupons for a living pay the same taxes as someone with the same income who works in a factory; where someone who earns his income from saving companies pays the same tax as a doctor who makes the income by saving lives; where someone who earns his income from financial innovations pays the same taxes as a someone who does research to create real innovations that transform our economy and society. We could have a tax system that encourages good things like hard work and thrift and discourages bad things, like rent-seeking, gambling, financial speculation and pollution. Such a tax system could raise far more money than the current one — we wouldn’t have to go through all the wrangling we’ve been going through with sequestration, fiscal cliffs and threats to end Medicare and Social Security as we know it. We would be in sound fiscal position, for at least the next quarter-century.

The consequences of our broken tax system are not just economic. Our tax system relies heavily on voluntary compliance. But if citizens believe that the tax system is unfair, this voluntary compliance will not be forthcoming. More broadly, government plays an important role not just in social protection, but in making investments in infrastructure, technology, education and health. Without such investments, our economy will be weaker, and our economic growth slower.

Society can’t function well without a minimal sense of national solidarity and cohesion, and that sense of shared purpose also rests on a fair tax system. If Americans believe that government is unfair — that ours is a government of the 1 percent, for the 1 percent, and by the 1 percent — then faith in our democracy will surely perish.

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Apr 16, 2013 - 09:45am PT
"A review of serious, nonpartisan research reveals some uncomfortable facts about the economics of modern immigration, and immigration from Mexico in particular... the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small...many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration...modern America is a welfare state ... and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net."

who could write such blasphemy?

wait for it...

paul krugman...in 2006...when unemployment was 4.7%

so, all you libs who favor amnesty: why do you hate american workers so much? or those few libs who don't favor amnesty: why do you hate immigrants so much?

Apr 16, 2013 - 10:27am PT
"paul krugman...in 2006...when unemployment was 4.7%"

During the height of the housing bubble.

Hahahahaha, poor Bookworm


Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Apr 17, 2013 - 08:41am PT
canary in the coal mine?


why does barry hate union workers so much? or does this mean the roofers union is racist?

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Apr 18, 2013 - 03:55am PT
why does max baucus hate children and poor people and old people so much?



Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Apr 18, 2013 - 04:00am PT
what liberalism hath wrought:

barry's spokesman not sure if american military bombing in afghanistan is an act of terrorism:


but drone strikes against american citizens that kill a 16-year-old american boy are just fine since it's barry's kill list
Messages 42401 - 42420 of total 52587 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

Try a free sample topo!

SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews