10 Questions Every Liberal Should Ask Every Republican

scratching-headWhen it comes to politics, I think most people have a love/hate relationship.  When people ask me what I do, one of the followup questions I get asked quite often is, “Isn’t that incredibly frustrating?”  And the answer is yes, it is.

Politics might be one of the few areas I know of where facts, reality and history can suddenly be subjective.  I honestly never thought I’d live in a day and age where climate change would be something millions of people suddenly doubted.  All because a few rich tycoons decided to lobby a political party in the United States to perpetuate the idea that the science behind climate change was some big liberal conspiracy.

Literally every day I see comments from poor or middle class conservatives advocating for the policies of a political party that’s clearly used religion to manipulate many of them into voting against their own interests.  “You’re going to cut benefits for programs that help me?  Oh, and you’re trying to privatize entitlement programs so rich people can profit from them?  That’s fine, because my church says gays are bad and so does the GOP.”

But when it comes to debating Republicans, I just like to ask them questions.  I’ve realized that unless I’m on Fox News they’ll never believe a word I’m saying.  So instead of trying to make them listen to facts, I just ask them questions to see if they can answer them.  That’s where the real hilarity comes into play.

See, it’s one thing to believe something — it’s quite another to understand why you believe it.

So here are 10 questions (though there are many more) I like to ask Republicans that they often seem unable to answer.

1) If Republicans are so fiscally responsible, why was President Eisenhower (in the 1950’s) the last Republican president to balance the budget? 

2) If President Reagan was such a fiscally conservative hero, why did he quadruple our national debt during his eight years in the White House?

3) If tax breaks are the main driving force behind job creation, how would we create jobs once tax rates were reduced to practically zero?

4) If socialized health care is so awful, why does every country that leads the world in life expectancy have socialized health care?

5) If you support the freedom of religion (as per our Constitution), and my church recognizes gay marriage, isn’t your support for the banning of same-sex marriage an attack on my religion’s First Amendment rights? 

6) What’s more realistic?  1) That an entire region of the United States that supported slavery in the late-1800’s and support segregation in the 1950’s and 60’s suddenly stopped being racist, or 2) The racist southern Democrats in the south became Republicans during the 50’s and 60’s when the Republican party shifted toward an idea called the “Southern Strategy,” where the GOP appealed to the racism in southern whites who didn’t like African Americans voting for Democrats. 

7) If taxes are at some of their lowest levels in history, and the wealthiest in this country are richer than ever, why hasn’t the growth in the wealth of the middle class matched that of the top 2%? 

8) If our Founding Fathers wanted this nation to be based on Christianity, why don’t the words “Christian” or “Christianity” appear even once in our Constitution? 

9) If a Republican president reduced massive job losses in the midst of the worst recession in nearly a century by more than 50% in his first 4 months in office; presided over 44 consecutive months of private-sector job growth creating nearly 8 million jobs; killed Osama bin Ladin; saw stock markets reach all-time highs; saved the American auto industry; increased domestic oil production to highs not seen since the late-90’s and championed the largest year-to-year deficit reductions since World War II, would your party not be calling him a hero and a legend? 

10)  If Jesus spent his life helping the poor and the needy, how does it make sense that a party which claims to be for “Christian values” continues to cut funding for programs that help the poor and the needy?

Again, these are just a few of the questions I like to ask Republicans that I get some of the funniest answers from.  Well, if they answer at all.  But if they do, the answers are usually rambling and incoherent, lacking all signs of common sense.

So I would encourage all of you reading this to share it, print it out or just ask them a few of these questions — then sit back and watch the hilarity ensue.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • David Ewers

    i will tell you how a teapublican will answer everyone of those questions, he will deflect to another subject

    • Bryon Rogers

      Like the deflections in the questions??? If the Democrats are so fiscally responsible the how come they keep spending us into oblivion… Like that worthless Obama are??? Yeah… Don’t get me start on the crap you are trying to spread

      • David Ewers

        tell me what bill has passed that is putting us into such large debt? The last president leave office with a surplus was Democrat. the last Republican that balanced the budget was Eisenhower. The largest increase in national debt percentage wise was a republican. Sorry bagger the facts say different

      • Scott W. Bell

        Cue crickets…

      • David Ewers

        when you ask a question that has not been answered by one of their nut case politicians they can’t parrot, they go silent.

      • patchbran

        tee hee

      • Connie Kay

        Obama has cut the deficit in half. What has the Republican done for us, except say no to everything that Obama is for.

      • James Markwell

        and where would we be if the right had just worked with him to fix the ills of our nation. Everything that happened good over the past 5 or so years happened IN SPITE of the repugs.

      • Tea Bagger

        What good? What’s he done?

      • RecklessProcess

        The right did try to work with Obama. But Obama and the democrats locked the doors and refused any republican input.

      • Tea Bagger

        In half? Where did you take accounting? Same place “O” did, I guess.

      • G.l. Villars

        see ignore facts and ape out the talking points, typical.

      • alanstorm

        No, he hasn’t. Provide citations if you want to make bizarre claims.

        He HAS cut it in half – IF you include his first budget as part of the data set! His first deficit was 1400 billion, a big chunk of which was the useless “stimulus” plan. The average in previous years was lower still.

        Claiming he cut the deficit in half, when HE inflicted the injury, is liberal “logic” at its finest.

      • RecklessProcess

        Obama raised the deficit to 1.7 trillion. He has cut his mad spending in half but his deficits are still larger than any other president in the history of the world.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        im Bryons agent— and CRYIN BRYON is not accepting facts from sources such as the US TREASURY and the CBO—- so if U wish 2 expostulate with CRYON BRYON U have to use “facts” as stated by the biblical scholors at FOX “news”

      • Tea Bagger

        ACA..are you that stupid? Oh yeah, nice try on the diversion (national debt percentage). O’Bama is the absolute worst President we’ve ever had, Jimmy Carter not withstanding.

      • Zuggy

        Can you back that up with some fact-based arguments, or is slinging baseless accusations – like your teammates – all you can do.

        First of all, deficit is not debt. Learn what words mean.

        Bush’s last year had 1.4 trillion in deficit spending.

        Obama’s years have been the following:

        FY 2013: $680 billion
        FY 2012: $1,087 billion
        FY 2011: $1,300 billion
        FY 2010: $1,294 billion

        Try not to let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

      • Zuggy

        Oh, and before you ask where 2009 is… go look up who is responsible for fiscal year 2009 spending.

        Go on. Go look up some numbers, Tea Bagger.

      • RecklessProcess

        I looked it up. Obama signed the 2009 budget into law. The 2009 budget was written by democrat majorities on congress. Bush never even saw that budget.
        Try not lying for a change. I know it is hard to go against your party policy of lie, lie some more, and lie again.

      • G.l. Villars

        you would do better to argue with an amebae, at least they have aspirations to become something more through evolution, something a self proclaimed teabag troll does not believe in

      • RecklessProcess

        Again. Democrats held majorities in both houses in 2008. They refused to produce the 2009 budget until Bush had been out of office for three months. Bush never even SAW the 2009 budget with the 1.7 trillion deficit. Obama signed it into law. Not Bush.
        You clowns really think you can re-write history.

      • Walknot

        Add in the $870B in stimulus spending every year. You leave that out because it isn’t considered NEW spending.

      • David Ewers

        Don’t like facts that your so called savior was the biggest spender ever percentage wise. And the typical tea bagger rant, I take that at absolute garbage

      • Ron Childers

        That is Hilarious, what makes him the worst president ever? Please make comparisons not just a blanket statement. Never mind, unless someone has spoon feed you information you don’t know what to say.

        Repeating what a pundit has said on a ‘news’ program does not equal actual fact’s…btw. Repeating talking point’s shows your complete ignorance on the subject. Please have an original thought for once..

      • Mark Choi

        Sorry, that award went to Bush II, after the tore it from Reagan’s cold, dead, incompetent hands.

      • D’Angelo Thurman

        The tea party are terrorists that can’t count to ten without cheating

      • RecklessProcess

        Is that why the progressive totalitarian democrat party is the party of lying liars? Who lied about Keeping your doctor. And lied about health care cost dropping. And lied about getting to keep your doctor. And lied about how it is going to cost everyone thousands more a year just for bare health insurance and no actual care?

      • David Ewers

        The ACA, the spending has yet to start on that so nice try. And you repeating the same BS that every of tea bagger does not give you any credence. Go study some economics, the cause of the recession of the late 70’s were due to the expanding rate of oil and the end on the Viet Nam War. Just another rel dumb tea bagger

      • sybilll

        The stimulus package of 2009, $870 billion, is now a part of baseline (look it up) budgeting. When you don’t spend that $870 billion again every year hence, you can claim that you have reduced spending substantially. And as Kevin so eloquently pointed out, Newt Gingrich gave us our last balanced budget. If I remember right, Clinton threatened to veto it at least 5 times. You guys love your echo chambers, but you really need to try harder when it comes to facts.

      • David Ewers

        hmmm, you mean the stimulus bill that is was not spent would have continued to spill many jobs because of the failure of the Bush legacy. And it is not of the base of the budget, nice try but we caught you in a big lie. Nice try bagger,

        Nice try about Newt, I see you are again aprroting the heritage and Cato institute, History says otherwise. the tax increases and a booming economy made the budget come into balance and then surplus.

        Sorry but your facts are completely faulty and basically false.

      • RecklessProcess

        Wow, try to find a fact somewhere. All you are doing is name calling. That does not make an argument.

      • David Ewers

        I see you can only focus on one part of my answer, so what crazy tea party group do you belong to.

        Also I would like to comment on another one of your comments. No getting married is not for procreation. Then you are discounting all of the people who get married after child birth years. You are discounting the marriages of people who can not bear children. You really are a ignorant person.

      • David Ewers

        That is the problem with uneducated people, they have no idea what they
        are talking about. The stimulus package was a one time deal. It will not
        be repeated year after year. And that document you pointed me to, was
        produced before Obama was sworn into office, so how could it have his
        stimulus package in it. His package was not put into law until feb. I
        say you have been caught in a big lie bagger. So again your facts are absolutely nothing.

      • DefendUSA

        The problems with Liberals Like you David, is that you are refusing to believe what Kevin has laid out because it disrupts your Obama Utopia.
        A balanced budget is not the same as reducing the deficit and you are not as smart as you like to puff out that chest of yours. Obama has NOT balanced a budget and I don’t give a rat’s arse about the fact that the deficit is reduced. They are still spending more than they take in. Period.

      • David Ewers

        Go back to school and take some economics courses. Just bssic home budgdting should be good enough. Your ignorance is showing.

      • RecklessProcess

        The 2009 budget was written by democrat majorities in both houses. It was signed by Obama in March of 2009 three months after Bush left office. And Bush did not sign the stimulus package. That was Obama’s and the democrats.
        You have done nothing but repeat lies. Big surprise coming from the undisputable party of lying liars; the progressive totalitarian ‘democrat’ communist party of lies.

      • Shawn

        Woah! Come on, man. Let’s make this about the facts and not name-calling. I know it’s tough, but dish out the respect you wish to be given. Neither side is perfect, but that doesn’t give anyone an excuse to sling vitriol like that.

      • David Ewers

        Obama was not in office until mid jan. and that was published in early Jan. And it has projections into 2009, it simple. And no where in that whole document does it state your assertion.

        You really show your true colors, with your last statement.

        You really show your ignorance also about the simulas package, do you know the biggest part of that package was tax cuts, something that tea baggers like yourself should like. But if actually read the act you would have known that. Nothing but total ignorance.

      • RecklessProcess

        DUH! Bush was not president in January of 2009. Go back to mom’s basement. Obama signed it into law not Bush. Guess again

      • David Ewers

        Obama took office on Jan 20, 2009, so yes Bush was in office in Jan 2009, that document was published in early 2009, to gather the information took at least two months. And again you show your ignorance.

        Again that document does not mention the stimulus bill. You have no idea of what you are talking about.

      • Walknot

        WTF do you think the continuing resolution is for? To keep the stimulus money to spend EVERY YEAR! wake TFU!

      • David Ewers

        That has to be one of the most ignorant answers ever. It was to keep the government open, things like national parks, the armed forces running, paying congress etc. You really put your size 15 in your mouth with that answer.

      • RecklessProcess

        If not for the democrat TARP Bush would have left office with a $400 Billion surplus. But he had a 400 billion deficit. And he left 350 billion of TARP in the pot for Obama to spend. So that really comes to a 50 billion dollar deficit because he handed Obama 350 billion which was considered his deficit.

      • tomgnh

        Boy, it’s tough trying to argue misinformed with information one knows will be ignored. But here we go-

        “The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008.”

        Signed into law by Bush, after being proposed by his Treasury Department and rejected once by Congress.

        Not that you would care.

      • jamespowell

        Oblivion? Are we in oblivion?

      • Pentanthin Panthar

        Hello Oblivion, Hows the wife and kids?

      • patchbran

        well they are. have you seen where they live? apparently, it’s in the toilet holding a gun in one hand and a mirrored selfie taking phone in the other. i can’t really call it a smart phone where they’re holding it b/c…benghazi!

      • JoeNCA

        Except for the fact that spending has increased far faster under EVERY Republican president since WWII than it has under Obama.

        Republicans don’t give a crap about deficits and spending until a Democrat is in the presidency. So therefore, if you truly care about spending as you claim, Republicans should never have the presidency.

      • James Markwell

        they don’t give a damn about the truth either…

      • Gene

        Not true, its just difficult to get it. Most often we have to listen to both ideologs sides then see its somewhere in the middle. BOTH parties twist the facts to keep their constituents from running. But its a pain in the butt when the facts are blocked by “Executive Privilege”. Its the blind and stupid that care nothing for the facts and only care for their blind devotion to their cause.

      • Zuggy

        No, it isn’t somewhere in the middle. These are hard numbers you can go and look up.

      • MiMg

        Bryon, here are FACTS: Republicans are AGAINST the poor, AGAINST gays, AGAINST Women, AGAINST Blacks, AGAINST Hispanics, who are they for? Rich str8 old white men

      • Sandra Gregory

        I like old white men. The rest of your comment is spot on, but I feel it’s just as racist to disparage “rich old white men”. Experience is a good thing.

      • TrustNo1

        It’s time for Hilary.

      • no

        white people cannot experience racism…

      • dan

        Mimg, which republicans are you hanging out with? The only thing you mentioned that I know republicans are against is Gay Marriage because that is not what marriage was made for. I think your “FACTS” of republicans are set on emotion and your thoughts then the truth.

      • John

        Actually Dan Marriage was made to unite two people – several different religions have a “marriage” and many of them have same sex “marriage” I know of at least 12 of them myself ( several native american tribes btw ). so to say that “that is not what marriage was made for.” is a little off base. just sayin.

      • James Markwell

        you crazy democrats with your truth and facts… You can keep your truth and facts, the right has fake indignant outrage and Glenn Beck!!

      • John

        LOL I know what you mean .. only one small problem with the statement … I am a Republican lol 😛 just an educated one lol

      • dan

        Sorry John but Marriage was made for a man and a women.

      • John

        I am sorry Dan that you don’t know much about other cultures, or faiths outside of your own. It must be wondrous to know that NOTHING exists out of your narrow world view or understanding of history.

      • dan

        Don’t believe me, look it up in the Bible. I don’t know everything but believe in the Bible and the up above. Marriage for a man and a women, not a man and a man or women and women. You can’t tell me anything to change that or make it right…sorry

      • John

        Which translation Dan? The reason I am asking is so that I can address your interpretation of the Bible in accordance with the mistranslations that you have read. I have done enough study that I actually got invited to a seminary to actually give a session that included several different translations of the Bible and how the frame of reference affected the translations. Once you let me know which we can proceed. Until then your right nothing I can say will actually open your eyes. Though I would also like to point out that MARRIAGE itself is not actually defined in the Bible the fact that you are saying to look it up in the Bible actually shows that you haven’t actually read it. Now Jesus intimated that when a physical union consummates a relationship it is not a marriage before God (this is in John 4 versus 17-18 (Samaritan woman at the well). Just giving you a reference point to start from.

      • LD

        So, Marriage was not intended for two people to unite together? I am confused. The only difference between gays getting married and straights getting married is that gay people don’t try to take your human rights away.

      • Claudia Anderson

        Marriage has actually meant a lot of different things to a lot of different cultures, and only fairly recently has it had much to do with love. At one point a women was required to marry her rapist, lot’s of cultures define marriage as between a man and any number of women, and yes, in some marriage between gays was not only accepted, but encouraged. Take your pick (:>)

      • RecklessProcess

        Gays cannot bear children. It isn’t a marriage if it doesn’t produce offspring.

      • tomgnh

        Do you oppose marriage for the elderly?

        Would you require a fertility test for a marriage license to be granted?

        Would you accept a marriage by a man and a woman who do not intend to “produce offspring”?

      • ZippyDK

        Under Obama, the Dow Jones keeps hitting all-time highs and corporate revenues are through the roof. So, no, the Democrats are hardly spending us into oblivion, quite the opposite.

      • Gene

        And it has nothing to do with the Federal government dumping 80 BILLION dollars a MONTH into the stock market? These questions are like asking someone, “Did you ever get caught masturbating?” Either you say no, which says you did do it, or no, you didnt get caught but you did do it. Like #4, what the hell does Socialized medicine have to do with longevity of life? Have you seen a lot of Frenchmen eating Bacon Double Cheeseburgers with Large Fries and a 44oz of soda? Take a look at lifestyle vs. diet..stupid. And how about #6, what’s that supposed to prove? That every republican in the south is racist? If the ones in the south are, does that mean the ones in the north are too? Next up, #7. When the hell was the middle class EVER comparable to the top 2%? You make a company from the ground up then we’ll talk salary raises, until then keep punching that clock and wonder why you cant make more. Just Dumb questions! What the hell does Christians have to do with the constitution?? Did the Pilgrims leave England to practice their religion without animosity? Yeah, so? Should i be against Welfare when it pays more to stay home then it does to get a 40 hr. job at minimum wage? Uh, Yeah! Why would anyone get off it!

      • mikehuntertz

        That is quite literally some of the dumbest logic that I have ever ran across. Thanks for the laugh. Please don’t have children.

      • Rbnlegend

        Have you ever had French food? They turn their noses up at a bacon double cheeseburger etc, because they want to eat a half pound of red meat, soaked in cheese and wine, with some cheese and bread before and a half pound of pastry soaked in cream after, and red wine with every course. The way they eat they should be dead at 30, according to the American medical industry. Turns out, someone has been wrong, for a very long time, but there’s money in processed food. Not a lot of money in socialized medicine, but it keeps people healthy, even if they do have to listen to their doctor nagging them to exercise more.
        When the middle class prospers, so does the upper class. The upper class can prosper without the middle class, look at our current situation. Our country paid off WWII and established huge financial empires for the wealthy, all during a period of time when tax rates were the highest in history, and when a factory worker could buy a home outright, and a car, and his wife didn’t have to work. If welfare is more lucrative than minimum wage, wouldn’t it make sense to look at that minimum wage?
        What do Christians have to do with the constitution? I don’t know. Ask a republican. They seem to think this country was intended to be a Christian nation, despite a lack of evidence for that.

      • David Ewers

        you rant and say nothing that is worth 2 cents

      • RecklessProcess

        The DOW was worth three times more in terms of gold at 13000 in 2003 than it is today at 15000

      • ZippyDK

        I’m sorry, which political party just made $24 billion vanish with their failed hissy-fit of a government shutdown?

      • RecklessProcess

        What happened to the trillion dollar stimulus package that Obama laughed about a year later saying there really weren’t any ‘shovel ready’ jobs?

      • timmmahhhh

        Thank you for demonstrating the retard dummographic the article is illustrating. Do your homework and you will see that spending is at its lowest point in sixty years.

      • patchbran

        homework?!?!? hahahahahahahahaha. that would imply that they believe in education & we know how they feel about smart people.

      • jWd


      • Sandra Gregory


      • justice4rall

        Iran Contra!!

      • justice4rall


      • Susan Rappenwolf


      • David Scott Moyer

        Careful, Vietnam was a Democrat war.

      • Ellen H.

        Not necessarily. Eisenhower made his famous domino speech about the spread of communism in the mid-fifties and sent in advisors. Then, Kennedy sent in 15,000 troops but had started bringing them home when he was assassinated. Johnson reversed his decision. Nixon ran mostly on winning Vietnam with honor, but basically just withdrew which was what Kennedy was trying to do ten years earlier. Also, when we started sending in advisors, we were in the midst of McCarthey’s Red Scare and to disagree was to be labeled a communist. So really it’s both parties and the climate of the times.

      • Mark


      • TrustNo1

        Roswell! I don’t know who was responsible for this I just thought I would throw it into the mix.

      • Dustin Hogge

        Obamacare is going to reduce the deficit. Spending has been cut drastically under Obama, and went up drastically under Bush. You righties are allergic to reality, aren’t you? Bush starts out with record surplus of like $300 billion, hands over a $1.3 trillion deficit. Obama had to spend stimulus money (temporary) to get us out of the worst recession since the Great Depression that he also handed over. Wake the **** up!

      • DefendUSA

        There has been no surplus since 1957. Bush was not handed a surplus, they just used debt-shifting of SS/MC money. Talk about ignoring facts, Dustin? Go to the CBO and find out what amount of money was allocated to enact this ACA. Then go find the stats for what has actually been paid out for an abject failure of a roll-out. Then find out how much it is going to cost consumers to pay more…and see just how much redistribution is going to reel in. Yep, keep wearing your rose-colored glasses, because when the ship really sinks, you won’t be immune. Spending has not been cut in any way that is sustainable. Get a clue.

      • GirlWithTheShamrockTattoo

        “Like that worthless Obama are???”
        What the heck does that mean? Grammar please learn it.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        “YEEEE-HAW!” Grammar means nothing to tea baggers.

      • patchbran

        that’s what i asked!!!

      • shadowgraph

        Bryon Rogers: I guess you missed the part where the deficit shrank under Obama, didn’t you?

      • regressive rightwing trash

        ahhhhhhhh,,,,,,,ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,,,,,,,,,,yeeeaaahhhh babeeeeeee!!!! Bryon is sucking old wind!!! hey BRYON,,,,, when U are done shaking your regressive crybaby rattle and pooping in the FOX “news” diapers— U wanna look at what THIS martian /communist/ muslim/socialist/Kenyan/anti-American president has done with our DEFICIT and spending??? PLEEEEEZ??? AWWW C’mon BRYON: take a peed at what the US TREASURY and the C.B.O has written: pleeeez BRYON????? PLEEEEZ? take a look U maggot

      • Jeff Mace

        Answer: Democrats didn’t…and don’t keep “spending us into oblivion”. It simply is not a debatable topic, seeing as the numbers show Democrasts to not spend nearly as much as the Republicans during their respective administrations. Try reading a little. Spreading crap indeed Bryon.

      • Dan

        Exactly, this is the giant flaw in conservative logic. They call liberals tax and spend as if it were a bad thing. They don’t tax, but they spend anyways-which is why we’re in the deficit situation we are right now.

      • SarahD

        Bryon, nice try but you are spewing right-wing lies. The deficit has been cut by almost half since President Obama was first elected in 2008, federal spending are at their lowest levels in decades, and an even cursory understanding of how debt is accumulated in this country would have made it very clear to you that the two main drivers of debt under the Obama administration were carry-overs from George W. Bush; namely, 2 unfunded wars and massive tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Democrats have not spent us into oblivion; they are the only ones making any real effort to try to get us out. Go ahead, provide me with some credible, unbiased, nonpartisan data that contradicts anything I’ve just said. (Hint, Fox, World Net Daily, The Blaze, Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute – none of these are unbiased sources).

      • G.l. Villars

        see…….incoherent sentences and falsehoods, where are your facts? Fox news does not count

      • Patricia

        Are you not listening? I’d like get started on the horse shit you’re spreading, but that’s what this article is about, read it! Then take a pencil and write down all the good things you and your Republicans have done, besides work for the corporations and munitions war mongrels?

      • James Markwell

        Now come on. The repubs have done more than that. They are tirelessly working for the simple man, to ensure that rape is acceptable. F’ing democrats, all of you HATE RAPE!! Rape bigots!!!

      • TheAntiBeck

        Democrats are not “spending us into oblivion”. The fact is that roughly 80% of ongoing deficits and US debt are the result of laws enacted during the first 6 years of the GW Bush administration. W and a GOP controlled congress took over in 2001 with a 200 billion annual budget SURPLUS and US unemployment at 4.2%. Some examples of these debt busting laws are as follows: Medicare Part D prescription drug program, more than doubling non war defense spending, cutting the capital gains tax rate to its’ lowest in US history, 50 billion in subsidies to big oil, natural gas and coal producers, starting 2 wars that they ran off the budget one of which there was absolutely no reason to engage in and the other which should have ended the minute bin Laden and Al Qaeda escaped to Pakistan…..I can go on, the list is actually quite long and the fact is that Democrats have tried since 2007 to repeal or cut much of this budget busting spending only to be obstructed by GOTea members of the US senate and the Teabilly minority controlled GOTea caucus in the US house.

      • DefendUSA

        There has not been a true cash surplus since 1957. Clinton used debt shifting of SS/MC money. And FYI, the democrats have controlled since 2006. The democrats have not passed a budget in several years, now, have they?
        And, hello!! They are spending more than they take in. What planet are you on? Oh, right. Carrying the water for Obama makes you hide from the truths. When all else fails blame the other guy, not the one fundamentally transforming America.

      • D’Angelo Thurman

        You and your friends are idiots with no real facts to back a single statement. If this country belongs to Christ then we should give everything we have to help others

      • patchbran

        here’s an idea…why not just, answer the questions? then we’ll answer yours! also known as confounding you w/ the truth.

        oh, & can you please explain the question, ‘like that worthless obama are???’ b/c it makes about as much sense as a tea party spelling bee.

    • FlSam

      They’ll just say Benghazi over and over and over…..

      • regressive rightwing trash

        don’t forget fast and furious,,,and nanny state,,,and war on Christmas,,,,,,and spending(OOOOPS: that had such a HUGE reduction we don’t hear about that on FOX “news” anymore.)

      • RecklessProcess

        The democrats raised the deficit by 1.7 trillion in 2009. Now it is half that but still larger than any deficit by any president ever in the history of the world.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        wanna try again??? US TREASURY and CBO both confirm THERE factual numbers———-2008 455 Billion,,,2009 1.4 trillion,,,2010 1.3 trillion,,,,2011 1.285 trillion,,,,2012 1.0988 trillion,,,2013 680 billion:::: see ANT trend??? ( allow me to help– ) DOWNWARD trend as OBAMAS administration is curbing spending as well as TRYINg to get additional revenues. NOTE: crybaby white trash regressive republican scum will NEVER see these FACTS ON FOX “news” as it goes against the koch brothers and Murdoch interests of a rightwing shitbag in power

      • G.l. Villars

        ask a tea bagger where Benghazi is if you want a good laugh

      • Tea Bagger

        Tea Bagger here. I know where Benghazi is, but evidently Obama and the liberals didn’t. 4 people murdered while the Democrats fiddled. Oh yeah, the film instigated it. Are you serious? We didn’t think it was funny.

      • Rhonda Lowenstein

        Since Tea Bagger is so offended by people getting killed, he/she should probably be told by we LIBERALS that 13 attacks occurred on Bush’s watch resulting in over 90 injuries and 80+ deaths. Did you think THAT was funny. Clearly you NEVER MENTION it, so I AM just in case you “forget” about it! Kinda of puts the number FOUR into perspective doesn’t it??

      • mikeatle

        Notice how Tea Bagger never replied…

      • Rhonda Lowenstein

        Yeah. Tea baggers don’t like facts.

      • MarkJansen736

        Debunked liberal talking point as the so-called 13 attacks are easily distinguishable from what happened in Benghazi. No ambassadors killed under Bush. No diplomatic posts over run. No pleas for added security ignored, no innocent film makers blamed, etc., etc.,

      • Rhonda Lowenstein

        And yet people were still killed; not to mention 3000 people on U.S. soil. Republicans need to stop acting like Benghazi was the worst thing to happen in U.S. history. The Bush administration doesn’t have a clean record.

      • Rhonda Lowenstein

        No one debunked me. That’s your guy’s problem in a nutshell! Dick Cheney outed a CIA agent and nearly got her killed! That is a FACT. Obama didn’t reveal the NAMES AND IDENTITY of seal team six! THAT’S the difference. Perhaps the problem was the guy who outed HIMSELF in order to write a book!

      • RecklessProcess

        How about when Obama killed Seal Team Six? He outed them as being the ones who got bin Laden. He bragged about it. Less than a month later over half of Seal Team Six was killed by al Qaida. Obama outed them and then they were killed.

      • tomgnh

        Nice example of sloppy logic. Sequence does not prove consequence. You posted this and then my coffee got cold.

      • Rhonda Lowenstein

        No one knows who “seal team six” even IS! They are anonymous! Obama didn’t name them personally. Referring them to “seal team six” doesn’t disclose who they actually are! unlike when Dick Cheney outed the CIA agent by NAME and identity, which made HER a walking target! Get your facts straight!

      • Rhonda Lowenstein

        Obama didn’t KILL Seal Team Six. No one knows who Seal Team Six even is with the exception of the guy who outed HIMSELF to write a book! Obama referred to them as “seal team six!” That isn’t the SAME THING as revealing their identity! UNLIKE Dick Cheney who actually DID out a CIA agent using her NAME and IDENTITY which nearly got HER killed! See the difference?? NO?? Figures! Because to republicans Bush = ok; Obama = Bad. REGARDLESS of the facts! Nice try!

      • Walknot

        Not one of those deaths was of an American Citizen, let alone and Ambassador who’s purpose in Benghazi has yet to be explained considering the American Embassy to Libya is located in Tripoli.

      • Rhonda Lowenstein

        Which still doesn’t make it okay.

      • Walknot

        But your silly rationalization does?

      • Rhonda Lowenstein

        You may think outrage about death is “silly” but I do not. I simply don’t cherry pick which deaths are “bad” and which ones are “acceptable” like you right wing hypocrites always do.

      • Rhonda Lowenstein

        Which doesn’t excuse it; unless of course you cherry pick which deaths are “bad” and which deaths you are “cool with.” I’m guessing Bush deaths = cool with??

      • Walknot

        So 4 Americans die under very suspicious circumstances. One of them is a very high ranking Government Diplomat and we should ignore it because we don’t consider every other non-American death with the same concern?

      • G.l. Villars

        nearly 5000 dead American boys and girls in Iraq and Afghanistan and you are
        more concerned with the death of a diplomat in Libya, bullshit ! Don’t hand me your self righteous phony patriotism. You and your kind are nothing more than opportunistic clowns that can only ape out what the fox network trains you to think.

      • OldeSchoolLiberal

        How many Americans died in Iraq and Afghanistan on Obama’s watch? Ans: More than on Bush’s watch.

      • GREG

        Don’t try to deflect the blame. Obama has been trying to get them OUT. They were in there when he took office. We are supposed to be out completely(Battlefield-wise) by the end of next year. He got Bin Laden, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

      • MarkJansen736

        Obama has been trying to get them out? You’re confusing your fantasies with the facts. Obama just committed the US to keeping troops in A’stan through 2024.

      • soxfan4evah

        There you go with facts and realities again. Kryptonite to today’s progressives.

      • soxfan4evah

        Trying to get them out while severely restricting the ROE. It’s the asinine rules being followed now that is killing our young men and women needlessly.

      • RecklessProcess

        He got Seal Team Six Killed and THEY got Osama.

      • tomgnh

        Again, what proof of causation do you have?

        And as for outing? Obama is attacked for divulging the ten, and then for not giving credit. His statement? “…a small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability.”

        Nice logic, once again.

      • Shawn

        Let’s be fair here. More solders dying can be the result of any number of factors. it can be the result of any number of poor decisions made by various levels of command. It may also just be the result of decisions made by those who killed them. It’s not all the fault of any one person (Bush, Obama, etc.)

      • G.l. Villars

        So what’s your point? I don’t give a damn for any politician and their hypocrisies. And I care less for ignorant fellow Americans who actually feel they are informed enough to form an opinion let alone a complete sentence. I am tired of seeing these young men and woman coming home maimed, disfigured and mentally damaged. What have we accomplished but bankrupt our economy and lose our credibility all over the globe. Meanwhile the war profiteers have never reaped such a bountiful harvest. War is not seen as a necessity but a highly profitable industry that will protect its own interests at all costs. Human beings are seen as raw materials to continue the machinery of war chugging along. The politicians, all of them are the salesman selling a product to the American people that we don’t need, but cover that product in a package of red white and blue and it will sell like bottled tap water.

      • Roger Misbach

        more soldiers have died in Afghanistan under obama so what’s your point?

      • G.l. Villars

        If you cant figure that out for yourself then you are programed beyond any help. turn on fox and get your daily mind control I don’t debate stupid.

      • RecklessProcess

        More soldiers died in Iraq and Afghanistan under Obama then died under Bush. Obama is incompetent.

      • tomgnh

        I took more time and spent more money cleaning my house after the party; therefore the expense and loss are my fault.

        Really? Do you think that is good logic?

      • MetsFanSantaMonica

        more Americans died under Bush’s watch on American Soil – will you concede that Obama has protected Americans at home more than Bush?

      • SineWaveII

        Not after the Boston Bombing.

      • Ellen H.

        Were you this upset when embassies were attacked under President G.W. Bush’s tenure? I believe there were eleven attacked, yet nothing was done.

      • soxfan4evah

        And no Ambassadors, you know official representatives of the US, killed since the previous title holder of worst President ever Jimmy Carter held office. The only good thing about the Obama Presidency is this generation has learned what bad policy progressivism is and won’t be voting that way again any time soon.

      • Ellen H.

        I know what an Ambassador is. What was your point? You had an interrupter but ended up not finishing your sentence. Also, you didn’t answer my question. By the way if you’re talking about the Iran embassy take over we brought that on ourselves by overthrowing a democratically elected leader of Iran in the 1950s. On Reagan’s watch over 300 marines were killed in Beirut. But again, that really has nothing to do with my question to you: Were you this upset over the embassy attacks that happened during G.W. Bush’s presidency?

      • soxfan4evah

        Being that official representatives of the US government weren’t involved it’s an apple to bowling balls comparison. Does the death of “innocent” Iraqi or Afghan civilians upset you as much as US Soldiers, or probably at Forward Progressives more than?

      • RecklessProcess

        Those embassies were not begging for more security ands when they were attacked support came immediately. Unlike when Obama and Hillary rolled over in bed after firing General Hamm for attempting to save anyone.

      • Ellen H.

        Actually there was a request put in for more funding that the House voted down. But I guess no one really wants to acknowledge that.

      • old vet

        idiot , how many u s servicemen were lost or maimed in iraq ? how did we get in iraq ? there is no good reason for u to even be opening your mouth except to swallow fox crap!

      • soxfan4evah

        The fact that intelligence agencies from other countries verified the information we acted on being nothing compared to progressive hindsight.

      • RecklessProcess

        Why didn’t Clinton get us out of Iraq? Bush did get us out.

      • mikehuntertz

        Where’s your fuax news induced outrage over the 60 or so people that were killed on bush’s watch?

      • RecklessProcess

        The military leapt to their defense every time. Bush did not fire the generals who tried to save them.

      • Rafael

        I remember when they leapt to their defense after the attack Beirut….wait, that can’t be right….

      • TrustNo1

        You say you know where it is, but never actually say where it is, which makes me believe that you do in fact not know where Benghazi is.

      • Jessica Neubauer

        Then why is it ok that the Republicans voted AGAIN to cut funding for embassy security? After Benghazi, they just did it again. So that’s ok because why?

      • Aaron Ireland

        So then, I hope you also know where Calcutta, Karachi (three times!!!), Kuta, Riyadh, Tashkent, Jeddah, Damascus, Athens, Sana’a (twice), and Istanbul all are given that they are the sites of the THIRTEEN embassy attacks under President George W. Bush (resulted in NINETY-FIVE deaths)… or maybe you’re just out of relevant things to say so you’re – as FISam said in a previous comment, stomping around going “Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!!!” to the tune of Marcia Brady

      • Mark Choi

        Funny that you didn’t answer the question. And telling. Also telling that you missed the memo that ALL evidence that indicated “Democratic” inaction so far has been shown to be false, and, more importantly, that the ONLY point where Democratic spokespeople were making ANY claims about protests instigating the attacks was when they were repeating CIA talking points at the behest of the intelligence agency.
        So yes, I am serious.
        Lastly, apparently, you have no clue what the term “tea bagger” means. Jokes on you, fool. Specifically, on your face.

      • RecklessProcess

        Those were not the CIA’s talking points. You are very confused

      • Mark Choi

        Uh, yes, they were, and you are not only confused, you are grossly misinformed.

        Beyond that, simply stating it online does not make it so, no matter how much you fervently want to believe it.

        To substantiate such positions, you need citations, citations such as:

        “We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex,”

        DIRECTLY from the C.I.A. talking points to the state department. And no matter how much the National Review wants to parse words and twist meanings and motives, what it says is quite clear.

      • RecklessProcess

        You are lying to yourself before you lie to me. Those are the state department talking points not the CIA talking points.

      • Mark Choi

        Uh, no, they’re not. They are quoted VERBATIM from the C.I.A. memo to the state department. You are so grossly misinformed it goes beyond ignorance into full-blown indoctrination.

      • zelduh

        Can you PLEASE try to come up with an original thought? The Republican talking points do not work.

      • Im_Rick_James

        “The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of islam.” – barrack obama – while blaming the video in front of the UN.

      • fcc10

        Nice try, but let’s put the quote in context.

        “The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt – it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women – it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources – it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

        The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.”

      • Walknot

        He still blamed the video.

      • Greg

        You talk about Benghazi. I want to know why Bush sent THOUSANDS of our sons and daughters to their deaths and in harm’s way, under the guise of “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, while the Republicans just fiddled(BTW, Obama was AGAINST it). I think that trumps Behghazi…

      • DefendUSA

        Greg- The soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen VOLUNTEERED for service to their country. Nothing trumps Benghazi -not one person has accepted responsibility for what happened in Benghazi. Had this been Bush– your fellow left-minded thinkers would have demanded he be burned at the stake. Why are you not holding Obama accountable for all of his lying, lack of accountability and failures? Bush accepted his choices and didn’t blame anyone for it. But Obama is completely different and yet, you are still going back to Bush did it. That’s just pure stupidity.

      • RecklessProcess

        We had been occupying Iraq in a daily shooting war for over 15 years. Why did Clinton simply ignore it? Bush got us OUT of Iraq. He did not take us in.

      • Dover

        Why didn’t the 60 consulate deaths under the two Bush administrations get you ruffled up? Let me spell it out: B E C A U S E Y O U A R E A T E A B A G G E R.

      • RecklessProcess

        They were complete surprise attacks. And Bush immediately sent support. Bronco Bama fired General Hamm for even attempting to save anyone.

      • Jordan L Payne

        4 people being murdered is Obama’s fault somehow?

        By that logic, Bush and the republicans are responsible for 9/11 and all the Afghan and Iraqi civilians dead.

      • RecklessProcess

        Bronco Bama fired General Hamm for attempting to save anyone. Bush never fired anyone for coming to a solders aid.

      • Gene

        Libya ? It’s in the mideast. What kind of response do you get that seems so funny?

      • G.l. Villars

        Africa idiot

      • G.l. Villars

        case closed

      • tomgnh

        Well, for one, it’s not in the mideast. It’s in Africa, closer to Italy then Israel.

      • RecklessProcess

        So Egypt is NOT in the middle east? The left are all morons.

      • Middle east, isn’t that the area that is having all those problems of the Middle east?

      • Mark Choi

        OMG, really?!? The prize goes to… Gene.
        Clue: Libya is NOT in the Middle East. You even had at least an hour to google that!
        The moron is strong in this one.

      • Fittythebone

        It’s in north Africa you dumb fuck.

      • realityman

        Sure we’ve had embassy attacks under both administrations. One administration told the truth about those attacks, the other lied to the american people and blamed them on a video because it was politically helpful at the time to lie about them.

        I don’t blame the Obama administration for missing signs of an upcoming attack, or ignoring the embassy’s warning that they would be attacked, but be honest after the fact that you’ve screwed up. Then again this was just before an election.

    • Skip Patterson

      Either that or heshe will say it’s a big liberal lie or conspiracy, which ever one works best. I swear, every time I here a Republican talk about how devious Democrats are I say to myself, only if that was 50%, no make that 25% true I would be ecstatic. I forget who it was that said at the DNC convention last year, “Democrats need to grow a spine,” but they were dead on the money.

    • regressive rightwing trash

      THAT,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,is a truism etched in stone. Its happened to me every time I TRY 2 engage a regressive v tea party creep in discourse

    • TheMovieFan

      Excellent. That was on target.

    • I challenge you to read my answers to these questions.

    • grant

      1 and 2 – ad hominem attacks on prior Republican presidents means that fiscal conservatism is NOT a good idea? I can point to Al Gore’s consumption of energy. Do you think that this says anything about global warming, or ecologically responsible living? Gore might be a hypocrite, but so what? Those are cheap political points.

      3 – Tax rates being zero. What’s the point of this question? Who said that tax breaks are the main driving force behind job creation? Personally I think that it’s a system that encourages capital expenditures and further hiring, and lower taxes are a part, not the whole, of that). But what’s the point of asking this ridiculous hypothetical when we’re never actually going to see anything like it (even with the most fiscally conservative majority in all three branches)

      4. – Look at how they calculate life expectancy. Miscarriages and stillborns are not counted by other countries as “deaths” but are here. That’s going to drive things up. Accidental deaths are far higher here. Furthermore, WHY is that the sole measure of a country’s health care system? What about the life expectancy for someone diagnosed with cancer? USA leads the way. What about life expectancy following a heart attack? USA leads the way. When medical intervention is actually needed, it’s FAR better to be in the US than any other country. This is a loaded statistic that has almost zero bearing on an overall health system.

      5. This was by far the stupidest question, and I’ll actually repost it so we can marvel at the stupidity and lack of reasoning again: If you support the freedom of religion (as per our Constitution), and my church recognizes gay marriage, isn’t your support for the banning of same-sex marriage an attack on my religion’s First Amendment rights? – What? Seriously? Suppose your church recognizes the right to murder people, and I support outlawing murder. Is my support for the outlawing of murder an attack on your religion’s first amendment rights? Give me a break. You can say that you support anything. A support for banning of same sex marriage is not the same as a support outlawing the SUPPORT for same sex marriage. Apples and oranges here.

      6. – Right, because all those people in “late” 1800s (1865 isn’t really “late”, but whatever) are still alive and kicking, right? Also, suppose someone just turned voting age in 1964. They’re 67 now. What about all those northern GOPers? Are they also racist? Why is it always about race with libs? Libs are obsessed with race. What’s more likely? That people ACTUALLY SWITCHED PARTIES solely because black people were voting democrat, or because the democrats left them ideologically in the dust on everything?

      7. You mistake “wealth” with “money”. EVERYBODY in the US is weathlier than they’ve ever been. It’s called quality of life. In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. The middle class has more access to “luxuries” than they’ve ever had in the history of mankind, so I don’t really see the logic in this argument. Yes, the rich have more than they’ve ever had, but so what? If you include the worldwide population, if you make more than $34,000, YOU are the 1%, not the 99%.

      8. Who said they wanted it to be Christian? There’s a big difference in wanting it to be “Christian” and wanting it to be secular. Why didn’t they say they wanted it to be secular? Why didn’t they mention the “separation of church and state” in the Constitution? Why did they only bar “Congress” from passing laws respecting an establishment of religion (rather than going further and preventing the states, the executive branch, etc… from being religious)? And if you’re really concerned about what the Founding Father’s wanted, let’s have a discussion about that… No? Yeah, thought so.

      9. – Wow. That’s some serious cherry picking of facts, and some pretty strong distortions. Don’t get me wrong, I’d be presenting the best case I could, but I could say some pretty terrific things about George W Bush, and you’d just roll your eyes. For every good thing there are 10 bad things that I could point to. Even a broken clock is right twice a day…

      10. – Makes perfect sense. Jesus said it’s YOUR responsibility. He never said it was the government’s. There’s a big difference in being obedient to God out of a desire to please Him and complying with a law because we have no choice. It’s not “sacrificial giving” if you’re forced to do it.

      • David Ewers

        1. There has never been a fiscal conservative republican president. and there has not been a fiscal conservative congressman. Why you bring up Gore is beyond me, just another distraction point.

        2. Lowering taxes has never been a job creator never has been never will be. Tax Breaks will create job creation3

        3. Life expectancy in most of Europe is higher and the child death rate is lower so again a false statement.

        4. No one has the right to murder but we do have the right to marry, so again a false analogy. Want to try again.

        the rest of your statements are about as ludicrous.

        Typical tea party response,

      • Bowdoin81

        If life expectancy is to be a data point in assessing the strength of a medical care system, it is necessary to look at life expectancy where the medical system comes into play. Throw out homicides, suicides, accidents, natural disasters. What’s left gives a better picture of the effect of medical care on life expectancy. And no country can best the US on those terms.

      • David Ewers

        The amount of murders, suicides and natural disasters will not change the life expectancy in any meaningful values. So again you have brought up a non issue

      • DefendUSA

        Oh, some people believe they have the right to murder…it’s called abortion. Funny how people on your side of the aisle will dies to save trees, animals but human life means nothing. It’s all a pretense, isn’t it? They will claim to be for the little guy, the poor basturds, and then sit and wait for laws to be passed instead of voluntarily giving away their expendable income so Johnny in the hood, or Joey over on the other side can have insurance or food.
        That’s the difference between how you think versus me, a tea party supporter. I WILL give my time and food to prepare meals for soup kitchens and sponsor a single family at Christmas because I was brought up to give, no matter how small or how much money I have. So just STHU with your idiocy and self-purported superiority that his response is “typical”. Why is it instead of real debate, you left-minded thinkers love to name-call and think that comes off as intelligent? I tell you what it makes me think- You are an ignorant pretender who uses big words and the talking points of MSNBC, or Jay Carney because you are unable to think and refute anything that requires effort.

      • David Ewers

        Changing ghe subject again when you do not have any defense. And hrlping once a year does not impress me at all. Charity is given year round. And I have to tell you that most liberals give more than the tea party members.

      • DefendUSA

        Ah, yes. Once again, assuming you know what it is I am charitable about is laughable. Kinda like the leftminded woman who asked me if I had a cause to donate to when I told her I give to several. Her response was “Do you KNOW anyone with those diseases?” Does that matter? Does it matter to me that you think I only do one thing for one family no- because you would you still call it chirping.
        So, I’ll ask you again- why must something be legislated for you people and why is okay that you feel vindicated because “rich’ people will be paying what you believe to be fair as opposed to what is actually fair? I don’t need an econ 101 class to tell you that if you spend more money than you take in what it means. PS…According to Arthur Brooks, conservative thinkers give more money, despite that liberals make 6% more overall. AND, they also gave more time toward service and volunteerism than liberals. The reason behind the thinking? Ha. Because people who believe the gov’t owes people shi**t, like you, and unlike me won’t give up their time or their money. BOOM! So I answered my own question. You would never give of your own free will because you expect the gov’t to do it. And in your profound ignorance, you’ll say or do anything as long as it does not require facts but rather just your ability to debase others. It’s a book. You should read it. Arthur Brooks.

      • David Ewers

        First learn to write, your whole statement makes no sense what so ever. Quoting Brooks, his book has been completely panned as a bunch of BS. He brought his own religious viewpoint into it.

        You have not brought up as single fact yourself so Itake that comment with a grain of salt. You are a very ignorant and uneducated person. And again you changed the subject, going from abortion to the economy. As I said before you need to educate yourself and when you do so something magical will happen, you will become a liberal

      • DefendUSA

        Chest puff away and tell my my grammar sucks, another tactic of liberalism. And then, when you can’t use any other facts, say that Arthur Brooks used religion and therefore it makes his book bs. Please. It does not change where he got the facts from.Bureau of Labor and Statistics.

        I commented on both of your ridiculous comments to me in reply to what you said to commenter Grant.
        pt. 4 was murder, hence my comment on what liberals believe…abortion is okay. Not to me. it’s murder.

        Secondly, you told me I needed an econ class. Nope, i don’t. And now, you are criticizing my writing and research. I rarely stoop to your level, but you are an idiot, to be sure.

      • David Ewers

        When I try to read comment it and respond to the comment it has to make sense so I can refute your statement.

        As far as Brooks, he looked at the stats and came to the wrong conclusion.

        As far as the right to choose about when you can become a mother. Your party claims it wants small government and for the government to stay out of people lives. Except when it comes to child birth or contraception. After the child is born it is on its own, no welfare, no pre-school. no food stamps, nada zip zilch. You re not pro-life but nothing but pro-birth.

        Basically you are the prime example of a tea party member who is uneducated, uniformed, ignorant of the social and economic issues that face our nation. YOu support a political party funded by a group of billionaires who do not care about your welfare on bit so ever. The Tea Party was never and will never be a grass root party. You are merely puppets of the Koch Brothers and Adelson

    • mikeatle

      That is exactly what happened when I posted question #8 to Facebook. A Republican/Fake Christian attacked me personally and tried to deflect to another subject, something about Thanksgiving and college football.

    • Sheik Yerbouti (I)

      Read the comment above. Then go have nice hot cup of tea, and slit your wrists.

      • David Ewers

        that is mighty Christian of you, thanks for showing us your true colors.

    • RecklessProcess

      You mean what you just did here rather than address the subject at hand? Welcome to the Taxed Enough Already Party David!

      • David Ewers

        I have actually been proven right, just read the comments, but you are most likely too lazy to do so and I have answered them many times.

      • David Ewers

        And our taxes for the majority of the population have gone down

  • David Ewers

    Only a teapublican could think of that. What is it with the teapulicans and animal sex>

  • sara

    How are you going to say he’s a sick pervert when you just said that poor puppy licks gravy off peoples crotches. You’re only defensive because you know its true you freak.

    • David Ewers

      Dorothy, it is you that has a thing about being someone’s dog, do they make you sleep in a cage?

  • David Ewers

    Thanks for proving me so right on how tea baggers will divert the subject. What is with animal sex and teapublicans?

    • Bine646

      1) congress under clinton (last president to balance the budget) was republican controlled. They wrote the balanced budget act and it took Clinton 4 tries to match it- which he finally did.

      2)The increase was most likely due to a tax decrease from 70% to 28%. Which- why are paying taxes a bad thing- we evened out from reaganomics- we will see if we do from Obamanomics

      3) Tax rates would never go to zero its ridiculous, however lowering the taxes on business may actually bring some back…

      4) How could we not be socialized and have some of the highest life expectancy? Must not be the worst thing huh.

      5)Combining freedom of speech with freedom of marriage? Interesting stretch

      6) This racist thing kills me, Clifton continues to act like racism is not in the african american community, not in the hispanic, the caucasian, the asian or any community. Its absolutely ridiculous to believe racism hangs with political party. Especially when Don Wilson pretends to be african american and wins an election based solely on that- not racist?

      7) Growth in the middle class has not happened bc they continue to swept into patterns of debt. Whether it be credit cards, marketing, education or housing- this country is set up (in the last couple decades) to push people into debt so they can collect the interest. You say no? Why have banks pushed credit cards when in the 70s you could not receive one?

      8) Our founding fathers were some of the most religious fanatics and had hardcore beliefs, it is ridiculous to say religion was not apart of their decisions when it was such a big part of their lives. Some would assume they left religion out so they were free to pursue which ever they wanted? IE- JohnAdams a unitarian, Franklin and Jefferson were deists- they insisted the separation of state and religion bc religion to them was a private matter

      9) I love the twists Clifton throws in here- our national deficit is 600 billion- thats 200 billion more than Bush ever put up. Our national debt has continued to increase, family wealth has decreased while debt has increased, young adults are no longer looking to buy a house- they are seeking to pay off their debts first, our national credit score has decreased, our tensions in the world have increased, Osama is dead however attacks continue all over the world, etc etc etc- i could go on and on- yet clifton tries to act like we are better off- what a joke. Obamas approval rating is 39%, think about that.

      10) Clifton talks about balancing the budget- yet he wonders why we have to cut unsustainable programs? Well clifton- the number of food stamp recipients has increased dramatically in the last 5 yrs- we cannot feed them all when we are running a 600 billion dollar debt- that is not the job of the govt. We have 400k enrolled in medicaid/care and only 22k enrolled in Obamacare- this too will be unsustainable

      • David Ewers

        1 Nice try on trying to say that the GOP led congress actually has something to do with the balancing of the budget, maybe the large amount of taxes coming in since the economy was booming had something to do with the debt going down.

        2. There is no such thing as Obamanomics we are living in a Teapublican era. So there goes that argument completely out the door. As far as a 70% tax rate, that is from la la land. That has not been in existence since Eisenhower.

        3. Tax rates not going down to Zero, tell that to the largest corporations in the United Sates, so again another false statement

        4. That statement makes no sense what so ever.

        5. Go to law school before commenting on constitutional law. now you look like a idiot.

        7. Again that completely denies the wage scale of the middle class and the poor has not matched the rise of the top 2%

        8. Another tea bagger lie,

        9. maybe if we had more taxpayers the debt would go down, stop having to pay people that are unemployment and create jobs so they can taxes. Increase the tax rate so everyone including corporation have to pay taxes. Why should romney pay less taxes than you and I

        10. Again, you fail to see the forest through the trees, typical tea bagger.

      • Bine646

        Wait- clifton asks a question and I must go to law school in order to answer? We are in a teaparty era where they are something like 10% of the population (if not less?). If corp taxes were zero they would be here- they arent- they are some of the highest in the world- now you look like an idiot. Also, congress passes things- how it works. You should look up the history of the Balanced Budget Act before you comment. It was nice reading your responses of nothingness- quite the rebuttal and as expected.

      • David Ewers

        The average large corporation paid less than 17% in corporate taxes. GE one of the largest paid none as did Apple and Microsoft. So your whole argument is just plain false.

        When making a conclusion or statement about the law of the constitution, you should have of education in he law. And it is apparent that you haze zero education in that matter.

        The Balanced Budget Act was nothing but another cut to medicare and medicaid. it did not reduce real spending what so ever. So again nic try, and also the spending cuts were eliminated in the following years so again your whole analogy is nothing but air.

        Every statement you put out has been disproved with something called facts, not the rhetoric you have put out. And the separation of church and state was around long before the constitution was written.

        Roger Williams along with parts of my family left the Boston Colony because of the mixture of religion and government and founded Providence which is now in Rhode Island.

        And John Adams famously said:

        As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

        SO again you have no idea of what you are talking about.

      • jimsure

        #1. the tax dodges are built into the system, not making it right, but fact. Go to a flat tax on everyone and corporations also. #2. both parties suck at helping anyone but themselves.

      • David Ewers

        Flat taxes always help the wealthy and hurt the middle class. If you kill the deductions on home purchases the whole real estate market will crash. There is not a single country in the world that has a flat tax. No economist worth his weight actually supports a flat tax.

      • Phillip Cochran

        Corporate interests overseas does not solely lay with tax interests. Its the lack of labor laws and ability to coerce cheap exploitative labor. Corporate CEO’s actually only act in their own self interests. In the 1950″s everyone was a patriot (that was rich or White) and companies gladly kept jobs in america. High taxes lead to the greatest middle class ever in our countries history. Oh and universal healthcare is just a common sense things that most of the developed world figured out wonderfully but America just can’t care enough to offer medical care to human beings who can’t be wealthy.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        NO, the STATED corporate tax rate may be 35% but the ACTUAL rate corporations pay is far lower, 2/3 don’t pay any taxes and a few (PEPCO) actually get more tax money back than they pay. And corporate share of federal tax revenue is far lower than it was 40-50 years ago.

      • jWd

        probably less than 1%. I can’t imagine that there are that many stupid people out there.. LOL

      • rob

        Besides, Jesus didn’t say give what you felt appropriate or what you think someone deserves.

      • josh

        damn, i was interested to see what you had to say. the fact that you are name-calling, calling this person a liar, and dismissing everything he said without giving a reason why makes you sound immature and wrong. i don’t want to be democratic or republican, but since i HAVE to choose one in this country, i would vote republican since they seem to have their facts straight and every time they make a good point democrats just shoot it down without backing it up with facts and resort to name calling (racist, tea bagger)

      • David Ewers

        I will call out people if they are blatantly lying. And if you think the founding fathers were a group of devout christian, you are delusional.

        Republicans seem to have their facts right. Yeah now that is down right funny. Palin, Bachman, West, Cruz, Perry, Romney, all caught in blatant lies. And the greatest set of liars Bush and Cheney. So who are you talking about having their facts right?

      • Bine646

        You are going to debate the religious beliefs of our founding fathers- hahahaha ok? Get back to me with their stances and traditions

      • David Ewers

        How about I use their own words

        Jefferson: The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs.

        John Adams; The divinity of Jesus
        is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do
        we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads
        of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity

        Franklin: I wish it (Christianity)
        were more productive of good works … I mean real good works … not holy-day
        keeping, sermon-hearing … or making long prayers, filled with flatteries
        and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing
        the Deity.

        Thomas Payne: Of all the tyrannies
        that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst

        The righteous right has made a world that does not exist, never has. You make up facts to suit your situation. Just look at bachman who claimed the founding fathers eliminated slavery when the created the constitution.

        The right still says it is religious, far from it. It does nothing for the poor and the helpless, it demonizes them for being lazy, thieves, drug addicts, whores and other vile names. I have yet to see a single tea party leader, or GOP leader to rebuke Rush, Jones, Coulter for their outlandish remarks.

      • patchbran

        i think he was called a racist liar b/c that’s what he probably is? but i like how you described republicans. change that word to democrats & your post begins to make a little sense, as it has been clearly stated by a republican that they’re not going to let facts influence their decision making.

      • john

        latest numbers say over 210,000 people “enrolled in obamacare” (even though it’s not possible in Obamacare because it’s not insurance) that’s excluding the medicade expansion.

      • Bine646

        The numbers that selected thru the federal exchange as reported by Forbes is 27000. Combined with the state exchanges it is 107k- far far far from their target.

      • Jeff Camire

        AHH typical Tea Partier distorting facts to try form a half way coherent argument. There are just a few Huge mistakes in your argument.
        1 The house of Representatives was republican controlled and Bill Clinton Actually Vetoed Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole’s(the senate minority leaders) balanced budget 4 times before they finally passed one.
        2.Yes the corporate tax rate in United States is high(28%) Most companies have not actually paid this rate due loopholes and write offs, in fact General Electric did not pay any taxes what so ever in 2013.The Democrats in Washington have stated several times that they should lower the corporate tax rate to 25% so small businesses can pay less, they also wanted too close tax loopholes for big corporations that allowed a company like google to pay an effective tax rate of 2%.This what made Republicans flip out. Democrats are trying to lower the overall corporate tax rate while making sure that every corporation actually pays that rate.
        3.Where are you getting your facts on the life expectancy? When we rank the lowest among wealthy countries in the world.( According to the WHO).the top 2 Are Switzerland and Japan. Both of which have socialized medicine. We are however number one by landslide in the amount spent on health care by Americans the fact of the matter is the People who are truly hurt by Obama care are the pharmaceutical companies that are overcharging for subpar meds(Mexico a Third world country had a better drug treatment for AIDS than we do for a fraction of the price)Canada a country that has socialized medicine also regulates the cost of meds.
        4. Your argument for number 8 actually backs up Clifton’s statement and shows exactly how much you grasp the constitution. Yes our forefathers were religious but I would not call them fanatical. Unless of course you are referring to the puritanical government of Salem mass(which was disbanded on or before t1776 when the declaration of independence was signed)who would actually hang people for disagreeing with the Church and were responsible for the Salem witch trials in 200 people were jailed and 20 executed for being accused of witch craft many of which were in fact Christian’s and the witchcraft that they spoke of was nothing more than bread that was contaminated with a natural hallucinogen. Which is the actual reasoning behind the separation of church and state. Now the point David made was if everyone’s definition of religion is personal and different and my church allows Gay marriage than banning gay marriage and defining the institute of it according to the religious beliefs of a minority of people is in fact a violation of church and state and a violation of the 1st amendment which not only guarantees the freedom of speech but also the freedom of religion. And saying we are a Christian nation is complete B.S. because we have no official religion and in fact are made up several religions. And if we are a Christian nation which of the several conflicting denominations of Christianity are we?(options being Catholicism, Baptist ,protestant, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Greek orthodox and Liberal Christian to name a small few)and did anyone think to inform the Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and Wiccan religions because implying that our laws are based on Christianity is in fact violating their freedom of religion.
        The fact of the matter is there one party in recent history that had the same beliefs as the Tea party, They where against socialized medicine they against labor Unions and they valued military spending over education and also defined a single religion and based their laws around it who where they you ask? The Nazi party(the religion being Arianism)they also believed in the wealthy classes moral superiority. There is in fact one thing they thought too that I find hilariously ironic. The Republicans believed that if the Jewish population had assault rifles in 1938 the holocaust would not have happened. Implying that they were the difference maker. The Nazi Party also believed that assault rifles would be the difference maker in 1943 when they invented them to turn the tide of the war. How did that theory turn out for them?(don’t answer it’s rhetorical). Oh and one final tidbit Hitler also blamed the German economic collapse that occurred after WW1 on immigrants and Gypsies as well as Jews.

      • JoeNCA

        “The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” – Treaty of Tripoli, 1791, submitted to Congress by Founding Father John Adams and ratified unanimously by the Senate

      • Bine646

        Would you like to expand on that treaty- maybe explain why he said we were not founded on christian religion? He was speaking to Muslim nations was he not- maybe trying to ease tensions? Called a diplomatic agreement for a reason

      • David Ewers

        Or maybe is was actually stating a fact. You still have not answered the question, if we are a christian nation, why does it not appear in a single document

      • standbehindtheyellowline

        Well, I see you are over here using the same uneducated and/or non-factual BS as you have used on the Boehner debacle. My favorite one here is that in the 70’s you (everyone) were unable to get a credit cards. HAHAHA, That’s when I was approved for 3 and still have them. You must spend a lot of time on the Fox Entertainment Network and their stoner drop outs to be able to repeat them almost word for word. Hey, just so everyone knows….This creep goes to your FB page and stalks on you. Take care of your children and grandchildren pictures. Must be some kind of special freak to find you when you try to keep things hidden from creeps like this.

      • Bine646

        Can you see my facebook page thru my disque profile? No- why? Bc its not attached, you dont want people to see it, dont attach the link nugget. Not hard concept

        Like the Fox news remarks- original

      • standbehindtheyellowline

        Oh princess, so you know. Just because your neighbors house is unlocked, doesn’t mean you are suppose to walk on in at 2am.

      • Alvin Miller

        Usual half truths and lies. Where do you get they were “the most religious fanatics” in your dreams? Now the part about not wanting other religions pushed an them or anyone for that matter, true. So why would you say that we are a christian nation when religion is a “private matter” and try to force your so called values on others?
        Clinton worked with congress, you guys should try that.

      • Bine646

        You are going to debate that they did not have deep religious beliefs?

        Clinton was the president- so i guess you are referring to Obama?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        #6. Racist minorities don’t have nearly the numbers or the political clout of white racists.

        #8 AMEN to that. (religion is a PRIVATE matter). It isn’t in the Constitution for that very reason.

        #9. Our debt has increased since we were a fledgling republic. The point is Republicans never said $h1t about the debt when Bush was in office. BUsh also wages two wars off the books.

      • Bine646

        The national debt is set to double by the time Obama leaves office, the debt taken on by our federal reserve has increased 4x. Lets not try and switch things around here by bringing up Bush- guy has been gone for 6 years- move on

      • David Ewers

        the debt limit was raised 19 times by bush, and can you tell me what big spending bill has been passed by the democrats to bring up the debt level. Or could it be that the amount of taxes have gone down since the GOP congress let have major tax loopholes.

      • Lisa Toops Smith

        But we are still paying his bills 6 years later.

      • Bine646

        Obama ran a trillion dollar deficit for 4 yrs- double anything bush put up. We will be paying fpr Obama for 50yrs bc he has instilled a mindset

      • Lisa Toops Smith

        That’s because Bush didn’t put up all of his bills. He didn’t account for a lot of the money he spent, including, among other debts, wars on two different fronts and his own idea of “healthcare reform” which has proven to be a huge farce in itself. Obama is accounting the debts incurred on his watch as well as taking on Bush’s debts. That’s why Obama’s deficit is being made to look so bad.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Yes, let’s CONTINUE to bring up the Bush guy, the clown who took a budget surplus and wasted it waging two wars funded by credit from China, cut taxes instead of raising them like we normally did to fund wars, created an unfunded Medicare drug benefit that was a giveaway to the insurance companies and looked the other way while Wall Street chased profits in the subprime market. You guys seem to forget those details.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        #10. Food stamps aren’t the biggest budget items. Those are defense and health care. And yes, in a communal society, it IS the government’s job to feed the poor rather than give rich corporations subsidies and rich jerks tax cuts.

        The budget deficit Obama inherited was due to the Bush tax cuts and the rise in unemployment. Bailing us out of the worst recession since the Great Depression added to the deficit. I think the latter was money well spent and the former was a self-inflicted wound.

      • Bine646

        Food stamps arent an issue- why we had to make cuts bc we couldnt support the 49% increase in applicants under Obama

      • David Ewers

        The increase of food stamp recipients is because congress refuses to pass a single jobs bills, thy refuse to raise the min wage to a living wage so since we have more people making min wage, it causes more people to be on food stamps. Don’t like paying for these, tell walmart to raise their wages

      • Not-a-rino

        As for the food stamps, blame companies like walmart and McDonalds for keeping wages so low that “full-time” employees have to use food stamps and welfare just to make ends meet. Look at successful businesses like Costco and their business model that pay their employees a living wage and insurance and are very profitable.

      • Bine646

        Yup mcdonalds and walmart are solely responsible for the 49% increase in food stamp recipients under obama

      • Lisa Toops Smith

        Hello, they said “companies like walmart and McDonalds” meaning including but not limited to. No, I don’t infer from their comment that walmart and McDonalds are solely responsible.

    • maximillio

      David, when someone is always talking about a thing, it means they must, by necessity, also be thinking about that thing.
      That’s what “it” is. An overriding interest . . . almost a fetish, one might say.

    • Jim Bean

      What did Obama do that caused oil production to increase? (#9)

    • Mark

      It is all that santorum that makes them this way.

    • patchbran

      darn. i get the feeling i missed some good perverted animal analogy up there.

  • sedjohns

    What exactly does your comment have to do with this article? It doesn’t. All you and “Sara” have done is mindlessly insult someone. You two are great humanitarians.

  • Pipercat

    Now Allen, your thesis has been reinforced by all these fabulous answers. Moreover, I would posit what a waste of time it is to ask these questions that ultimately have no answers. As you can see by the witty banter above, the answers to said questions require at least a certain amount of acknowledgement of your query. Any direct acknowledgement would then be considered an automatic admission of defeat. Thus, the pivots on steroids. Does provide a good laugh though…

    • Pipercat

      Dude, it wasn’t supposed to make sense. Ridiculous comments require ridiculous responses or reinforcement. The only thing that was pertinent was the reference to pivots on steroids. And really, some of your comments can be just as crude as the ones above.

      • Pipercat

        Ah, another witty comment which shows your camaraderie with ol’ Dorothy herself…

  • satta

    The Republican Party is fraudulent, but so is the Democratic Party. Both are more concerned with winning elections and controlling the political means than protecting the rights of citizens. Both favor the redistribution of wealth: from the middle class to the rich. Both are run by and primarily serve moneyed interests. Both are essentially corporatist. The opposition is mostly contrived and their differences are mostly window dressing. What both parties support is much more telling than where they allegedly diverge: war, the military-industrial complex, the security state, the surveillance state, interventionist foreign policy, the welfare state, massive deficits, ever-expanding government, and a monetary policy that protects entrenched interests at the expense of the middle class.

    As the questions in the article imply, when Republicans are in power, nothing really changes. The two parties act as scapegoats for each other so that the enterprise of government can run smoothly without any real opposition. So, essentially, the Republican Party is redundant and should be abolished, and replaced with a party that truly opposes the excesses of the state and the depredation of the middle class by the elite.

    “The sole invariable characteristic of the State is the economic exploitation of one class by another.” -Albert Jay Nock

  • mea_mark

    This could be fun here in rural central Texas. Only thing I am worried about is, everybody might start sounding like Sarah Palin. It would be a word salad menagerie coming from dumb red-neck republicans.

  • Joseph Sacramento

    You cant be Christian if you don’t follow Christ teaching’s .Sorry but that’s the way it goes

    • ZippyDK

      And you can’t be an American if you ignore the separation of church and state.

  • George Schwarz

    If Republicans are so intent on keeping government off our backs, then why are they so ear to shove government into our genitals.

  • strayaway

    More libertarian but will try to answer questions that should be answered by the likes of George Bush anyway..
    1&2. The Republican leadership has not been fiscally responsible and are almost as bad as Democrats in this matter. Bring up Clinton and you have to bring up Gingrich.
    3.Tax cuts aren’t the driving force behind job creation. Innovation, freedom, and cuts in government spending are driving forces.
    4. More socialized health care need not be so awful although, if considered, it should be at the state level. It seems good in Scandinavia and Canada but maybe not so good in eastern block countries and slipping a bit in England. Lets do like they do and start with tort reform which leads to less insurance and fewer bureaucrats to pay for.
    5. The Constitution does not support freedom of religion. It however does not allow government to establish a state religion. The federal government has no Constitutional power to regulate marriages. Such powers reside with states.
    6. Choice ‘c’is more realistic. Under President Obama, black incomes, home ownership rates, and savings have declined relative to that of whites and race relations have worsened. I don’t think this is what President Obama wanted but his incompetency has resulted in these outcomes. Voting for more of the same didn’t help blacks any more than voting for the KKK.
    7. Because Obama is a corporatist. The 1% is moving ahead of the general population at a faster rate under Obama than even under fellow corporatist Bush.
    8.The founding fathers did not found the Country on any religion. Only the word “Lord” is mentioned in passing in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence does ascribe our freedoms to be ‘Creator” given.
    9.Those statistics are leave out a lot of things like printing $85B/month to keep the game going and having much of it wind up in the stock market bubble making the 1% who own 50% of the stock richer and the $58,000 of public debt Obama has given to the average American.
    10.Bush’s last budget was $3.1T. Obama’s last budget was $3.8T. Obama must be spending $700,000,000,000 annually more on something. False premise. Do you really care about Jesus and Christianity anyway?

    • David Ewers

      1. Libertarian being fiscally responsible, now that is a joke. The whole libertarian platform favors the wealthy and hurts the poor.

      2. The biggest lie if them all, if that was so we should drowning in jobs, the largest corporations are a all time high in profits and are now paying less than ever in taxes. The largest growth in the middle class occurred when corporate America and the government worked together. The NASA projects proved that.

      3. Tort reform another corporate give away, corporation when they purposely do something wrong should have to pay and pay big. The tobacco companies long ago know that smoking caused cancer and hid the facts. The companies that produced asbestos knew the dangers and failed to warn anyone.

      4. Wrong again, you like many others are trying to use the words in the constitution without interpretation. supreme court justice John Marshall used a interpetation on the constitution during Marbury v. Madison. Go to law school or take some American history before making such a comment. While marriage is controlled by a state when giving out a license, the right to marry is a federal issue. This falls in the same vein of bi-racial marriages which were illegal in many states into the 60’s. So again your whole statement smacks of ignorance and prejudice.

      5. This makes no snse what so ever.

      6. The reason that there is a growing rift between the wealthy and the poor has nothing to do with Obama. It sits completky on the shouldrs of people who want to continue with the same trickle down theory that has proven to be the decline of the middle class. What bill has Obama passed that has hurt the poor and the wealthy, I will tell you none. What bill has been passed by the GOP in the last thirty years to help the same,. The same number. Again your analogy is false

      • strayaway

        1)Libertarian is the opposite of authoritarian. It seems you have found your comfort zone.

        2)Thanks for acknowledging that under Obama, “the largest corporations are a all time high in profits and are now paying less than ever in taxes.” I agree

        3) You must be referring to point 4. Tort reform in healthcare which is what was being talked about not tobacco. Please try to stay on topic. Canada does have radical tort reform in its health care systems if you want to cite Canada.

        4) The 10th Amendment is easy enough to understand. If a power isn’t spelled out as belonging to the federal government, it belongs to the states and people. Courts can rule whatever they want and the law is what is whatever they say it is for practical purposes e.g. the (un)ACA is a tax, corporations are people. But the wording found in the Constitution is still there waiting to be taken at face value instead of “interpreted” as you put it. If you don’t like what the Constitution actually says, amend it instead of interpreting it.

        6) According to you, Obama isn’t responsible for anything that isn’t positive. I am just citing statistics. Obama is the President. Blacks have been losing out relative to whites under his presidency. Your argument is with statistics. The 1% have meanwhile excelled under Obama better than under any other recent President.

      • David Ewers

        Nice try but when people speck of a libertarian they speak of the party not authoritarian. So again you are not being truthful.

        Tobacco not being in healthcare, when cancer was the the reason of the cover up. Again think before typing and Canada follwws english law and they have very heavy fines for intentionally hurting another. Think of the EU fines on Microsoft. Again absiolute ignorance.

        Why do you tea baggers always try to use the tenth amendment. We are talking about rights of a individual which are covered in the 1st, 13th, and 14th amendment. And interpetation is what every court does, jsut as in the citizen united case. When talking law to a person who has a degree in the law you will always be on the losing side.

        Obama has done fantastic things under the conditions he has been given. Two wars, the worst economy in 60 years, a congress and party who refuse to do anything. Your party was negative before he ever took office. You, the tea party and the libertarians are the biggest joke in the US.

      • strayaway

        Libertarian with a small “l” is not a party. The opposite end of the spectrum from libertarian is authoritarian. I think I see you at the other end.

        I listened to the Canadian consul on Public Radio talk about why Canadian healthcare was 40% cheaper than US healthcare. One of his points was that Canadian doctors, at the time he spoke, could only be sued for a maximum of $10,000 so most never bought liability insurance or passed that cost on to their customers. I’ll take the Canadian Consuls word for it before I listen to your baloney.

        I was addressing the incorrect statement, “If you support the freedom of religion (as per our Constitution)”. The only thing the First amendment says is that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Congress can neither promote or repress specific religions. Our military instructors are not supposed to be targeting evangelical faiths, for instance, as they are doing. The 13th amendment is about slavery and involuntary servitude. That has nothing to do with “freedom of religion either”. The 14th Amendment isn’t about freedom of religion either. Pick some new numbers.

        Obama is slowly crashing the economy with an unworkable health care plan, He was and is trying to keep the wars going. Official unemployment is at 7.3% even after dumping $85B/month of newly printed money in trying to make it work. He’s been great for the 1% but its time to reintroduce Jimmy Carter’s vocabulary word for the rest of us: malaise.

      • David Ewers

        nice try with the semantics and you are wrong about Canadian doctors only being liable for 10K. They can be held liable for much more if they do a action that is out of the norm. So again you do not know what you are talking about.

        Again you are reading a literal interpretation on the constitution. We have a living breathing document that expands and contracts with the times. Not a dead constitution like Scalia tries to push. So again do not argue law when you are uneducated.

        The military attacking religion, now that is new one on me, in fact they are doing the exact opposite. All three services have been caught pushing Christianity of non Christians. So again you lie.

        Just like a typical tea bagger, you have no idea what you are talking about. What bill has Obama passed that is pushing 85B into the economy. The unworkable health plan you speak of also, it was written by the heritage foundation, a conservative think tank. Where do you think Romney get the idea from. You say you are Libertarian but your words say Tea bagger. And I am done with you, I can’t have a discussion with a uneducated fool

      • Chris B

        I just thought I’d make an off topic comment, Mr. Ewers.
        It’s mildly amusing to watch all your grammatical errors, all the while seeing you call others ignorant.
        Just sayin.
        I.e.: the article “an” is used before a word starting with a vowel, not “a”. So for example “an uneducated fool” would be correct, rather than “a uneducated fool”.
        Also, in discussions accused of being educated or intellectual, it’s nice to leave out name calling (whether or not your opponent uses it) and ad hominem (look it up) attacks.

        Finally, it’s nice to cite sources, otherwise both parties could be talking out of their respective buttocks. So for example, your comment about the military, you should say “according to this does not in fact happen”
        Ranting about others being ignorant, stupid, fools and the like, does little to add maturity to your position.
        You’re welcome 🙂

      • David Ewers

        thanks for proving me right about teapublicans, always changing the subject when they do not have anything to actually say about a subject.

      • P.WILSON


      • strayaway

        Please re-read what I wrote. “One of his points was that Canadian doctors, at the time he spoke, could only be sued for a maximum of $10,000”. Again, I would believe the Canadian Consul before I listen to you. Before you were winging it with something about English common law.

        Your living breathing document sounds like a recipe for dictators and crooks. Again, the Constitution can be amended as desired. There is no need to make it into play dough so it means whatever you want it to. In Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty, Humpty pronounces that “a word means what I want it to mean neither more nor less”. That’s what happens when you confuse Humpty Dumpty with the founders. The Constitution becomes a blank slate.

        You are, as usual, behind on the news. “During the course of an Army Reserve Equal Opportunity training brief on extremism, Evangelical Christianity, Catholicism, ultra Orthodox Jews, and the Church of Latter Day Saints were listed among Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Ku Klux Klan, Sunni Muslims, and Nation of Islam as examples of religious extremism. Oddly enough, “Islamophobia” was also listed as a form of religious extremism, and the Westboro Baptist Church was excluded altogether by the instructor who apparently got her information from the Southern Poverty Law Center.” When news of this was reported, “Secretary of the Army, John McHugh, sent an Army-wide memorandum ordering a halt to all briefings classifying Christian groups as domestic hate groups.”

        Obama did not pass a bill pushing $85B/monthly into the economy. I never said he did. Again, this has to do with your reading skills. That money is being dumped in by the Fed. My point was that even though all this money was flooding the economy, unemployment remains at extremely high levels. This is unsustainable but without this band-aid we would see the economy for what it is. The unworkable health plan was written for individual states as pointed out by Romney during his campaign. I didn’t endorse it even for states but states have the power to have their own plans. I don’t live in MA so I don’t care what they choose for themselves there.

        I suggest honing your reading comprehension skills and catching up on the news which might involve more sources. Until then, having a discussion with you is sort of like talking to a brick although I don’t mean to insult bricks.

    • Jennifer Simon Ward

      4. For the record, I’ve lived both in the Eastern bloc (Bulgaria) and in England. I had my son by emergency cesarean in Bulgaria and am happy to report we’re both alive and well. They don’t have Starbucks in the lobby, but the medical provisions are perfectly adequate. I’ll take affordable healthcare in Europe over paying for insurance in the US that pays for practically nothing, on vastly inflated medical bills, any day.

      • strayaway

        Thank you for the insight into Bulgarian medical care. I wouldn’t have guessed that. I am with you on getting the cost of US healthcare reduced. I suspect, based on Canadian provincial plans, that costs could be reduced by about 40% if US states would adopt plans similar to those of Canadian provinces. There are also ways to significantly reduce costs by allowing more health freedom. Societal costs will not be reduced under the (un)ACA however because the trial lawyers, insurance companies, Big pharmacy profits, and armies of bureaucrats are still feasting at the health care feeding trough.

  • Teresa

    1) If Republicans are so fiscally responsible, why was President Eisenhower (in the 1950′s) the last Republican president to balance the budget?

    Budget? What’s a budget? They should just have no budget at all and print all the money they want. It seems to be working pretty well right now.

    2) If President Reagan was such a fiscally conservative hero, why did he quadruple our national debt during his eight years in the White House?

    It really wasn’t his fault, he inherited a failing economy and other serious problems from the previous administration (Jimmy Carter, democrat).

    3) If tax breaks are the main driving force behind job creation, how would we create jobs once tax rates were reduced to practically zero?

    If the government creates jobs by taxing the private sector, who will pay their salaries when the tax rate is practically 100%? But since we are on the topic, I would love to hear your explanation of how jobs are created in the first place.

    4) If socialized health care is so awful, why does every country that leads the world in life expectancy have socialized health care?

    If socialized health care is so great, why do world leaders from socialized health care nations come to the U.S. for treatment? Why did our own congressmen, senators, etc opt out of Obama Care?

    5) If you support the freedom of religion (as per our Constitution), and my church recognizes gay marriage, isn’t your support for the banning of same-sex marriage an attack on my religion’s First Amendment rights?

    If marriage is a religious issue, why is the government issuing marriage licenses at all? Is it the federal governments job to decide who is and isn’t married? Doesn’t government involvement violate the First Amendment?

    6) What’s more realistic? 1) That an entire region of the United States that supported slavery in the late-1800′s and support segregation in the 1950′s and 60′s suddenly stopped being racist, or 2) The racist southern Democrats in the south became Republicans during the 50′s and 60′s when the Republican party shifted toward an idea called the “Southern Strategy,” where the GOP appealed to the racism in southern whites who didn’t like African Americans voting for Democrats.

    There’s only one race, the human race. Scripture teaches Adam and Eve were mother and father of all human family. Darwinian Evolution is the justification for racism, broken indian treaties etc. P.S. Hitler was a socialist and a Darwinian Evolutionist (see also Stalin, Pol Pot, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, etc).

    7) If taxes are at some of their lowest levels in history, and the wealthiest in this country are richer than ever, why hasn’t the growth in the wealth of the middle class matched that of the top 2%?

    If you think taxes are low, you need to get a job and pay some taxes to see why the middle class is suffering.

    8) If our Founding Fathers wanted this nation to be based on Christianity, why don’t the words “Christian” or “Christianity” appear even once in our Constitution?

    Wow, a liberal who references the constitution… is this a trick question? Maybe you prefer a constitution that forbids women to drive, go to school, expose their face, drink alcohol, vote, inherit property…?

    9) If a Republican president reduced massive job losses in the midst of the worst recession in nearly a century by more than 50% in his first 4 months in office; presided over 44 consecutive months of private-sector job growth creating nearly 8 million jobs; killed Osama bin Ladin; saw stock markets reach all-time highs; saved the American auto industry; increased domestic oil production to highs not seen since the late-90′s and championed the largest year-to-year deficit reductions since World War II, would your party not be calling him a hero and a legend?

    I think they’d call him Ronald Reagan.

    10) If Jesus spent his life helping the poor and the needy, how does it make sense that a party which claims to be for “Christian values” continues to cut funding for programs that help the poor and the needy?

    Do you have chapter and verse for the “Jesus spent his life helping the poor and needy”? Besides a few questions ago, you said Eisenhower was the last republican to balance a budget, and Reagan “Quadrupled our national debt”. What did these evil, racist, mean, Christian republican conservatives spend all that money on, golf vacations?

    Gee this IS fun! I can ask questions too… I guess when it comes to politics, everybody is stupid and propagandized. I wouldn’t know, I never watched Fox news… but I am pretty sure that Long Island was made by a glacier that extended south across the country to Kansas City Missouri. If we stop burning fossil fuels, will Canada have to be evacuated? Will the northern half of the U.S. need to move to Mexico? If the sea levels recede, can I get my apartment in Atlantis back? I thought Jimmy Carter told us to turn our thermostats down because the “Settled Science” of the seventies said the Ice Age had started because of all the pollution from fossil fuels and hairspray. I guess I can sit back now and watch all you liberal geniuses save the world from ignorance. 😀

    • Rich White Man with Money

      This whole article bugs the shit out of me. It’s written like these questions were end-game for conservatives. I swear, liberals grow more narrow minded by the day..

    • swan ronson

      Your response to 3 actually has merit, and part of #5 makes sense. The rest of your answers basically run right off the rails (the answer to 10 is a real doozy). 15 percent is a failing grade, but I’ll let you try again if you’d like.

    • tgris

      So how are jobs created? You teaidiots should know since you are so devoted to capitalism. Jobs are created by market need. President Kennedy cut taxes only for the middle class. They spent the money in the stores. This increased sales. With an increase in sales, more jobs were needed. Also with an increase in sales, there had to now be an increase in production to keep up with those sales. This caused an expansion of jobs in the production areas. If tax breaks are given to the rich, they are not going to go out and create jobs. What would these people do if no extra jobs were needed in sales or production? No, the rich take their tax break and put it in overseas accounts so they don’t have to pay taxes on their extra monies.
      And while I am at it Reagan was one of the worst presidents we ever had. He is the one who changed the direction of this country where now we see the rich as job creators and not market driven. I have two good friends who were born and raised in the Soviet Union and was living in Moscow when the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia revised. When I told them that some people say Reagan defeated Communism and the Soviet Union, they laughed at that for a long time. They said that was very stupid that anyone would believe that.

    • JoeNCA

      Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner just signed up for “Obamacare”.

    • JoeNCA

      10) Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” – Matthew 19:21

      When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” – Luke 18:21

      Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” – Mark 10:21

      • Teresa

        Those are three accounts of the same 1 story. It does not constitute Jesus dedicating his life to helping the poor…

      • Teresa

        The truth is, progressive (code word for socialist) administrations have dominated american politics for 60 years… The two warring factions are communists and fascists. They span both parties. Communists want the government to control everything- (obamacare, general motors…) like china… Fascists want private citizens to control everything, but use bureaucracy to control the private citizens and business through regulation(dea, fda, fed reserve, car czar, housing czar, energy czar, etc.) Let’s not forget NAZI stands for national socialism. Not racism. The trouble is, We’re blinded by two party bickering over meaningless drivel while a bloated rogue government gets hijacked by some truly nefarious elements. Its all fun and games when we elect them into position. But getting them back out again looks like WWI, WWII… Etc. Because you cant vote out tyranny. Where does that leave us? Just a thought…

    • Teresa

      Answer- i deliberately answered all the questions using sarcastic humor. The very point, which you do not seen to be able to grasp, is that i answered all the questions with current, in use, lefty logic. If you read the answers again, you’ll see that you can simply swap reagan for obama, bush for clinton etc… The only koolaid i see is two party progressive koolaid. George washington warned against party politics for just this reason. It makes people stupid. I’m sure You’re smarter than your ad hominem attack.. Either that, or you just lost your first debate in one move. Next time you regurgitate someone else’s talking points i suggest you “take a minute to learn what it says and know why you believe what you say you believe”. Ps. I’m not a republican, i’m part of a growing number of independent thinking people, who realize government is giving us the propaganda coated shaft. Snap out of it. Jeez.

      Pps. That blog was right. It is fun to sit back and watch the ignorant flail around! Its only sad and scary that they’re running our country now…



    • Keegan

      Well… Most of them are normal people like you, who just happen to differ in the way they look at things. It’s irrational to make such a blanket statement about such a large part of the population of our country. People don’t follow lies. They follow things they believe in. And to say that such a large group of all sorts of people, from different backgrounds and situations, would somehow come together to help some billionaires is ridiculous. Self-sacrifice is commendable, but it is most certainly not the case for the entirety of the Republican Party. Your average Republican doesn’t even know any billionaires, much less “pimp themselves out” and lie for them. They believe what they believe because they believe it, not because some billionaire told them to.

      • standbehindtheyellowline

        “People don’t follow lies. They follow things they believe in.” Funny thing, many people believe the lies that are told on Fox Entertainment Network, whether they follow them or not.

      • Keegan

        Okay yeah, you’re definitely right – people believe lies all the time. I guess what I was trying to say is that people generally aren’t going to be so enthusiastic about selling themselves out for something they *know* is a lie. Sure, if they believe it to be true, they might. But in that case, it’s not accurate to call them liars.

  • Jay L

    These questions may be relevant to an “establishment Republican,” but at least a couple of them would not impress a Tea Party-er, who would tell you that Bush 1 and 2 betrayed conservative principles on taxes and/or deficits, and that Reagan lost his way. — JayL

  • 1) If Republicans are so fiscally responsible, why was President Eisenhower (in the 1950′s) the last Republican president to balance the budget?

    Republican’s and Democrats both discovered that the can spend as much as they damn well please as long as they have the proper excuse. For Republicans, it is, “We spend less than Democrats.” For Democrats, it’s, “We want to help you more than Republicans.” These are both lies, but as long as the people believe them, they don’t have to change.

    2) If President Reagan was such a fiscally conservative hero, why did he quadruple our national debt during his eight years in the White House?

    He asked for cuts in spending, but Tip would not give them. I think that he would have preferred cuts in spending as well as tax cuts, but he did not push for them and so, it really doesn’t matter what he wanted. We should judge him for what he did. I would return to that level of debt and deficit in a heartbeat.

    3) If tax breaks are the main driving force behind job creation, how would we create jobs once tax rates were reduced to practically zero?

    Tax breaks don’t create jobs. Tax breaks provide the capital to create jobs that could not be created if the capital was taxed away into some other enterprise. Now, this question seems to suggest that once the tax rate hits zero, no more jobs could be created. This shows a lack of understanding of basic economics. Capital is not a fixed pie. The pie grows every time a new good or service is provided. This increased wealth is the engine that drives the creation of more jobs.

    4) If socialized health care is so awful, why does every country that leads the world in life expectancy have socialized health care?

    Because the statistics are as comparable as apples and oranges. This is a false comparison, and you would know that if you looked to who flies here for medical care compared to who leaves here and flies elsewhere for care.

    5) If you support the freedom of religion (as per our Constitution), and my church recognizes gay marriage, isn’t your support for the banning of same-sex marriage an attack on my religion’s First Amendment rights?

    No. Nothing prevents your church from marrying gay couples. The whole question of gay marriage has nothing to do with marriage. It is one an attempt to legitimize a lifestyle that many do not approve of. So what. Do gays need other people’s approval? I would hope not. This is a waste of time. However, the second reason is to receive those benefits granted by govt that heterosexual couples get and they don’t. Not this is something worth pursuing, but they are after the wrong thing. I’m not going to go into it here, but as if you want me to flesh this out, but basically. gays are not the only group not getting these benefits. Wouldn’t is make more sense to get govt out of the marriage business and make us all equal in one fell swoop instead of having each aggrieved group trot out one at a time trying to get their piece of the pie?

    6) What’s more realistic? 1) That an entire region of the United States that supported slavery in the late-1800′s and support segregation in the 1950′s and 60′s suddenly stopped being racist, or 2) The racist southern Democrats in the south became Republicans during the 50′s and 60′s when the Republican party shifted toward an idea called the “Southern Strategy,” where the GOP appealed to the racism in southern whites who didn’t like African Americans voting for Democrats.

    If you thin that you can lay the history of racism at the feet of the Republicans, then you have lost your mind. I will refer you to most any video by Alfonzo Rachel of Zonation, and let him straighten you out. Nice try though.

    7) If taxes are at some of their lowest levels in history, and the wealthiest in this country are richer than ever, why hasn’t the growth in the wealth of the middle class matched that of the top 2%?

    Do you now what wealth is. I build a chair. You raise some chickens. We both have created wealth out of thin air. Now, by serving our fellow man, when can turn these chairs and chickens into money. If I stop making chairs and hire 10 people to make them. When I sell these chairs I have served 10 people. The 10 workers have each served 1 person, me. If I serve people 10 at a time and they serve people 1 at a time, who’s wealth do you think will grow the fastest?

    8) If our Founding Fathers wanted this nation to be based on Christianity, why don’t the words “Christian” or “Christianity” appear even once in our Constitution?

    Because of the establishment clause, but I think you already knew that. But let’s look at the Declaration of Independence. “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”

    When they say Creator here, they don;t mean parents.

    9) If a Republican president reduced massive job losses in the midst of the worst recession in nearly a century by more than 50% in his first 4 months in office; presided over 44 consecutive months of private-sector job growth creating nearly 8 million jobs; killed Osama bin Ladin; saw stock markets reach all-time highs; saved the American auto industry; increased domestic oil production to highs not seen since the late-90′s and championed the largest year-to-year deficit reductions since World War II, would your party not be calling him a hero and a legend?

    Again with the false narrative. You bring some facts to bolster these arguments and then we can discuss. I’ll stipulate to the killing of Bin Laden. Try to prove one of the other facts if you can.

    10) If Jesus spent his life helping the poor and the needy, how does it make sense that a party which claims to be for “Christian values” continues to cut funding for programs that help the poor and the needy?

    Jesus care for the needed. He did not join the Sanhedrin or the Roman Senate and demand others take care of the needy. Why is it that you think that just because we don;t want the govt to do something that we don;t want that thing done at all? There is virtue in me helping the poor. There is no virtue in making you help the poor, for me or you. I didn’t do it, and you didn’t want to do it.

    • iyamtoo

      2) If President Reagan was such a fiscally conservative hero, why did he quadruple our national debt during his eight years in the White House?

      He asked for cuts in spending, but Tip would not give them. I think that he would have preferred cuts in spending as well as tax cuts, but he did not push for them and so, it really doesn’t matter what he wanted. We should judge him for what he did. I would return to that level of debt and deficit in a heartbeat.

      I call BULLSHIT. It wasn’t cuts in spending that was needed–he gave tax breaks to wealthy and to corporations, effectively gutting our ability to do the job of governing.

      I am so amused by idiots who won’t admit that Reagan took from the poor to give to the rich, and defend his BS policies as if they made sense. Google “2 Santa Clauses” and learn something.
      Trickle-down is such hogwash that Bush Sr. called it ‘VOODOO ECONOMICS’ and mocked Reagan for it during his campaign.


      • Where to start. Let’s start with what money is. I make chairs and you raise chicken. We agree to a trade, 1 chair for 4 chickens. After some time I have all the chickens and you have all the chairs that you need. So money gets created to represent the wealth that we have created in a universal form that can be used for any good. Now. Since money is a representation of wealth, and wealth are those goods and services provided by people, the only way to create wealth is to serve someone else.

        Now, it would be difficult to get rich off of the poor since they have little wealth to take in the first place, so that argument is based on a false assumption. So how does someone get rich. Let’s go back to the chair metaphor. I make chairs. I decide to hire 10 people to build the chairs for me. Each person makes one chair, and I then sell the 10 chairs. I have served 10 people. My workers have each served 1 person, me. If I serve 10 people for each 1 person that my workers serve, who do you think is going to get rich.

        Now, that is the free market way of accumulating wealth. Unfortunately, that is not what always happens. What we get a lot of these days are businesses, some of which are corporations, that rig the market to their advantage using the force of govt. This is crony capitalism and it needs to be stopped.

        Let’s look again at the chair business. I get special licensing for chair manufacturing. This make entering the chair market more difficult. This barrier reduces the amount of competition that I face which lets me, reduce quality, or raise prices. Excluding outright payments from the govt, which also happens, I still make my money by serving as many people as I can, only I can cheat them a little on every transaction which they might not even notice.

        Now, you claim that cuts in spending weren’t needed. Here I will call BULLSHIT. First, read Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution. There are 18 clauses that list the powers that were granted to the Federal govt. Tell me where in those powers that you find the authorization for, Depts of, Labor, Energy, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Renewal, Interior, Agriculture, Transportation, or Commerce. These Department besides being illegal, consume a large percentage of capital. The capital that once removed from the economy is not available for creating business that serve and employ others. I have already shown that the creation of wealth is based on creating new goods and services. Since these are created from thin air, there in no end to the amount of wealth that can be created. But, that does not mean that the raw material needed to create this new wealth are in an unlimited supply. Capital is often required to accumulate the raw materials needed to produce the next round of goods. That is why tax and spending cuts have a greater impact in raising the level of wealth creation in the market, which raises the standard of living for everyone, and why govt confiscation of capital reduces the amount of wealth created and the standards of living for everyone. Guess who feels the impact of lower standards of living the most? If you said THE POOR, then this post was worth the time.

  • My favorite questions of the bunch are 7-10. I don’t think no. 9 would go over too well. They’d immediately start talking about ACA or privacy concerns, etc. I think # 9 would just lead to neverending talk of religion &
    religious leaders. But # 7 & # 8, THOSE I REALLY want to hear.

  • Suz deMello

    Thank you.

  • angelicvh

    Actually When Clinton balanced the budget it was with the Republican Congress demanding he do so, at the time he did not want to.

  • angelicvh

    Teaching a person to fish is more valuable than fishing for them, and as Jesus said, there will always be poor. We can not afford these programs with a $17 Trillion dollar deficit.

    • JanetMermaid

      So I take it you HAVE insurance for yourself.

      • angelicvh

        Janet I do, and actually at this time it is temporary because I was hoping the affordable care act would be what it was advertised to be. It is not on so many levels. There were so many other ways he could have insured the uninsured.

        Leave all other insurance alone, and expand medicare and medicaid to cover these people that were falling in the cracks. Since they are state run, he could have provided monies to do so. They could have taxed, cigarettes, liquor, or gambling a stipend to help pay for it.

        There was legislation that could applied for all people, such as: leaving grown kids on the adult policies. Require all insurance Co. insure all, including preexisting conditions. They since they were regulating, they could have regulated price too.

      • angelicvh

        Just so you know I know some government aid is required for a society as large as ours. I just believe it should be minimal and done on a state level, not a federal level.

    • DisentAgain

      Centralized social programs are a method to reduce cost of poverty on a society. We literally cant afford *not* to. We all socialize the *costs* of poverty already, with or without benefit programs.

      In simple terms: To let folks starve or die in the streets is significantly more of a drag economically than just paying for their care.

      Welfare is cheaper than un-managed poverty. Health programs are cheaper than emergency care. So not only is it the ethical choice (help those in need) it actually saves us money and time.

  • angelicvh

    9. is incredibly misleading. The figures are off, and it is a diatribe that is inaccurate.

  • angelicvh

    Socialized medicine is not working in European countries and they are financially going broke. In Belgium old people carry cards saying please resuscitate because doctors are deciding who is having a quality of life. Greece, Italy, Spain. They are having to reform financially in many countries. After watching a program with socialized medicine it is invasive and takes away individual rights. England is one of the worst.

    • toujoursdan

      The most “socialized” European countries aren’t broke. Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland have smaller deficits than the U.S. and have weathered the economic storm better than we did. (Germany, even with its social programs, is actually bailing out the rest of Europe.)

      And end of life laws in Belgium and elsewhere have nothing to do with socialized healthcare.

    • JanetMermaid

      Have you been over there recently or are you just mimicking what others have told you? We just returned from visiting ten European countries. All were in better shape than we are, financially and health-wise. Socialized medicine IS working over there. Republicans who are in the pockets of the big insurance companies and big pharma just don’t want to admit it.

  • angelicvh

    6. is ridiculous, and really does seem like a democrat argument with limited logic. Since this is not what is happening.

  • angelicvh

    7 Taxes are being increased, and are not at their lowest levels.

  • Z54

    If I were you, I wouldn’t be so quick to lay claim to #9. First off, those 8 million jobs your boasting about are mainly low wage, part time service jobs! The killing of OBL was an extrajudicial execution. In other words a war crime. The stock market is at an all time high, not because business is creating any thing worthwhile, but because their creating wealth on paper. As far as saving the american auto industry. It’s true that Slick Oily saved the industry. At the cost of some 20,000 jobs of UAW workers. And cost the workers who kept their jobs, 50% of their pay and benefits! And allowed the 20,000 lost jobs to go to China! And celebrating record levels of oil and gas production through hydraulic fracturing is nothing to be proud of. Celebrating these things just proves that Obama supporters are just as big of morons as the people who supported W.! Actually, probably one in the same!

  • Josh Lucas

    4) If socialized health care is so awful, why does every country that leads the world in life expectancy have socialized health care?

    You can’t use life expectancy as a way to judge a health care system because different countries measure average life expectancy differently and people live and die for reasons unrelated to healthcare.

    • shadowgraph

      How about using your rankings with the WHO as a yardstick, because it’s piss-poor.

      • Josh Lucas

        The WHO ranking is piss poor!

  • Harvey Summers

    Having an intellegent conversation with a republican is slightly less likely than having one with a brain dead hamster. They are impervious to facts and reality, living in a world comforted by fear, hatred, and killing others.

  • sclark767

    I like: Name just ONE positive program or policy republicans have produced in the last forty years. They are merely obstructionists and curmudgeons with no redeeming social value.

    • shadowgraph

      That’s a little harsh. Two much condemned Republicans, Bush Sr. & Jr. gave us very significant but unheralded (form them) programs. Bush Sr. the ADA and Bush Jr. a hugely successful international AIDs initiative.

  • Mike Roesch

    The last Republican to balance the budget was Richard Nixon in 1969

    • shadowgraph

      Dwight Eisenhower was last Republican President to preside over a balanced budget. He had a balanced budget in 1956 and 1957. Since then, there have been two presidents to preside over balanced budgets, LBJ in 1969 and Clinton in 1998 through 2001.

  • Skip Patterson

    “See, it’s one thing to believe something — it’s quite another to understand why you believe it.”

    Very very true.

  • vexnsiolence

    5) If you support the freedom of religion (as per our
    Constitution), and my church recognizes gay marriage, isn’t your support
    for the banning of same-sex marriage an attack on my religion’s First
    Amendment rights?

    What about the separation of church and state? Obviously progressives only want that to apply to them and their anti-god rhetoric. Including gay marriage. But then they want to be able to marry their gay partners in a church. Typical liberal mindset of wanting their cake and eating it too.

    • guestyguestguest

      I think you are painting people with a broad brush there. “typical liberal mindset.” It’s just insulting to be insulting, but doesn’t help your argument, which comes off a little all over the place. The point being made was that if one supports the 1st amendment theoretically, one would have to support a church’s right to marry whomever they deem fit as well. Similarly, a person may be an African American, but must support the rights of the KKK to say horrible things about African Americans. This argument is stating that if you support free speech, you are going to have to support the free speech of religions you don’t like. People are able to want some rights in a legal sphere that in a personal sphere they might not like. Now, if homosexuals want to marry in a church that doesn’t recognize their union that is an issue that has nothing to do with the state (personal). That is between the church and the homosexuals. The government deciding that it will allow gay marriage (legal) is a separate issue from whether or not the church will allow it.

    • tomgnh

      So there is no religious basis on preventing gays from marrying? Are you just as critical of those quote Biblical text in arguing against it?

  • shadowgraph

    Allen Clifton : Please clarify question (3) If tax breaks are the main driving force behind job creation, how would we create jobs once tax rates were reduced to practically zero?

  • David Parker

    I like the questions a LOT but would rephrase them slightly; “why” questions can get tangled up in motive and introspection, so asking …”how did it happen that…?” gets people thinking and talking about the actual occurrences rather than any internal landscape. Just sayin’.

  • Byrd

    Oh come on, these are pop flies, and I’m not even a Republican or a conservative. You’re just not thinking like a Republican demagogue. It’s all in the language really. Let’s pretend I disagree with you for a minute and I’ll troll as hard as I can…

    1. Clearly the history of Democrats in the House of Representatives have prevented serious spending reform over the past 50 years. For example, recall how many times for example Tip O’Neill shut down Congress during the Reagan years.

    2. Reagan had no choice of course. While the inflation rate and the unemployment rate went way way down during his administration, the additional debt was part of the temporary costs of containing Carter-style rampant inflation.

    3. Clearly the job creators would have massive incentive at that point to hire, hire, hire!

    4. “Leads the world” in what sense? Patient wait times? Rationed visits to a doctor per year? Limiting your choices in terms of which doctor you might see? Check out the horrible choices the NHS is making in terms of defining “Life-saving” to make its budget shortfall this year.

    5. Which church would that be? The Church of Latter-Day Lesbians? No serious church that wasn’t trying to skate around the tax code would ever sanction same-sex marriage.

    6. Ancient history really, and Strom Thurmond was one man out of millions of Republicans who became more educated over time and changed his views. And it’s not like the Democratic party was any better at the time. Review Robert C. Byrd’s membership in the KKK for example. Anyway it was Lincoln’s Republicans, not Democrats, who passed the Thirteenth Amendment.

    7. Because the middle class is not taking advantage of their financial freedoms to invest and create new jobs, the way that the smarter 2% are doing. Come on, people! Stop whining and get to work!

    8. A technicality only. The Declaration of Independence has it in there five times. Forty nine of the Framers were Protestants and the rest were Deists and the like. There was not one atheist among them.

    9. We wouldn’t praise a Republican president who was responsible for Obamacare, the terrorist attack in Benghazi, the political targeting of the IRS, the largest dollar increase in national debt in history, and the systematized abuse of surveillance power within the NSA.

    10. Wait a minute, weren’t you just in favor of religious freedom a minute ago? Republicans have a moral responsibility to give to the poor, not a legal one.

    How did I do?

    • adolescentghost

      i know youve basically admitting to trolling, but all of those things are easily refuted. im not going to waste my time, but you did pretty well pretending to be a teabagger by mixing in half truths with total lies, hyperbole, and heavily debunked talking points.

      • Byrd

        That’s because you can’t argue against my perfectly unassailable logic. Typical liberal. 🙂

      • MiMg

        racist bigot

      • Byrd

        Never underestimate the political power of lies, hyperbole, and heavily debunked talking points.

    • MiMg

      Byrd start caring about the poor, minorities and the lower income people

    • tomgnh

      #5. Unitarians , UCC, and other mainstream churches have been around a lot longer than tax breaks.

  • guestyguestguest

    Rather than being all smug and proud playing, “Stump the Republican,” Liberals would be better served asking those questions and then maybe knowing the possible answers. I am sure there are plenty of smart Republican’s who could answer every single one of those “statement-questions.” The asker wouldn’t look like a wizz kid if they couldn’t come up with a legitimate response to a well educated Republican’s answer. Also, people should stop throwing insults into commentaries because it weakens the point they are trying to make. Particularly, Liberally minded individuals, because well, that is the side I tend to support and think we should engage in taking the high road more often.

    • MiMg

      Josh, you need to realize the DIRECT NEGATIVE aspects of your party’s legislation. Do you realize there is NO social safety net regarding financial assistance? the 1995 Welfare “reform” act got rid of it all together! So now even if you have NO asset and NO income you can NOT get ANY assistance! The only things that exist are food stamps (which you MUST make LESS than 700$ a month to get (same for Medical Assistance, you can’t make more than 700$/month to be eligible for it)

  • Guest

    This article should be labeled “10 questions that display Pseudo-intellectualism at it’s very best.”

  • Joseph Dobrian

    Just for shits and giggles, I’ll tackle these questions. I’m not a Republican (OK, I’m registered as a Republican but I self-identify as Libertarian), but I’ll do my best.

    1 and 2 are argumentative, and in any case I agree that our last several Republican Presidents have not been terribly fiscally responsible, so I’ll let those two alone.

    3) I don’t think I’ve heard any Republican claim that tax breaks are “the main driving force behind job creation.” But the private sector certainly had no trouble creating jobs in the days before corporate and personal income taxes. Is the author of these questions suggesting that higher taxes create jobs?

    4) First of all, no correlation has been proven. Those countries also have abundant food, technologically advanced infrastructure, first-rate sanitation, and other positives. Second, can it be proven that socialized healthcare is essential to increased life expectancy? Third, whatever its relationship to life expectancy, socialized healthcare might be objectionable for any number of other reasons, the big one being undue government control of both that entire business sector, and the individual citizen.

    5) No. Let me start by saying that I have no big problem with same-sex marriage, and I don’t support a Federal ban on it, either by Constitutional amendment or by statute. But, no, such a ban would not be an attack on the First Amendment. It wouldn’t interfere with your right to say, write, or believe what you choose. It could arguably be unconstitutional on 14th Amendment grounds.

    6) This question is inflammatory, bigoted, and historically ignorant. It would take pages to refute, but the short answer is that the “Southern Strategy” didn’t exist in the 1950s, when the few Southern negroes who could vote, generally voted Republican. I defy the author to present an argument based on fact, rather than emotion, that would satisfy me that the Republican strategy in the South was racist. What racist legislation did Richard Nixon support, for example? Can the author name me a few Southern Republicans who ran on racist platforms, or personally race-baited? To what party did George Wallace belong? Orval Faubus? Ross Barnett? Lester Maddox? Jimmy Carter? (Yeah, he was a George Wallace Democrat once upon a time.) J. Strom Thurmond was a Democrat till 1966—by which time his racial attitudes had grown considerably more liberal.

    7) I have to reject the first premise. Taxes were a lot lower 100 years ago, and lower yet 200 years ago. They’re lower now than they were in the 1970s, but that was a very short time ago.

    Fair question. I have no patience with those who assert that this is a Christian nation.

    9) Probably, which just goes to show that Republicans are every bit as stupid and hypocritical as Democrats. But we knew that.

    10) That’s a false comparison, because Jesus didn’t say Word One about whether the government should force people to be charitable. According to the scriptures, Jesus was all about voluntarism.

    • MiMg

      Libertarian, Republican – potayto, potahto. There isn’t ANYTHING good out of either of them. Republicans want to LOWER the minimum wage, and Libertarian want to ABOLISH the minimum wage

      • Caroline Nalle

        Please provide your sources for where you read that Libertarians want to abolish the minimum wage all together.

    • MiMg

      1) If Republicans are so fiscally responsible, why was President Eisenhower (in the 1950′s) the last Republican president to balance the budget?

      2) If President Reagan was such a fiscally conservative hero, why did he quadruple our national debt during his eight years in the White House?

      3) If tax breaks are the main driving force behind job creation, how would we create jobs once tax rates were reduced to practically zero?

      4) If socialized health care is so awful, why does every country that leads the world in life expectancy have socialized health care?

      5) If you support the freedom of religion (as per our Constitution), and my church recognizes gay marriage, isn’t your support for the banning of same-sex marriage an attack on my religion’s First Amendment rights?

      6) What’s more realistic? 1) That an entire region of the United States that supported slavery in the late-1800′s and support segregation in the 1950′s and 60′s suddenly stopped being racist, or 2) The racist southern Democrats in the south became Republicans during the 50′s and 60′s when the Republican party shifted toward an idea called the “Southern Strategy,” where the GOP appealed to the racism in southern whites who didn’t like African Americans voting for Democrats.

      7) If taxes are at some of their lowest levels in history, and the wealthiest in this country are richer than ever, why hasn’t the growth in the wealth of the middle class matched that of the top 2%?

      8) If our Founding Fathers wanted this nation to be based on Christianity, why don’t the words “Christian” or “Christianity” appear even once in our Constitution?

    • tomgnh

      Your answer to #3 seems to ignore the postwar years, when 90%+top backers did not seem to stifle job creation.

  • MiMg

    Republicans are racist (because they are against affirmative action as well as hate crime legislation as well as their efforts to suppress the black and Hispanic vote), Republicans are homophobic for EVERY reason possible: they want gays out of the military, they wont allow gays even civil unions let alone marriage, they also refuse to protect gays from discrimination in the workplace or in their housing, Republicans are sexist because they refuse to pass the ERA as well as other legislation like Equal Pay for Women act (not to mention the THOUSANDS of bills to DENY women the right to control their own bodies)

    • caroline

      It is not Republicans who believe this. It is extremist Christians who identify as Republican. It is ridiculous to believe that all Republicans believe this or that you cannot be a Republican without believing this.

      There are several socially liberal Republican Representatives and Senators who oppose everything you just listed (Kathy Hawken, Mark Kirk, Richard Hanna, etc.). There are dozens and dozens of well established organizations that also oppose these issues (Republican Liberty Caucus, Log Cabin Republicans, WRRAP, etc.)

      • tomgnh

        Isn’t it sad that their views are not reflected by the platforms the party produces?

  • Sadie

    I’m pretty conservative so I’ll take a shot at this:
    1. Agreed. Republicans should be more fiscally conservative.
    2. Agreed. Reagan was more talk than action. Not sure how this is relevant to anything today as he hasn’t been president for 20 years…
    3. This question implies that the government and government policy is the driving force behind job creation, which is not true since jobs can (and have been) be created in the absence of government. If you’re asking whether tax breaks are better than government spending, I would argue that they are simply because people tend to spend their own money more wisely than the government spends. If both policies (tax breaks and government spending) are debt financed, I would say they are both bad ideas.
    4. I could literally write a book about this, but let me pose a question instead – is it any surprise that the country with the largest obesity rate, which is predominantly a product of lifestyle choices and not access to health care, has some of the worst health care outcomes? Not sure if the general public is aware of this but 7 of the top 10 most deadly ‘diseases’ are lifestyle caused – ie – smoking, drinking, overeating, lack of exercise. That has literally nothing to do with free access to health care.
    5. I support gay rights.
    6. So all Southern Republicans are racists? C’mon…
    7. That is a very complex question. I would say the root cause is two-fold: A. Fed policy which has caused asset prices to rise. The rich own more assets, therefore their wealth increases more as asset prices rise. This has nothing to do with tax policy. B. The globalization of the workforce and technological advancements in shipping and communication. In the 50’s and 60’s a guy could make a good living by literally screwing lug-nuts onto a car. Now there are people in China who will do that for $1/day. Adapt and survive.
    8. Agreed.
    9. That is an absurdly warped description of what the President has ‘accomplished’. I’m pretty good with numbers and know they can be manipulated quite easily. I suggest you take a real hard look at what the President has actually done and then re-assess that description.
    10. Agreed. Jesus was a communist (not kidding). Unfortunately, communism doesn’t work and Jesus isn’t in the White House.
    Ok, to be more honest, I think many Americans abhor the idea of handouts. This is a country where people literally walked west-ward into the woods/plains/dessert with nothing but their wits and tried to make a life for themselves. Right or wrong, the idea that people can sit on their couch and collect a check for doing nothing rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

    • tomgnh

      Specifically, what part of question 9 do you challenge, and on what grounds?

      • Sadie

        There are a lot of half-truths. For example – ‘championed the largest year-to-year deficit reductions since WWII’ – not surprisingly omits the fact that this is mostly because he ran the largest non-war deficits in US history. Honestly I don’t know if he really did have the largest year-to-year deficit but it sounds a lot more impressive when you omit the fact that he also had THE largest deficits. Jobs numbers are complete garbage also as there are something like 3-4 million people, under retirement age, who left the job market and thus prop up his numbers.

      • tomgnh

        Those huge deficits were in 2009-11, a result of the momentum from the Bush years; the deficits were predicted by the CBO in 2008. What do you point to to show Obama was responsible?

  • smh_in_seattle

    I shared this on FB and the one person who has responded so far gave me a whole list of wrongs by the Liberals/Democrats that didn’t really address any of the questions…sigh…

    • MiMg

      If you are a str8 white older male who makes more than the 26k average salary, you’re opinion does NOT count

      • smh_in_seattle

        Not sure what you mean by your comment, everyone has a right to an opinion, just wish it could create interesting conversations and viewpoints without it being such an attack on the other’s perspective.

      • tomgnh

        Don’t profile me as a Republican.

  • MiMg

    Republicans, can’t live with them because they are racist homophobic sexist elitist bigots, can’t be lucky enough that they shoot themselves with their precious guns

  • goofie

    To the author:
    You’re an idiot. Talk about things you understand and don’t run your mouth about these rhetorical questions which you are trying to oversimplify to make a point. There were an enormous number of factors that went into the decisions you refer to in all of the questions. The decisions weren’t made simply because one political party has some vendetta against the US people. Also, don’t you dare try to think you understand the delicate relationship between politics and religion as you suggest in question 10.

    • David Ewers

      They do not have vendetta against the poor and the helpless, then can you point to one piece of legislation that the Tea Party/Libertarian/GOP has passed to help them.

      And since you have not answered them, means you are either a pinhead like Bachman, or just know that what said is true.

    • tomgnh

      Perhaps you could explain exactly what is wrong in these questions,particularly #10? How could someone agree with both Jesus and Ayn Rand?

      Did you want to include any pertinent information in your rant?

  • David Scott Moyer

    Numbers one and two would be answered truthfully by stating that Congress does the spending and sets the budget. The rest are great questions.

  • DarthCorleone

    It’s not just the word “Christian” that’s missing from the Constitution. You won’t find “God” in there either. (No, “anno domini” to denote the year doesn’t count.)

  • OakenTruncheon

    Your half right. One political party was lobbied to attack the issue, the other was lobbied to tap-dance around it.

  • Mr. Conservative

    There are a lot of incorrect assumptions in the questions – that is, the questions are loaded.

    • tomgnh

      No effort to point one out? What is your contribution then?

      • Mr. Conservative

        #1: A Democrat has never tried.

        #2: Revenues to the feds almost doubled during the 80s. But the Democrat-controlled Congress continued to spend and spend.

        #3: Nobody is proposing zero taxes.

        #4: If you take abortions out of your bogus figures, life expectancy is far better in the US.

        #5: If you belong to a church that supports homosexual marriage, it’s time to find a church that follows the Bible instead of the whims of society.

        #6: Try being coherent. If you’re suggesting that Republicans hate black people – try again.

        #7: Obama and Obamacare plus burdensome regulations and taxation.

        #8: The country was founded on Christian principles. Although the word isn’t used in the Constitution, many of the founding documents make it clear that the country was founded on Christian principles. Why do you hate Christians?

        #9: Bogus statistics. Obama has driven up the debt/deficit far beyond any previous administration. Unemployment is still high as is taxation.

        #10: There are no reductions in spending, only reductions in the increases of growth.

  • Edward Rink

    Most of these have too many words for them to understand. You need to talk in sound bytes.

  • tomgnh

    My major gripe against GOP- and specifically Tea Party- positions is how often they fall back on criticizing the opponent as being “too” educated, “too” informed or relying too much on “evidence.”

    It’s hard to want to reason with the unreasonable; when logic doesn’t work, one can only fall back on irrationality.

    • Kevin D. Williamson

      Really? Can you show me an occasion upon which a Republican member of the House or Senate has chided an opponent for being too educated or relying on too much evidence? Surely, you have some . . . evidence?

      • tomgnh

        James Inhofe on climate.

        Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are “lies straight from the pit of hell” meant to convince people that they do not need a savior.

        How’s that?

      • Kevin D. Williamson

        Not the same thing as criticizing people for being too educated. Dumb and backward, true, but not the same thing. Strike one!

      • tomgnh

        Dumb and backward, and proud of it- it appeals to the “base” and satisfies the deeper pockets. My point is that the positions of the right, especially on issues such as climate, women’s rights, and foreign policy rely on simplistic slogans denying evidence and and any argument that tends to imply that “it’s complicated.” Inhofe dismissed scientists as “in it for the money,” while accepting the arguments of carbon producers as impartial. Also note the “arguments” against the Iran deal- “you just can’t trust them.”

  • William Voegeli

    From Kevin Williamson of National Review:

    Allow me to answer these for you real quick:

    1) If Republicans are so fiscally responsible, why was President
    Eisenhower (in the 1950′s) the last Republican president to balance the

    Answer: False premise; the last Republican to balance the budget was Newt Gingrich. Presidents don’t write budgets, cannot authorize spending, and cannot authorize taxes. Congress does that.

    2) If President Reagan was such a fiscally conservative hero, why did
    he quadruple our national debt during his eight years in the White

    Answer: False premise; Tip O’Neill quadrupled the national debt. Presidents don’t write budgets, cannot authorize spending, and cannot authorize taxes. Congress does that.

    3) If tax breaks are the main driving force behind job creation, how would we
    create jobs once tax rates were reduced to practically zero?

    Answer: Tax breaks are not the main force behind job creation; demand for labor is the main force behind job creation.

    4) If socialized health care is so awful, why does every country that leads the world in life expectancy have socialized health care?

    Answer: What on earth do you mean by “socialized medicine”? If you mean
    single-payer, then your premises are, as seems to be the developing trend here, wrong. The longest-lived countries are Japan and Switzerland, neither of which is single-payer. Counterquestion: If socialized medicine is great, how come people on Medicaid have some terrible health outcomes?

    5) If you support the freedom of religion (as per our Constitution), and my church recognizes gay marriage, isn’t your support for the banning of same-sex marriage an attack on my religion’s First Amendment rights?

    Answer: No, your church can believe what it wants. The question is the legal status of same-sex relationships. Counterquestion: The Church of Kevin says nobody should ever have to pay more than 10 percent in taxes — is the
    IRS violating my First Amendment rights?

    6) What’s more realistic? 1) That an entire region of the United States that supported slavery in the late-1800′s and support segregation in the 1950′s and 60′s suddenly stopped being racist, or 2) The racist southern Democrats
    in the south became Republicans during the 50′s and 60′s when the
    Republican party shifted toward an idea called the “Southern Strategy,”
    where the GOP appealed to the racism in southern whites who didn’t like
    African Americans voting for Democrats.

    Answer: False premise. Southern voters in the main did not become Republicans until the 1990s, as shown by Southern congressional delegations, state governments, etc. In presidential elections, Southern states voted overwhelmingly for Republicans such as Nixon and Reagan, but then so did Vermont.

    7) If taxes are at some of their lowest levels in history, and the wealthiest in this country are richer than ever, why hasn’t the growth in the wealth of the middle class matched that of the top 2%?

    Answer: Because in a world of globally integrated markets returns to skill and entrepreneurial success at the high end of the market are very large, while pressure on moderate-to-low-skill wages is very strong. Wealthy Americans are getting wealthier for the same reason that wealthy Swedes are getting wealthier, despite having a very different tax code.

    8) If our Founding Fathers wanted this nation to be based on Christianity,
    why don’t the words “Christian” or “Christianity” appear even once in
    our Constitution?

    Answer: They expected the republic to continue as part of Christian civilization, not to have a U.S. version of the Church of England. India has a secular constitution, but nobody seems to much doubt that it is a Hindu country, in spite of the presence of non-Hindu minorities.

    9) If a Republican president reduced massive job losses in the midst of the worst recession in nearly a century by more than 50% in his first 4 months in office; presided over 44 consecutive months of private-sector job growth creating nearly 8 million jobs; killed Osama bin Ladin; saw stock markets reach all-time highs; saved the American auto industry; increased domestic oil production to highs not seen since the late-90′s and championed the
    largest year-to-year deficit reductions since World War II, would your
    party not be calling him a hero and a legend?

    Answer: Since when did you guys start loving the stock market, which contributes so much to the inequality you’re so worried about in No. 7?
    Counterquestion: If a Republican president’s term coincided with the
    lowest workforce-participation rate in recent history, an illegal war in
    Libya, and the illegal assassination of U.S. citizens based on their
    Facebook histories, would you not call him . . . something less than

    10. If Jesus spent his life helping the poor and the needy, how does it make sense that a party which claims to be for “Christian values” continues to cut funding for programs that help the poor and the needy?

    Answer: Let me help you out here: Jesus commanded his followers to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. He did not command them to petition Caesar to seize their neighbors’ assets and to use them to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. Also, you’re begging the question: If you compare money spent to changes in the poverty rate, there is little or no evidence that these programs actually “help the poor and the needy.” They do create a lot of full-time jobs and vote banks for Democrats. By their fruit shall ye know them.

    CONCLUSION: Whoever wrote this questionnaire, which is in fact no so much a questionnaire as a litany of banalities, is not very bright and should be kept far from the levers of political power.

    • Another Brad

      Well said. Original poster is a simpleminded juvenile.

  • Caroline

    This article is ridiculous. The kind of hate that is perpetuated by both parties towards each other is idiotic. This is our country and it has problems and we should try harder to work together and listen to each other to create solutions rather than just bicker and refuse to even consider that someone who calls themselves a Republican is automatically not worth listening to.

    The Republican party is undergoing a lot of change right now. The stereotype of ultra conservative, racist homophobes is simply not true for the majority of the party anymore. It is a small faction that unfortunately still holds a lot of power.

    I don’t understand why this article assumes that all Republicans are Christians. It’s simply untrue. It’s also completely false to assume that by being a Christian Republican, you can’t also support gay marriage or abortion or other social issues.

    And who cares if Obama helped the American auto industry? It was failing and we should’ve let it fail, not throw money at them when they weren’t being responsible in the first place. New industry would have risen in its place.

    How does it hurt you to try and understand why a Republican believes the things they do? Have you ever tried to have an open conversation with one with an open, nonjudgmental mind? Or are over 50 million people all just uneducated and irrational?

    Stop. It should not be us versus them. Perhaps this is an overly idealistic and optimistic argument, but it solves absolutely nothing to hold such animosity towards either party.

    Go to a Democrat or Republican meeting in your area. Find a friend with opposing political views. Talk to them. Find where your opinions overlap and where they clash and try to figure out why.

    • tomgnh

      How long will the “majority of the party” continue to support the positions of the “ultra conservative, racist homophobes” you mention?

      • caroline

        It’s not going to change over night. I think the party is run by what is becoming the minority: the stereotype of old white men everyone uses. I think it is the young Republicans who are in their twenties that will have the solution. They have grown up with our country’s growing issues and the archaic social beliefs of the party and want it to change.

  • Kevin D. Williamson

    Allow me to answer these for you real quick:

    1) If Republicans are so fiscally responsible, why was President Eisenhower (in the 1950′s) the last Republican president to balance the budget?

    Answer: False premise; the last Republican to balance the budget was Newt Gingrich. Presidents don’t write budgets, cannot authorize spending, and cannot authorize taxes. Congress does that.

    2) If President Reagan was such a fiscally conservative hero, why did he quadruple our national debt during his eight years in the White House?

    Answer: False premise; Tip O’Neill quadrupled the national debt. Presidents don’t write budgets, cannot authorize spending, and cannot authorize taxes. Congress does that.

    3) If tax breaks are the main driving force behind job creation, how would we create jobs once tax rates were reduced to practically zero?

    Answer: Tax breaks are not the main force behind job creation; demand for labor is the main force behind job creation.

    4) If socialized health care is so awful, why does every country that leads the world in life expectancy have socialized health care?

    Answer: What on earth do you mean by “socialized medicine”? If you mean single-payer, then your premises are, as seems to be the developing trend here, wrong. The longest-lived countries are Japan and Switzerland, neither of which is single-payer. Counterquestion: If socialized medicine is great, how come people on Medicaid have some terrible health outcomes?

    5) If you support the freedom of religion (as per our Constitution), and my church recognizes gay marriage, isn’t your support for the banning of same-sex marriage an attack on my religion’s First Amendment rights?

    Answer: No, your church can believe what it wants. The question is the legal status of same-sex relationships. Counterquestion: The Church of Kevin says nobody should ever have to pay more than 10 percent in taxes — is the IRS violating my First Amendment rights?

    6) What’s more realistic? 1) That an entire region of the United States that supported slavery in the late-1800′s and support segregation in the 1950′s and 60′s suddenly stopped being racist, or 2) The racist southern Democrats in the south became Republicans during the 50′s and 60′s when the Republican party shifted toward an idea called the “Southern Strategy,” where the GOP appealed to the racism in southern whites who didn’t like African Americans voting for Democrats.

    Answer: False premise. Southern voters in the main did not become Republicans until the 1990s, as shown by Southern congressional delegations, state governments, etc. In presidential elections, Southern states voted overwhelmingly for Republicans such as Nixon and Reagan, but then so did Vermont. The Southern congressional caucus was Democratic until 1994; Mississippi had one Republican governor in all the 20th century, and that not until 1994, which seems like a long time to wait to punish Democrats for partially supporting a Republican civil-rights bill in 1965.

    7) If taxes are at some of their lowest levels in history, and the wealthiest in this country are richer than ever, why hasn’t the growth in the wealth of the middle class matched that of the top 2%?

    Answer: Because in a world of globally integrated markets returns to skill and entrepreneurial success at the high end of the market are very large, while pressure on moderate-to-low-skill wages is very strong. Wealthy Americans are getting wealthier for the same reason that wealthy Swedes are getting wealthier, despite having a very different tax code.

    8) If our Founding Fathers wanted this nation to be based on Christianity, why don’t the words “Christian” or “Christianity” appear even once in our Constitution?

    Answer: They expected the republic to continue as part of Christian civilization, not to have a U.S. version of the Church of England. India has a secular constitution, but nobody seems to much doubt that it is a Hindu country, in spite of the presence of non-Hindu minorities.

    9) If a Republican president reduced massive job losses in the midst of the worst recession in nearly a century by more than 50% in his first 4 months in office; presided over 44 consecutive months of private-sector job growth creating nearly 8 million jobs; killed Osama bin Ladin; saw stock markets reach all-time highs; saved the American auto industry; increased domestic oil production to highs not seen since the late-90′s and championed the largest year-to-year deficit reductions since World War II, would your party not be calling him a hero and a legend?

    Answer: Since when did you guys start loving the stock market, which contributes so much to the inequality you’re so worried about in No. 7? Counterquestion: If a Republican president’s term coincided with the lowest workforce-participation rate in recent history, an illegal war in Libya, and the illegal assassination of U.S. citizens based on their Facebook histories, would you not call him . . . something less than heroic?

    10. If Jesus spent his life helping the poor and the needy, how does it make sense that a party which claims to be for “Christian values” continues to cut funding for programs that help the poor and the needy?

    Answer: Let me help you out here: Jesus commanded his followers to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. He did not command them to petition Caesar to seize their neighbors’ assets and to use them to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. Also, you’re begging the question: If you compare money spent to changes in the poverty rate, there is little or no evidence that these programs actually “help the poor and the needy.” They do create a lot of full-time jobs and vote banks for Democrats. By their fruit shall ye know them.

    CONCLUSION: Whoever wrote this questionnaire, which is in fact no so much a questionnaire as a litany of banalities, is not very bright and should be kept far from the levers of political power.

    • BernardKingIII

      Best. Comment. Ever.

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        Thank you for admitting Obama is not responsible for spending.

      • Kevin D. Williamson

        The Obama-Pelosi-Reid regime did not exactly cover itself in glory on the subject of fiscal restraint.

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        Actually, they did, because they actually want to pay-as-we-go for spending rather than just put it on the credit card like Repubs.

      • JMW

        And yet, Obamas deficits are three times what Bushes deficits were…….. amazing fiscal restraint on Obamas part huh?

      • JMW

        …the deficit part there bud…… is putting spending on the credit card for future generations to pay off….

      • AbbeyRoadkill


      • Wildnwooley

        Now there’s a useful comment!

      • mjw1952

        Because Obama finally added the wars that Bush created to the budget. Bush was just ignoring it. he was also trying to get the country out of a near depression. And the deficit is now falling at the fastest rate since WW 2.

      • Iokobos

        Wrong. Bush’s wars cost 1T total for 7 years. Bush’s average deficit was $300B. Not great, nothing to cheer about… but less than any of Obama’s.

        Obama also added to Bush’s last year (that was on pace to become surplus in a few years) and used Bush’s last year + Stimulus/Omnibus/etc to rack up 1.4T in *one year*

        Then by spending less than 1.4T a year Obama’s goons get to say he’s cutting deficits by spending less than he spent of Bush’s budget.


      • Janice Pushinsky

        Bush spent the surplus that Clinton had left and then he added more and more to the deficit. And Bush put two wars on a credit card in which he benefited finanacialy him and his dickhead cheney. And our troops have paid the price with their lives. There was no smoking gun, there were oil fields that they didn’t want Sodamm to increase his oil sales to keep the price of oil up. So they went in and took over the country and his oil fields. And they are both richer for it, while the country is much poorer.

      • Pistol_Pablo

        The U.S. doesn’t control their oilfields. That’s another falsehood perpetrated by Liberals. Also, your Democrats voted for the authorization of the use of force in Iraq and continued to vote to pay for those wars. Also, why aren’t we out of Afghanistan if Obama is such a peaceful President?

      • Janice Pushinsky

        The U.S. may not have control over the oil fields now but they sure took control of them when they took over the country. Democrats voted for authorization of the use of force in Iraq because they were lied to by YOUR president Bush. Anyone with half a brain knows you just don’t be in war somewhere and then yell out one day “ok boys load it up we are leaving” If you know U.S. History, you know that the U.S. goes in bombs then repairs damage then leaves.

      • LJinFLA

        and they reap the rewards of the oil…see post above you.

      • LJinFLA

        You need to do your research….there were deals made….agreements made. Check it out. You are wrong in that the oil fields ARE being controlled and it is not who you think fella..

      • LJinFLA

        Baghdad, Iraq – While the US military has formally
        ended its occupation of Iraq, some of the largest western oil companies,
        ExxonMobil, BP and Shell, remain.

        On November 27, 38 months after Royal Dutch Shell announced its
        pursuit of a massive gas deal in southern Iraq, the oil giant had its
        contract signed for a $17bn flared gas deal.

        Three days later, the US-based energy firm Emerson submitted a bid
        for a contract to operate at Iraq’s giant Zubair oil field, which
        reportedly holds some eight million barrels of oil.

        Earlier this year, Emerson was awarded a contract to provide crude
        oil metering systems and other technology for a new oil terminal in
        Basra, currently under construction in the Persian Gulf, and the company
        is installing control systems in the power stations in Hilla and

        Iraq’s supergiant Rumaila oil field is already being developed by BP,
        and the other supergiant reserve, Majnoon oil field, is being developed
        by Royal Dutch Shell. Both fields are in southern Iraq.

        According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), Iraq’s
        oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks second in the world, only
        behind Saudi Arabia. The EIA also estimates that up to 90 per cent of
        the country remains unexplored, due to decades of US-led wars and
        economic sanctions.

        “Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, US and other
        western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq’s oil
        market,” oil industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera. “But
        thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside
        Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being forced out
        of the country in 1973.”

      • Robin DeAnne Lowry Seer

        There you go again with those pesky facts!

      • Tom McFadden

        …and yet the US imports from Iraq 1996-2013 comprised only 2.8% of total oil imports…such a trivial part of total oil imports…regardless of who “controls” the oil fields.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        Right. We don’t control their oilfields. Remember Cheney declaring that the war would be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues? Instead, all of Cheney’s petro pals are keeping the profits for themselves. And yes, Democrats AND REPUBLICANS voted for the war. (A senator named Barack Obama was one of the few who voted no.) Why? Because they simply could not believe that a president of the United States would deliberately lie this nation into war. They believed the lies Bush and the Cheney cabal told them. They believed the lies about WMDs. They believed the implications that Saddam had been involved somehow in 9/11. They believed the lies that he was part of an “Axis of Evil” that had to be eliminated. (Funny how Bush never called for the Saudi Royal Family, a bunch of the worst tyrants on the planet, to be added to that “axis.) They believed what their president told them. They were lied to. Don’t blame them; blame the liars.

      • Tim

        There was never a surplus. S.S. had a surplus and Clinton stole it for national debt. Bush had nothing to do with it. The National debt increased every single year of Clinton’s Presidency. Learn the facts or shut your clam.

      • Janice Pushinsky

        Just because you say so don’t make them facts so you shut your clam.

      • John

        actually Tim no SS didn’t have a surplus – hadn’t for quite some time .. Ronnie and Clinton actually got some money BACK into SS (LBJ is the first one who borrowed ) then GW took from it to pay a portion of the wars (prior to the loan from china HIS administration started on ) using the emergency powers act … This information is actually public record

      • jayjay4142

        I don’t give a rats a$$ who stole it. It was a special trust fund and they can make good on those IOU’s they stuck in there . I just saw where a base that the marines told them they didn’t want cost 36 billion to build in Afghanistan and was never used and never will be used. It is the size of three football fields. They also built a 500 million dollar waste disposal that did not work . The contractor got paid for it and now the Afghans have scrapped it for metal. This is just a small portion of government waste. Where is that 2.7 trillion that Bush/Cheney lost in Iraq and cannot find that will do to pay SS back.

      • KiTA

        Yes, because the war bill stopped the second Bush got out of office, and he totally didn’t refuse to put his war funds on the budget or anything. Bush did everything he could to trash the capital short of lighting buildings on fire on his way out.

      • edward

        ….and, nearly 60% of what Obama had to pay for the deficit in, came from Howdie Doodies ‘spend without paying administration’. That is why, Obama had to borrow 1 trillion dollars as his first act of dealing with HD chimpanzee administration and its debts. The first quarter of the new presidents administration, is a holdover from the previous administrations budget. I think HD, and his cronies, did it on purpose. Either that, or, HD doesn’t understand the first thing about managing money, and 8 years into his presidency, his brain still wasn’t back from the dry cleaners..

      • Nathan Frigerio

        Howdy Doody, how apt. Wish I’d have thought of that, 8 years ago.

      • Pistol_Pablo

        “And the deficit is now falling at the fastest rate since WW2.” That’s such a false positive. Come on. The current deficit will be over $600 billion dollars. That’s $200 billion more than Bush’s largest deficit in his 8 years in office. Obama’s deficits have been over $1 Trillion dollars annually since he took office.

      • Tom McFadden

        At what point was the deficit EVER falling under Obama? Or did you just hear that from the guy down the street?

      • edward

        JMW- I take it your elevator doesn’t go to the top floor.

      • Doc_Rock

        Not true. Look at what the deficit was on the day Obama took office and what it is now…it’s not three times larger anymore. It’s been cut in half acxtually.

      • Tom McFadden

        You’re kidding, right?

      • Nathan Frigerio

        As I recall, the house has been in a republican majority all of Obama’s tenure.

      • Juggernaut1969

        And the Senate has had a Democrat Majority

      • Cathryn Sykes

        And a bunch of GOPers who have filibustered every bill they didn’t like, thus killing majority rule in the Senate.

      • Juggernaut1969

        How is that any different then Reid saying (and making sure) every Republican bill is dead on arrival. The reason I am so upset because I am not a GOP supporter or Democrat supporter. Both posture for the political arena and actually do the same thing to the people of the country in the end. Because of it we end up with less, Less Prosperity, Greater Divide among the people and Less Prosperity for almost all. The government has way over reached what was intended, It has way over reached what will work. For both parties to continue along this path is the surest route to our demise.

        One other thing, your premise on another comment about the GOP promising to make Obama a one term president is also incorrect every GOP member that is in office right now did campaign on killing Obamacare (the ACA) only a few tried. Most only gave it lip service and did nothing but bash and belittle those that actually tried to keep their word. Like them or not I would much rather see our leaders keep their word once in office. From there you can agree or disagree but at least you know where they stand.

      • John

        actually they did promise to do that .. that is why Arlen Spector left the party, to quote him : ” I can not be part of a party that puts itself ahead of the country during a time of economic turmoil” – This came from a life long republican … one that I respected and I almost followed him over the lines..

      • Juggernaut1969


        Arlen Specter was a United States Senator from Pennsylvania. Specter was a Democrat
        from 1951 to 1965, then a Republican from 1965 until 2009, when he switched
        back to the Democratic Party. He passed
        away in 2012.

        He was not a “Life Long Republican” he was a Democrat all the way up to LBJ and
        it was a POLITICAL move to become a Republican it was not IDEOLOGICAL. He stayed Republican for a while, when it was good to be a Republican such as the time of Carter, (who would want to be a Democrat at that time Carter was joked about harshly by schoolchildren). Reagan, (very good time to be a Republican), Clinton (not bad time as, Republicans controlled the House and the Senate starting in 1994), then for Bush (by then it was not looking so good to be a Republican if you wanted to be re-elected). You may recall that Democrats
        controlled Both the House and the Senate for the first two years Obama was in office. Then what do you know?!? Wow, it looked like Obama was going to be hard to stop, so Specter becomes a Democrat
        again. (Why was I not surprised?)

        In truth, his voting record was often Liberal. He was a political opportunist who would switch sides depending on how the political winds were blowing. As a Republican, he was a RINO (Republican In Name Only). His positions as a politician were more
        about staying in power then being a servant to the people and you want to call him
        a “Life Long Republican” I call him a Democrat wolf in sheep’s clothing?

        Oh for the record I am not a Republican…

      • jayjay4142

        Now Joe Lieberman there is a true opportunist for you. He ran as a democrat and voted with Republicans the majority of the time.

      • Juggernaut1969

        I never said that Arlen Specter was the only one of his ilk so your point is?

      • jayjay4142

        Point is that Arlen Spector is a party jumper. Joe Lieberman is a Republican who runs as a democrat.

      • Juggernaut1969

        And how is that different then me saying we have too much of this and it would be nice for people to actually at least try to do what they say so we know where they stand? From there we can agree with them or disagree with them but at least we know.

      • jayjay4142

        You don’t get out much do you? Everyone has seen the tape where Mitch McConnell said that. Name one leader that has kept all of his campaign promises. Just one. I am 72 years old and I can tell you that you are living in LA LA Land if you believe that.

      • Juggernaut1969

        Did I say one has kept all of their promises? No I do not think so. But to be honest many wanted Obama to be a one term president, However every member brought in on the mid term elections did say they were going to do away with Obamacare. Sadly most did not even try, and they bashed the ones that did. Like I said in another posting I would rather see them stick to their word then agree with them or not you know where they stand.

        So I guess breaking promises and being untrustworthy is fine because others have done it before. I say maybe we ought to hold our leaders to a higher standard. If they do not make the grade remove them from office.

        By the way I have had bowel movements I respect much much more them Mitch McConnell so your bringing him up does little to bolster your argument if there were one to begin with.

      • soxfan4evah

        Something tells me you approved of Wendy Davis doing the same thing in Texas, or the Wisconsin flee-baggers.

      • JFMoran

        Ahhh No. It was Democrat controlled in Obama’s first two years. That’s how O-care got passed. Opposition to O-care is what swept over 40 Republicans into the house in 2010.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        Actually, it was the GOP’s promise that a jobs bill would be their “top of the agenda” and “first priority” the second they got voted in. Instead, the second they got voted in, their top priority, very blantantly, changed to “Make Obama a one term president!” It wasn’t until that little plan failed that they decided killing the ACA was their REAL goal.

      • jayjay4142

        Only for a couple of months. Then Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy died and Al Franken was did not take office until several months because of the recount votes the Republican nominee kept demanding.

      • lowdf62

        The Dems only had control about 24 days or so. With Kennedy leaving in May and Franken not sworn in until July still no majority they were never in WA at the same time. Then Kennedy died in August his replacement sworn in late Sept. So from Sept to Feb when Brown was sworn in they were on break most of that time look it up. No 2 year control like you think. Sorry the FACTS don’t support your claim.

      • Pistol_Pablo

        But Democrats have had control of two-thirds of Government since 2010 and full control when Obama took over.

      • KiTA

        Considering Shrub left the rest of us with two wars and a disgusting giveaway to his criminal friends on Wall Street on Obama’s credit card? Yeah, kinda.

      • jayjay4142

        I also read that Bush got free medical care for the people of Iraq probably on our taxpayer dime.

      • Pipefighter

        How do you get to that conclusion if The Shrub started with a surplus of 500 B and ended with a ten trillion deficit and now its seventeen trillion how are they Three times as much????

      • fafhrd

        And yet, no budget was passed for Bush’s final months in office, just continuing resolutions to get past the inaugeration of Obama. The 2009 budget was the largest of Bush’s administration, due to an $878 Billion Stimulus package and a $ Trillion Omnibus spend package passed in Feb and March of 2009, added to Bush’s budget.
        And no budget passed by Congress since.
        All of this was put on the ‘credit card’, along with the $85 Billion per month Quantitative Easing since then.

      • Keith T

        Has Obama bothered to even pass a budget? I haven’t seen one in years.

      • fafhrd

        No. None of his proposed budgets have garnered even one Democrat vote.
        The House has passed annual budgets, but not passed by the Senate.
        Democrats will claim that the Senate passed one this year (by a vote of 50 – 49), but since it didn’t garner 51 votes, I disagree with them. Nor has the Senate ‘budget” which calls for higher taxes, been reconciled with the House budget, that calls for lower spending.

      • jayjay4142

        Bills passed by the Senate to come to the House. House didn’t even bring them up for a vote.
        1 Bills to aid Small Business
        2 unemployment extension
        3 Bank Reform Bills
        4. Campaign Finance Reform
        6 Infrastructure Bills
        7. Ending Tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs
        8. Wall Street Reform
        9. Energy Legislation
        10. Mine Safety Bill
        11. Lower Oil Company tax breaks.
        This from the supposed job creators. You know that trickle down thingy that you Repugs have been waiting for 30 or more years.

      • fafhrd

        Very nebulous in your bills. Do they have names? Numbers? At least so that I could look in Congressional record and see for myself…
        1. can you be more specific about ‘aid’?
        2. unemployment extension? how much more?
        3. Bank reform? Dodd-Frank isn’t bad enough?
        Do I need to go on? I could say the same for bills passed by the House that Harry Reid won’t even take up.
        Much less immigration reform (amnesty) out of the Senate, which would just ‘legally’ add 11 million to unemployment in competition with citizens…

      • jayjay4142

        How about you look them up for yourself since you are so well informed. No Dodd-Frank isn’t enough because the banks are bigger now than they were before the stinking bail-outs.
        As far as immigration goes they are already here. Only a fool would think that you can deport them all. Corporations run this country and they hire them by the millions. The only thing is this way they would have to pay taxes like the rest of us. While you are at it why don’t you look up the bills the Tea Party Republicans did want to pass.
        46 bills on abortion
        113 on religion
        3 on family relationships
        36 on marriage
        72 on firearms
        604 on lowering taxes for the wealthy
        437 on Government Investigations.
        0 on jobs.

      • fafhrd

        Well, you sure have that figured out!
        You can’t provide anything to substantiate your claims of legislation from the Senate that hasn’t been acted on by the House.
        “Dodd-Frank isn’t enough because the banks are bigger now”, but it was supposed to prevent that, while also guaranteeing that bailouts would be covered.
        “Only a fool would think that you can deport them all”, fine. Don’t give them legal status for breaking the law. Make it hard for them to obtain employment (E-verify). Penalize the employers of illegals. Prevent illegal aliens from obtaining benefits of citizens (Welfare, SNAP, housing loans…). If there is no benfit to be had, they will, on their own, move.
        You claim Republicans passed 0 bills on jobs? Bureau of Labor Statiscs employment numbers is showing a correlation between the ACA and lack of full time jobs. Ever effort to repeal the ACA was a jobs bill.

      • John

        actually your argument about the labor statistics has actually been debunked a number of times as it is the spin on the numbers not the actual numbers talking … as a matter of fact most economists are pointing to it doing the exact opposite and creating jobs as the system matures. This is also what was shown with the birth of the computerized age .. jobs moved and more were created than previous .. just not the same jobs … (Also those very programs that you are saying should be barred from Illegal Aliens, are actually barred they do need to prove status prior to getting them, however we in America have a huge forgery issue going on here which we need to crack down on to ensure that that actually happens ( BTW E-Verify is not a solution it actually creates a larger problem currently to many easy ways to circumvent most systems ) While we are on the topic of Housing assistance can you explain why owners of multiple homes were the largest recipients ( also they were individuals with incomes exceeding 150k / year btw ) of that housing assistance? NOT the poor, not the illegals …

      • fafhrd

        Auntie Zeituni makes that much?

      • John

        You tell me .. is she one of those that has 3 homes and is still getting housing assistance ?

      • fafhrd

        She’s an illegal alien getting housing assistance (where it is ‘theoretically’ prohibited from being paid to non-citizens).

      • tomgnh

        Or maybe one of those people complaining that the government wants to take away the tax break on their vacation home?

      • fafhrd

        I also like the typical liberal talking point, ‘such and so’ has been “debunked”, without any supporting information to support the claim of being “debunked”.

      • John

        ok I find this interesting since I have replied to this now a number of times with a number of links from a myriad of sources ranging from an article in the economist to the WSJ yet for some reason those responses keep disappearing .. along with additional links regarding the housing assistance program where 40B is actually going to the poor while the remaining 200B is actually going to those making over 100k / year … Odd that ..

      • angelicvh

        That is a sound bite read the Congression record. It does not even support what you are say this.

      • Tom McFadden

        ONLY the house has constitutional authority to originate revenue producing bills. That covers most of your objections. Now quit your incessant whining while demonstrating your ignorance of the law.

      • jayjay4142

        No a bill may be proposed by either the Senate or the House.

      • Tom McFadden

        Read more carefully, then think more carefully. It’s really not that hard. I think that you’re part of the real problems in this country.

        “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”


        United States Constitution

      • tomgnh

        Read carefully- a revenue bill must originate in the House. Have you read the Constitution? Article I, Section 7.

      • jayjay4142

        The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that the Senate can initiate bills that create revenue, if the revenue is incidental and not directly a tax. Most recently, in US v Munoz-Flores (495 US 385 [1990]), the Court said, “Because the bill at issue here was not one for raising revenue, it could not have been passed in violation of the Origination Clause.” The case cites Twin City v Nebeker (176 US 196 [1897]), where the court said that “revenue bills are those that levy taxes, in the strict sense of the word.”

      • kurtsteinbach

        All Bills for raising Revenue (taxes, not appropriations, just tax bills) shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. Wrong again, Tom….

      • Tom McFadden

        I just knew somebody would fall for this one. Kurt, the Constitution states, “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.”

        What it does not say is that the Senate may originate bills that raise revenue. It specifically says only the house may propose bills that raise revenue . The Senate may propose Non-revenue bills or propose amendments to the house bills but only the house can originate bills that produce revenue, not the Senate. Read more carefully next time.

      • Jack Frost

        1 Obamacare
        2 Was 3 years, more would require French citizenship. He cleverly destroyed jobs with the ACA to avoid people finding work.
        3 Volker rule, took 6 years to write, but still too big to fail?
        4 Finance reform, all political candidates are wealthy, usually the party trailing n raising funds whines about reform
        5 These programs were ready but they weren’t shoveling infrastructure, as he himself admitted. Why not simply put everyone on the government payroll?
        6 Now that is funny. He did have some work blocking access to public parks and monuments though
        7 What company doesn’t outsource jobs? his buddy Steve Jobs builds his phones overseas. Boeing will be out of this country before long thanks to the NLRB helping unions to strike successfully. When has an administration told a company where they can build their products? But now with Obamacare, the sky’s the limit apparently.
        8 If by reform you mean cadging funds for your political party, that is doubtfull. But they do appreciate his Fed work
        9 The fracking of natural gas has made the US almost completely energy independent. The keystone pipeline jobs aren’t worth it to the Greenies he counts on for votes
        10 The EPA rules will have most coal mines idle within a few years, so mission accomplished
        11 Why just oil companies, eliminate tax breaks for all businesses. You should be in business to make money, not tax write offs. Especially end green energy boondoggles and let them stand on their own merit. It works or it doesn’t.

        The only thing trickling is a tear knowing Obama isn’t king and must eventually give up his throne. but he has a few years left to work us into martial law, so stay tuned.

      • John

        actually fracking natural gas hasn’t made the US amlost completely independent .. also there is a lot more to that pipeline that you aren’t aware about .. such as the chemicals additives that has been shown to eat the very the material used for the pipeline (Funny they are very aware of this in Canada and are fighting a pipeline for a similar reason. ACA didn’t actually destroy jobs, a republican (BTW I am a Republican) talking point that has been debunked soooooo many times it is sad to see it keep being used Boeing isn’t really in the US they actually have more manufacturing overseas than in the US (roughly 72% according to their own figures ). Additionally you are right on most companies outsourcing and we should eliminate their ability to say “made in the USA” when they are just boxed in the states (this is what apple did for a while also what Lenovo did (prior to it’s sale) ). On your point 11 I agree wholeheartedly yes lets let all of them stand on their own legs

      • rockribbedrushy

        “BTW I am a Republican”
        What republican influenced you to join the party?
        Who did you vote for president in the last 3 or 4 elections, eh?

      • John

        What Republican was my influence : Eisenhower…. who would actually be ashamed of our party right now. But wait I know .. He and I are RINOs right.
        Also we didn’t have a candidate in either of the last two elections .. not really .. – I personally would never vote for someone who tells a decorated Vietnam veteran on camera that they are not entitled to the same rights as everyone else (yep Romney did this right on National TV) and the thought that Palin could have been our President in the event of a catastrophe – well that is just terrifying. Do you really want me to go through all the times she put her foot in her mouth?

      • rockribbedrushy

        Who would he be ashamed of? The Rinos or the Tea Party? And what about Reagan? Would he reject the Tea Party? Or the Tea Party him?
        Let’s go over some issues here, eh?
        Are you Pro Global warming?
        Pro Amnesty?
        Pro Choice?

      • John

        Well we can start with the tea party and move from there ..
        Global Warming … well that is kind of a misnomer – climate change. This is both a natural phenomenon as well as one that man has contributed to so – Yes
        Amnesty – no
        Pro Choice – Yes
        Pro Gun Control – well actually I an pro second amendment … the whole of it which includes a clause on a well regulated militia.
        Pro Homosexual Marriage – yes – as Marriage is not a concept defined by one religion alone but there are 65 different religions that have some form of marriage in their tenements ( including that of some of the Native American religions ( Cherokee Shamantic beliefs for instance, where same sex pairings are viewed as holy ( twin spirited is what they call it and many in those unions were shaman themselves) it would be protected under the First Amendment.
        As to the Founders being Christian .. news flash … Benjamin Franklin was a known Atheist.
        Thomas Jefferson wrote a translation of the Bible where he took out all miracles – while he was writing this he had much correspondence with many other of our founders where one wrote ” While I follow the God of Abraham, He is but one of many.” – George Washington – the Jefferson letters. This hints towards Polytheism, this is but one quote from those letters that point that way out of a number of them regarding his views.
        There were also two Druids among their number who like Washington were among the number that Jefferson corresponded with regarding his idea’s on writing the Jefferson Bible. Lets see if you can guess who they were .. Just go to the Library and do some research on the Jefferson Letters – or you can research their discovered diaries of each … you may just find that you don’t know our founders as well as you think you do.
        West would be fine .. Cruz well after saying he was going to renounce his Canadian Citizenship then saying on camera that it is an involved process to do so…. interesting since it really is a simple process even has a four page document to help get the ball rolling. I have a friend who renounced his Canadian Citizenship to be able to claim Dutch citizenship … took him roughly a month and a half – and he isn’t a Harvard graduate. Just an observation.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Love Obamacare. My kids are now insured.

      • rockribbedrushy

        Coverage is not the same as care.
        Can you go to the doctor of your choice?
        Can you go to the hospital of your choice?
        What is your deductible? That is, how much do you have to pay out of pocket before your insurance kicks in?

      • William Ewing

        Hate it. My family has been insured, but due to ACA, I don’t know for how much longer.

      • DJ

        Fancy titles do not mean what they say. IE: The Affordable Care Act. We are now finding out that it is more expensive and only affordable to a few because the vast majority will now pay higher fees to subsidize them.

      • angelicvh

        Again this propaganda, read the congressional record. Your posts look great but are not factual.

      • jules2u

        now please list the bills passed by the house that never even came up for vote in the senate.

      • rockribbedrushy

        And Harry Snapper Reid has 150 bills that the House passed sitting on his desk. He has famously said that they are DOA! Dead on Arrival!

      • Pistol_Pablo

        No. He sure hasn’t. And neither has the Senate until perhaps very recently. Correct me if I’m wrong.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        Presidents don’t “pass” a budget. They propose a budget. Congress passes it. Or rejects it. And proposes something of it’s own.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Or congress sits on its collective butt and does bupkis.

      • rockribbedrushy

        Under our Constitution Congress is not required to do what the president tells them to do.

      • NM_PollFan

        Talk to Congress! Specifically the House!

      • angelicvh

        You guys really need to do more research from neutral parties, even the Congressional record. Instead of regurgitating sound bites you are told.

      • John

        It is Congress not Obama that needs to pass the budget, Please look to the Constitution for confirmation on this …

      • Jack Frost

        He was supposed to look to Congress fro war declarations before killing foreign citizens by drone strikes. Are they permitted here based solely on his okay?

      • John

        You are correct if he was declaring war .. Just like Bush was supposed to (which he declared PRIOR to congress declaring those wars which he put on a credit card, plenty of media coverage about this at the time btw … ) I have my issues with Obama – however I prefer to put blame where it belongs. Oh btw Bush used drones as well .. just wasn’t as often or publicized as well …

      • rockribbedrushy

        Yes, John, you are right that GW used drones. As a matter of fact one such drone sent the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing to Kingdom Come. He did what BJ Clinton should have done.

      • Bryan

        thanks for pointing this out. NOW explain why Reid has not allowed ONE BUDGET to come to vote

      • John

        Please understand I am not saying that the Democrats are blameless – what I am saying is that the blame needs to be placed where it belongs when you place it on a branch of the government at least make sure it is the right branch. As for parties well both have plenty of blame to go around and not just on the budget.

      • jayjay4142

        Oh please read something. Obama has tried to compromise with the House Republicans. on budget. Every time he does they try to steal my SS and put 2.7 trillion of SS money into the stock market. The Republicans have been after SS ever since FDR created it.

      • Tom McFadden

        Perhaps you are reading something different than the rest of us.

        “The president’s budget isn’t a compromise,” charges Rep. Jackie Walorski of Indiana.

        “Even when the president’s budget offers signs of common ground — like modest entitlement reforms — he says he won’t follow through unless he can impose more tax increases,” she says.”

      • jayjay4142

        My SS is not an entitlement. I am reading something different than you. You have all of the Faux News talking points. I listen to both sides. I also remember the past when corporations had regulations and that is when America grew.
        In 1950 corporate taxes were 30% of federal revenue. In 2012 it was 7%. Then we now see NY offering any corporation who will build here 0 taxes for 10 years. Most likely they won’t pay enough to get people off of welfare and the state will still pick up the bill like they are doing now.
        In the 40’s 50’s & 60’s corporate tax was 90%
        In the 70’s it was 70% and the economy grew like a weed.
        Under Reagan they dropped to 50%
        Under Bush to 36%. Look what we have today.
        Four out of 5 corporations pay 0 in taxes and then we also subsidize them. Then they repay us by hiding their money in the Caymans and other places to keep from paying any taxes here.

      • Tom McFadden

        Apparently, my reply was moderated OUT as it contained too much factual information, even derived from liberal sources. It’s apparently a fowardprogressives’ journalistic sin to actually know what you’re talking about. Your information is incorrect. Corporate tax rates have remained very much the same except in the $5-75K ranges form 1942-2010. Corporate tax contribution to federal reveneue fell from 26-10% while payroll taxes went from 11-36%. Personal income tax revenue is the same at 40%. Blame the goverrnment, not corporations. Raising corporate taxes leads to loss of revenue, loss of tax revenue and loss of jobs. If you like a poor economy and a poor nation, keep raising corporate taxes.

      • sjburkhardt

        Your premise is wrong. There is no evidence that backs this up. However, there is evidence that the economy grows with increased corporate taxes.

      • Tom McFadden

        Really? I would bet that you don’t own a small business or have employees. Would you care to cite any valid sources (not opinions) and also elucidate the mechanism of how higher taxes (corporate or otherwise) stimulates the economy and job growth. I would be interested to hear your explanation. There is clear evidence to show that lowering marginal tax rates increases tax revenue, especially as a percentage of GDP under both JFK/Johnson and Reagan terms. Please read (since this site won’t seem to allow citing the internet source):

        Two Studies

        In fact, two studies released this year (2012) predict that raising tax rates on high-income families and small businesses would hurt the economy. The tax rate increase was proposed by President Obama and involves raising the top two marginal tax rates to 39.6 percent and 36 percent, respectively.

        The first of the two studies was performed by Ernst and Young, a large consultancy, for a group of clients representing small businesses. They used Ernst and Young’s proprietary macroeconomic model to evaluate the long-run economic cost of the proposed tax increase, along with tax increases on dividends and capital gains.

        The second study was performed by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and focuses on the short-term impact of the tax increase on high-income taxpayers. The CBO report must be read carefully, since the baseline is current law, in which tax rates will rise across the board.

        Jobs Impact

        The Ernst and Young study predicts that the tax increases will slow investment, resulting in slower growth in employment and wages. Compared to their model’s baseline predictions, the higher-tax economy would have 0.33 percentage point lower employment after 10 years and would asymptotically approach 0.5 percentage point lower employment. In terms of today’s population, that would be 710,000 fewer people holding jobs. In addition, real wages for those with jobs would decrease by 1.8 percent on average.

        Because the effects take place over time, they may seem small in any given year, but they build. Long-run models don’t focus on the timing with which effects come into play. However, based on their 10-year figure, a back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the model probably predicts more than 2.6 million job-years lost in the first decade. If strong effects of the tax increase are felt immediately, as the second study suggests, then the lost job-years in the first decade might be around 3.4 million.

        The CBO report estimates that a year from now, the economy will have 200,000 fewer jobs with President Obama’s tax increase than under an extension of current tax rates.

        How does the 200,000 job loss predicted by CBO compare to the 710,000 job loss in the Ernst and Young study? Like apples to oranges. Not only are the time frames different, but the key economic mechanisms in each study are different. Nonetheless, despite asking different questions, the two studies get the same answer: Higher taxes slow job growth.

        What Happens to All That Money?

        One of Kessler’s criticisms is that the Ernst and Young study assumes that the additional revenue from the tax increase would be used to fund more government spending, not to reduce the deficit. This is a reasonable assumption—after all, Harvard economist Alberto Alesina and his co-authors have shown that increasing taxes to decrease the deficit rarely works, and the President has promised lots of new federal spending in his second term. And if the Ernst and Young model is similar to others in the industry, the assumption that new taxes are used to fund government spending mitigates the predicted job losses. Thus, the “710,000 jobs lost” is smaller than it would be if the new taxes went entirely to deficit reduction.

        Are These Numbers Big or Small?

        Kessler seems to imply that the economic costs predicted by the Ernst and Young study are small. So let’s compare the economic costs to the revenue that the new taxes might yield. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, such a tax increase would bring in $440 billion over 10 years, even if the economy were unaffected. If the tax increases result in a loss of 3 million jobs over the same 10 years, that would be one job lost for every $150,000 in revenue. In addition, wages, investment, and gross domestic product (GDP) would also be lower. That’s a pretty pricey tax increase.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        There is a big difference between a small business and major corporations that are getting unnecessary tax breaks. Business is sitting on $3 trillion in cash. Howzabout spending some of it on jobs.

      • Tom McFadden

        Solution: start your own business and YOU can decide what YOU want to do with YOUR profits. Then, you can stop complaining that businesses are not doing enough for the workers. A few facts from reputable sources would be convincing, which thus far, are non-existent

      • rockribbedrushy

        Dear Sub, Exactly where is that money, eh? In their mattresses? It is in banks that lend out that money to homeowners, entrepreneurs and auto loans.

      • Tom McFadden

        The Tax Foundation’s dynamic simulation model provides quantitative estimates of the growth and revenue effects. The model estimates, for example, that cutting the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent would raise GDP by 2.2 percent, increase the private-business capital stock by 6.2 percent, boost wages and hours of work by 1.9 percent and 0.3 percent, respectively, and increase total federal revenues by 0.8 percent.

        The model does not predict the year-by-year path of tax revenues. It instead estimates the revenue change that will occur after people have fully adjusted to the new tax rules. (This is known as a comparative statics model.) While the adjustment process is not instantaneous, it does not take that many years. With capital, experience indicates that most of the adjustment will have been completed after five years for equipment and after ten years for structures.

        To illustrate how the Tax Foundation’s simulation model operates, suppose the federal government increases the corporate income tax rate. First, under the unrealistic static assumption that the higher marginal tax rate has no impact on economic activity (that is, holding macroeconomic aggregates constant), the model calculates the increase in corporate tax collections as equal to the static tax base times the rate hike. Second, under the more realistic assumption that taxes can sometimes alter the size of the economy, the production function part of the model estimates the positive, or in this case negative, growth effects: the smaller after-tax reward for corporate investment (due to the higher tax rate) depresses capital formation; the diminished capital stock lowers worker productivity, thereby decreasing real wages and discouraging people from supplying as much labor as before; and the smaller quantities of capital and labor result in fewer goods and services being produced and less income being generated. Taking account of the drop in output and incomes, the individual income tax calculator estimates the reduction in federal individual income tax receipts, and other equations in the model estimate the smaller amounts collected by a variety of other federal taxes and fees.

      • Tom McFadden


        A lower corporate income tax rate would be a tonic for the ailing U.S. economy that would accelerate growth by reducing tax biases against saving and investment. The pro-growth impact would be substantial because investment and the stock of capital are extremely sensitive to the expected after-tax rate of return. A larger, more vibrant economy would help people throughout the nation by generating higher real incomes, a greater supply of goods and services, and more opportunities.

        The revenue impact would be positive because a corporate tax rate cut of the magnitude often discussed in policy circles would generate a sufficient tax-base expansion to offset the lower tax rate, although revenues would fall for a few years until the upsurge in the capital stock lifted GDP enough to counterbalance the rate cut. Very few tax cuts pay for themselves, but this would be one that does. A lower corporate tax rate would probably be worthwhile due to the benefits from a larger, more prosperous economy even if federal revenues fell; the potential revenue gain is a bonus. An additional bonus is that a less lofty U.S. corporate tax rate would be an effective and relatively painless way to reduce the leakage of taxable corporate income out of the United States and into other nations.

        A barrier to moving to a more sensible corporate tax rate, though, is that conventional revenue estimates artificially assume tax changes never have growth effects. It is ironic that although a bigger economic pie is one of the chief motivations for wanting to cut the corporate income tax rate, official revenue estimates assume away the growth effect. If policymakers believe conventional revenue scoring, they will be badly misled because a tax policy that would, in fact, spur growth and raise revenue will appear, on paper, to be a revenue loser. An aim of the Tax Foundation model is to furnish policymakers with better information regarding the likely consequences of changing the corporate tax rate.

        If members of Congress feel compelled to compensate for the phantom revenue loss or for the initial, temporary decline, the best places to look would be low-value government spending programs or corporate welfare. Members should be careful to avoid changes in the tax base that would overstate true incomes or undo some of the benefits of the rate cut. A special concern, because it is frequently mentioned as a possibility, would be imposing a capital cost recovery system that would be dramatically slower than the present one.

      • Roc E

        Complete and utter BS. There is no incentive to re-invest with tax give aways to the super rich. Why invest when your government lacky’s continue to give you more and more of the pie in exchange for more and bigger bribes?
        This country has been bending over backwards to serve the corporate overlords for decades giving them more and more and what has it gotten us? Less living wage jobs, reduced number of jobs with medical, retirement benefits for non C level workers and the largest wealth disparity since the great depression. You can sing and dance all you like but the facts of 40 plus years of trickle down/supply side corporate welfare cannot be refuted

      • Tom McFadden

        Solution: start your own business and YOU can decide what YOU want to do with YOUR profits. Then, you can stop complaining that businesses are not doing enough for the workers. A few facts from reputable sources would be convincing, which thus far, are non-existent.

      • Bryan

        WHAT? A Liberal actually start a business instead of bitching about them?
        Tom, surely you jest!

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Pay higher wages. Create demand.

      • Tom McFadden

        ? and ?. To do what and for what?

      • angelicvh

        Please site where this is true? sjburkhardt.

      • sjburkhardt

        The burden of proof does not lie with me. It lies with those that made this premise in the first place

      • jayjay4142

        I didn’t say anything about personal taxes. You are dead wrong on your so called facts. I did look up everything that I posted. It is a well known fact among those who bother to look things up. We have been lowering taxes for the corporations for years. We have been waiting for that trickle down thingy to work. My facts were correct and you will never convince me any differently. The only jobs that have been created are in other countries.

      • Bryan

        you wouldn’t know a fact if it bit you… which is why you are on this site.
        I am having a ball shredding these silly questions…

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Corporations actually have to pay taxes in order to raise them. And raising corporate taxes leads to job loss in what fantasy world? Lack of demand leads to job loss.

      • Tom McFadden

        Where did you take your economics classes? Do you own a business?

      • Tom McFadden

        The topic of discussion was whether the budget deal was a compromise. It had nothing to do with your self induced debate of whether social security was your entitlement. Entitlements were a point of COMMON GROUND not a point of contention according to Rep Walorski. Read more closely.

      • jayjay4142

        Every single time there is a discussion about the budget SS is referred to as an entitlement and brought up as an offset for other things.
        It was even brought up as an offset to pay for Hurricanes and tornadoes.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        When did Social Security and Medicare morph from being “benefits” to “entitlements?”

      • Tom McFadden

        One gets entitlements when one gets more than one contributes. It’s not a linear relationship…. Look it up.

      • DJ

        Our corporate tax rate is 35%. Highest among the industrialized nations. So why are companies moving overseas?? And your statistic 4 out of 5 corps pay zero. Is that because we pushed their operations overseas with our tax policies?

      • angelicvh

        your facts JJ are incorrect I would rewrite them, but McFadden below does a better job. The tax rate was never 90%,

      • jayjay4142

        No they are not They were 90% under Eisenhower. Look it up.

      • jules2u

        and please explain how many, if any paid the highest tax rate. Although it may have been higher, (I will disagree with the 90% you claim), most businesses actually paid less than they do today because of the additional tax breaks they received. But you can also look into what France did by increasing their corporate tax and personal income tax rates, the rich choose to leave the country, thereby reducing total revenues.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Awwwww those poor abused rich people. So much for loyalty to your country.

      • jules2u

        Nice lack of an explanation. The reality is, back during the times when the rates were higher, most people, including the “rich” paid rates much lower than what they do today. You will worry about the “poor” rich people when they pack up and move all their money offshore and no longer pay a majority of the federal taxes, and you will be making up some of the losses. I understand you do not grasp reality, but if it were not for those “rich” people already paying more than 75% of the federal taxes to keep this country running, we would already be a third world nation.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Huh? They’ve been moving their money offshore for as long as there have been tax havens. Stop defending the whiners. They are turning us into a third world nation. “Stop picking on us. Oh, and by the way, grovel for that job we grace you with, because we’re working hard to dump the minimum wage so we can pay you $3/hr. Or $3/day.”

        They should pay most of the taxes. They have most of the money. But explain to me why we had a 90% tax rate in the 1950s and built schools, bridges and the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System. Or why the top tax rate in the 1990s was 39.5% and we did just fine. At then end of the day, when you tax a rich person, he is still rich. Not so for the poor or middle class.

      • rockribbedrushy

        When was the last time a poor person hired you, eh?

      • rockribbedrushy

        Actually the tax rate was 90%, but the effective tax rate was down around 30% with all the allowable exemptions and deductions. The top 1% accounted for about 15% of the income tax revenues. When Reagan dropped the top rate to 50 and then 28% the top 1% paid roughly 30% of the income tax dollar. Then when GW dropped it back down to 35% after BJ raised it, the top 1% paid 38% of the income taxes and it still is about the same now.

        Nobody paid 90%. They did that in England and the top earners left one by one.

        Go listen to “Taxman” by the Beatles.

        Should five percent appear too small
        Be thankful I don’t take it all
        ‘Cause I’m the taxman
        Yeah, I’m the taxman

        ‘Cause I’m the taxman
        Yeah, I’m the taxman
        And you’re working for no one but me

        Read more: Beatles – Taxman Lyrics | MetroLyrics

      • Thomas Pearson

        You are correct.It was Kennedy who started the lowering the taxes in the early 1960’s the very LAST democrat to propose dropping tax levels.

      • Bryan

        You are full of shit.
        Listen… drop the “Faux News” crap. Sorry you’re so butthurt that they won’t play propaganda machine for your race baiting, murderous, traitorous president wannabe.
        Get over it.

        You are trying to say that regulations grew America?
        I have heard smarter things from a toddler. Care to revise your statement?

      • DJ

        I have a bridge for sale in NY and you are a prime candidate to buy it.

      • angelicvh

        Actually he has not always tried to negotiate with the the House Republicans, especially when they were trying to delay Obamacare because it was not ready. He frankly said he would not negotiate. So this argument is not true.

      • Bryan

        oh, bullshit
        I love how Liberals believe everything they hear on MSNBC. You listen to some of the dumbest people on the planet.
        CONGRESS was controlled from 1954-1994 by the DEMOCRATS… and it was during THAT time that the SS fund was raided. Care to try to blame the Republicans, again?

      • lowdf62

        Budgets passed in house and senate in March of last year but the GOP in the house refused to go into a conference committee. The GOP refused to do there job

      • angelicvh

        That is not the truth again research, get the congressional record, you can read it online. Educate yourself instead of taking the easy sound bite.

      • Frosty

        Pay attention, this guy at the top says it is not the work of the president.

      • DJ

        And what party was in charge of the House and Senate in 2009??? Your smoke and mirrors do not work. Bush sent a budget to Congress but who passed it and added to it? Check the votes or continue the smoke and mirrors.

      • fafhrd

        Bush didn’t sign the budget for fiscal year 2009.
        The House and Senate were under Democrat control, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
        My smoke and mirrors?
        They passed a continuing resolution, until after Obama was inaugurated. Bush’s baseline budget was exploded with the addition of the Stimulus and an omnibus spending package, before Obama signed the budget. Increasing the deficit by a factor of 4. And so much additional spending now as part of the baseline…
        Where are all those additional Billions going each year?
        So what if the deficit is now cut in half for/of Obama’s first year, it is still double the largest deficit that Bush ran.

      • soxfan4evah

        Pay as we go and record record deficits. Sounds like sound fiscal policy to me.

      • Russ

        Do they? I have yet to see a bill where they have produced such a plan. I DO see bills where someone like Pelosi says…and I quote: “Let’s just pass it and then we’ll read the bill later”.

      • Pistol_Pablo

        And yet, with control of two-thirds of Government, the U.S. has had the largest yearly budget deficits in the history of the Republic under Obama-Reid-Pelosi.

      • DJ

        What? They raised the debt, and passed deficit spending resolutions to avoid an up or down budget vote that would be too revealing. What are you smoking?

      • Bryan

        you are seriously deluded. They are solely responsible for the recession… or did you forget when the crash started and who was trying to stop it?
        Bush went to Congress SEVENTEEN TIMES to warn about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Pelosi and Reid did nothing.
        Stop being a Liberal fool and learn something.

      • ThePianoAnimal

        You are disqualified for rational debate by simply misusing the word ‘regime’. It disgusts me even when the tables are turned.

      • Jeff Mace

        considering this president has boasted the lowest spending in recent history, yes they have.

      • he has boasted a lot of things, but this current administration also has a history of lying at more or less every turn, so it’s best not to believe anything he says.
        For that matter, if the government says it (Republican or Democrat), it’s probably a lie.

      • Blaine Smith

        Just so happens that O keeps bypassing Congress, the Constitution and every other restraint and balance of power there is. He likes it.

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        Hey, I can make stuff up, too! Reagan was actually a secret communist who gave tens of millions of illegals amnesty because he wanted to destroy America. See, it’s fun!

      • soxfan4evah

        Except Reagan granted amnesty with a bill agreed to by both Houses of Congress, not by Executive Order. Not that that Constitution thingy should get in the boy king’s way.

      • jayjay4142

        How in the world can you talk about that Constitution thingy when you people think it is alright that the Supreme Court has declared corporations people when most of their business interests are in other countries? How can you support giving 60.6 billion dollars in subsidies in tax breaks for companies who outsource jobs?
        The shrub declared war on a country based on lies. And you want to talk about the constitution. Gerrymandering is your party’s big thing . Plus now the voter ID thing and forgetting to count the votes in a democratic area.
        Want to talk about bad things Presidents did. Let’s try Reagan and George H.W. Bush for the sale of military weapons, including poisonous chemicals like deadly viruses , such as anthrax and the bubonic plague to Iraq . Then Iraq used them on Iranians in the Iraq- Iran war. Ever heard of Oliver North? Actually it wouldn’t surprise me if you people tried to change the Constitution to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for President.

      • soxfan4evah

        What you couldn’t fit the Koch brothers boogeyman into your rant either? Again Reagan signed a bill passed by both houses of Congress as our Constitution states, so should the wannabe dictator sign a bill passed by both Houses or rule by Executive Order? And if you are okay with that, will you be okay with a Republican President ruling by Executive Order? As for “you people” I thought Progressives were all about tolerance and not putting people in groups. Guess your mask is slipping. Why would you assume I would want Schwarzenegger as President? Plenty of people who meet the requirements that would be better than Obama or Hillary. LTC Allen West, Ted Cruz, General Hamm, need I go on? Nikki Haley, Susannah Martinez, Jan Brewer, before you go all misogynist on me.

      • jayjay4142

        Just don’t want to admit that your hero Reagan committed crimes that really were impeachable Like the Iran-Contra affair. Really, selling WMD’s to Iraq . You people talk about Benghazi and under Bush at least 13 US Embassies and Consulates were attacked. Killing hundreds of Americans.
        Reagan raised taxes 11 times on the middle class and the poor. Cut the taxes for the wealthy from 70% to 50%. Unemployment rose above 10%. Gave big breaks to the oil companies and corporations.
        The Tax a& Equity & Physical Responsibility Act of 1982 was the biggest peacetime tax increase in US history.
        Federal Taxes for the rest of us grew at 2.5% a year. National debt went from 700 billion to nearly 3 trillion.
        He raised taxes on the working man 11 times.

      • jayjay4142

        Every one of your candidates are a Tea Party candidate. You people are sick. One of you is trying to force all women to buy rape insurance. Another is telling us that they want to pass a law that oral sex even between a husband and wife is punishable up to a year in jail. Leaving us with a felony record and then you have the audacity to scream small government. The philosophies that you people spew are the exact same as those of the White Power, Nazi, KKK crowd.
        Jesus did not force us to follow him so what in the he$$ thinks you people have the right to do it.
        You want to pay for a vasectomy and Viagra yet BC is wrong. Now you have some whacko out there saying that if it is a call between the Mother and the fetus then kill the Mother. Now you have them trying to do away with minimum wage altogether and the child labor laws. You nutbags all trying to take us back to the days of Tiny Tim and Bob Cratchett.

      • I want to know what you had to smoke to come up with this crap. Reliable sources or GTFO.

      • Belavirino

        Ah ha!! The jig is up! Your real job is part of the Obama press team.

      • edward

        Not because he likes it, but because congress won’t get off their dead a$$es, and do anything. And the GOP in congress like to see the black man work, makes them feel like plantation owners.

      • KiTA

        Dawww, is the poor widdle Teahadist pissed that the Country is moving on without them? Maybe you should go move to a country that shares your political values — I suggest Somalia.

      • Belavirino

        You do tend to resort to the absurd when reality rears its ugly head. Some name calling to follow?

      • jayjay4142

        You baggers wouldn’t know reality if it bit you in the a$$.
        You keep wanting to go back in time> How about we go back to the 40’s, 50’s , and 60’s when the corporate tax rate was 90% Even in the 70’s it was 70% and the economy grew like a weed. Then Reagan dropped it to 50% and unemployment rose to 10 % . Then Bush dropped it to 36% and we saw the greatest depression since the 20’s.
        If you people win any more elections then you won’t have to move to Somalia. We will have Somalia here because people like you keep voting with the 1% who is laughing at you all of they way to the bank while you stand there waiting for 30 or so years for that trickle down thingy to work for you. Meanwhile 60.6 billion of our taxpayer dollars went to subsidies. corporations who outsourced our jobs.
        Maybe you should look at just how many billion dollar corporations used loopholes not only to pay 0 in taxes but got money back plus the subsidies.

      • so if the Tea Party is Somalia, does that make the left North Korea?

      • KiTA

        No, the left is America. Do try and keep up.

      • I’d laugh except that I think you’re trying to be serious.
        Which side of the spectrum is the one that goes around touting things like the American Flag, the Bill of Rights/Constitution, “We The People”, and protection from tryanny? (to name but a few examples)

        I’ll give you a hint–it’s not the hypocritical left.
        There’s a reason conservatives are called “right”. If liberals want their beloved government policies to dominate their culture, there’s always Europe. You’d fit in better there.

      • KiTA

        Wow, you really are a clown, aren’t ya? “We wingnuts love ‘Merica more cause FLAG PINS ‘n gunz!”

        The fact that the rest of America left you nuts behind years ago has completely escaped you. It’s really kind of sad.

      • so all you can do is call names instead of use any actual truths.
        Come back with facts before you try to debate with the grown-ups.

      • KiTA

        OK, I’ll try to explain it to you, even though you’re a complete clown.

        The fact that the hypocritical right drapes itself in Chinese made American Flags does not mean anything. It’s an empty gesture, posturing to try to inflate their own self importance. Political masturbation.

        Screeching about Tyranny makes no difference at all when given even the smallest amount of power, the Right immediately seeks to restrict the rights of everyone not a Straight White Christian Male. I know the clowns on the right like to pretend that Bush never existed, but never forget that during his reign he ballooned spending, spearheaded an assault on our rights, and forced through the Patriot Act.

        In short: The right has this delightful political fiction that they’re the only true Americans, that they’re the only ones fighting for “real America”, what have you. When in reality they’re a bunch of scared little children, terrified of the “other,” desperate to force everyone to listen to them and do exactly (and only) what they say.

        In reality, Conservativism is in it’s death throws, the GOP is in political exile everywhere not gerrymandered to prevent the will of the people from throwing them out. Enjoy being increasingly irrelevant as the rest of us evolve as a culture.

      • Let’s point out the numerous flaws in your argument, shall we?
        #1. first line. ad hominem–one of the hypocritical left’s favorite tactics, because since they don’t use facts, they have to belittle their opponents.

        #2. it’s not about waving the flag. I’m talking more about things that made America great like the BIll of Rights, or rather the Constitution as a whole. You don’t hear the hypocritical left clamoring for the government to go back to the constitution. The right, on the other hand, does.

        #3. Typical straw-man fallacies. No one on the right is clamoring for churches to tell you what do do with your vagina. However, Separation of Church and State goes both ways. Yes, keep the Church out of the State. But more importantly, keep the State out of Church.
        Bush did sign the Patriot Act. I’m not saying he was a good president either. However, your Dear Leader then signed the NDAA. If the hypocritical left wanted to fix the problem, they would have repealed the Patriot Act instead of adding onto it. You can’t use the “blame Bush” card so liberally (pun intended) because it doesn’t apply. Dear Leader has been in office for over 6 years, and it’s time for he and the hypocritical left to take responsibility for the destruction of this country that they have caused.
        You hypocritical lefties are so obsessed with racism that you keep it alive and well today. No respectable person gives a shit what color Obama’s skin is. The man is an utter failure as a leader because he was a foreign-born community organizer with no real leadership experience, or even charisma when you take away his teleprompter.
        The right isn’t taking anyone’s rights away. The Left is waging a war on women by trying to disarm them. Give a woman a gun, and she won’t have to worry about a rapist. Give a gay man a gun, and he won’t have to worry about bigoted homophobes bullying him. If Adam and Steve want to get married? let ’em. Just don’t force everyone to agree with them. Freedom of opinion goes both ways, and that is something the intolerant left does not comprehend.

        In reality, the left is anything but tolerant. If you’re straight, white, male, or Christian (or god forbid any combination of the above), you are a disgusting piece of scum that should be killed on the spot. Their so-called “tolerance” is limited to their very narrow and closed-minded way of thinking. The moment you disagree even one iota from their radical agenda, they start throwing race cards, Blaming Bush, calling you all sorts of names and throwing hissyfits like the little crybabies that they are.

        You want liberalism? move to Detroit. There hasn’t been a single Republican Mayor in that city for over 50 years, and most of the “horrible white trash” has already moved out. Detroit is your city on liberalism.
        You want Conservatism? move to Provo, the reddest city over 100,000 people. Also, perhaps by coincidence, ranked in the top 10 most business-friendly cities, top 3 happiest cities in America, #2 most family-friendly city in America, and has very high employment opportunities.

        but no, facts are the enemy, while Big Government, MSNBC, and race-baiters are your best friends. Therein lies your problem, and that is why every sane American from California to the Carolinas is going to resist the left-wing of totalitarianism.

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        Ouch. You just ripped her a new a-hole.

      • mtnplace

        Only in your head

      • jayjay4142

        Name something? Don’t just spout Bumper Sticker quotes.

      • Theotherbruce

        Actually he is. Harry wouldn’t pass a budget so O could just keep spending at 2009 stimulus levels.

      • TurnoffFauxNoise

        Except for the fact that the Senate has tried to get a budget passed – sent to the house where Boner continues to ignore it. Ignores their requests to discuss, etc. I believe the last budget was sent to the house in March 2013? And there it’s sad with the repug obstructionists – as many other things do.

      • Theotherbruce

        The March budget, the senate’s first in 4 years, was projected to increase the national debt by over $5 trillion over the next 10 years. I expect reasonable men to obstruct this kind of crap.

      • jayjay4142

        Really!!!! Your side wants to go to war with Syria and Iran so bad. Why is it that we always have money to give to big corporations and not to our people. Bush W. actually got free health care for the people of Iraq but opposed it for America. Why is it that we always have money to go to war which is the biggest part of our debt but never anything that would improve the living for our fellow Americans? We gave 60.6 billion dollars to corporations to outsource our jobs. We allow tax loopholes where large corporations pay nothing in taxes. You have no friggin idea what reasonable means.

      • jimb82

        Where does the 60.6 billion number come from?

      • jayjay4142

        Try S&P Capital .

      • jimb82

        Citation, please?

      • jayjay4142

        Find it yourself. You people need get some experience in finding something that is not Faux News or your other Tea Party nutbags.

      • jimb82

        That’s what I thought.

      • in other words, you can’t find it and it’s not actually true.

      • NM_PollFan

        I don’t think he realizes he did that!

      • Jack Frost

        His party pushed through Obamacare which will do much more long term, systemic damage and hikes in spending for decades to come, unless we wind up in another Great Depression II. His green energy program repays politically connected bundlers from his campaigns while producing nothing but losses. He uses EPA, NLRB, IRS and other agencies to attempt to silence his political enemies and pursue agendas he cannot get enacted through legislation. I imagine if a SCOTUS decision overturned Roe v Wade you would believe it a massive overreach of your rights, but if the same thing occurred on the second amendment broaching my rights, it would be warranted to improve safety and save lives. The fact the same argument doesn’t defeat abortion shows the liberal mindset.

      • Kelly A

        haha! exactly. thanks kevin make sure you tell all your friends 🙂

      • Stir_ the_ pot

        Actually, as a senator, he was responsible for the deficits you on the left are always blaming Bush for.

      • rockribbedrushy

        And who controlled Congress from 2009 to 2011, eh?

    • Michael

      One word: Awesome.

    • storibund

      Logic and reason come to ForwardProgressives.

      Settle back and watch the natives’ heads explode.

      • SemperLibertas

        Comment removed.

    • TLanceB

      Your answer to the Jesus question shows what a horrible human being you are.

      • Roger Cotton

        That is an asinine statement. Childishly calling him a horrible human being is an unnecessary and over the top response to a straight forward and true point he makes.

      • Charity is private, and a virtue.

        The welfare state is covetousness, a sin.


      • Fairy Larry

        Render unto Cesar the thing that are Cesar’s. Jesus paid his taxes and he didn’t bitch

      • Mr. Fever Head

        And the crucified him. Call that a lesson learned.

      • Translations: Christians should shut up and not have a political point of view. Unless they want to vote Democrat.

      • SineWaveII

        Taxes on what? He didn’t have any money.

      • Leeloo

        Giving to the poor and needy is not charity when using the corersive force of the government to redistribute money to them! It’s just plain old evil socialism!

      • Fairy Larry

        “Socialism is the economic realization of the Christian Gospel.”
        -Archbishop William Temple

      • Leeloo

        Was he in 0bama’s church?

      • Mr. Fever Head

        Just wondering if you consider Temples views of homosexuality and abortion to be equally convincing?

      • SineWaveII

        Especially since very little of the stolen money ever goes to the poor and needy. It ends up lining the pockets of the rich.

    • So if Tip O’Neil quadrupled the deficit and Newt Gingrich balanced the budget then logically it follows that John Boehner and not Barack Obama is responsible for the current spending problems.

      • Kevin D. Williamson

        In part, sure. But we have a split Congress; compare that to the unified Democratic Congress.

      • Reagan had the senate for 6 of 8 years. Clinton only had 2 years with the house and 2 years with the Senate. So I am not sure what “unified Democratic Congress” you are referring to. Prior to 1981 there was unified democratic control of congress but since the we have usually had a split congress.

      • Kevin D. Williamson

        I had in mind the Congress that coincided with the first years of the Obama administration.

      • So you are blaming the current downturn that started in 2007. A crisis that built for years prior to 2007 that and was birthed in the fiscal policy of the previous administration (who had both the house and senate for 6 of their 8 years in office). You are blaming that crises on the fact that for two years (a time period that started 18 months after the crises began) the house, senate, and president were all democrats?

        OK. Sure.

      • Kevin D. Williamson

        I’m not blaming them for the financial crisis; I’m blaming them for their fiscal incontinence.

      • Mark Nolan

        Oh… you mean the “housing bubble” *crisis* that ACTUALLY started with the policies of the Clinton Administration by easing regulations on home loans so that more people could borrow money to buy homes? THAT crisis? Oh… But since it happened before Nero got into office, it HAD to be Bush’s fault, right? Typical!

      • astonerii

        it was Bush’s fault. In 2002 he already knew there was trouble, but it was too much work for him to fix it. Instead, he had to spend his time incompetently fighting wars.

      • mom2ads

        Thanks to Charlie Rangel preventing him from fixing it… which, Charlie Rangel now admits was ‘a mistake on my part’….

      • SineWaveII

        He voiced his concern to congress many times. The repubs didn’t have enough votes in the senate so they needed democrat votes to do anything. Barney Frank in the house and Chris Dodd in the senate refused to take any action. They called it an attempt to stop minority home ownership and that it was racist. The democrats own that too.

      • GWB had the house and the senate for years and could not reverse those policies? That is because he supported them.

      • sickofdems

        Are you really that fukking stupid and ignorant of history?

      • tomgnh

        Thank you for the depth of your logic and reasoning..

      • SineWaveII

        Yes he is

      • John

        actually you appear to be. While the Clinton administration ( housing bubble) contributed to the collapse so did a number of other contributing factors starting prior to that administration (actually going back to the Carter administration). However GWB was aware of the situation and was given alternatives to alleviate and lessen the impact .. none of which included putting two wars on a credit card, taking the first loan from china, or emptying the Social Security Trust fund under the emergency powers act. BTW the loan from the SSTF was not included in the budget from his administration however was included in the one for the Obama administration (odd since it was prior to his term). All this information is actually publicly available

      • chasrmartin

        Dude, the SS Trust Fund was empties by LBJ. That’s when FICEA receipts started going to the General Fund.

      • John

        Actually that was the first time it was emptied the second time was under GWB – sorry if you missed it I will give Ronnie credit he did put part of a repayment plan in place as did Clinton on repaying SSTF. I was only going back to Carter in relation to the current mess. However if you would like to go back further we can.

      • chasrmartin

        You can’t empty something twice. It was empties by LBJ and become basically nothing but IOUs. And I don’t think you’re going to be well rewarded by going back further. You wouldn’t actually be well-rewarded by trying to push too hard on the “Bush did it” theme either, since the debt doubled through budgets can continuing resolutions signed by Obama.

      • John

        actually you can when it is being replace ( re: Ronald, GWHB, Billy boy did manage to get money back in to it … oh wait you seem to have missed that even though I did mention it already ) as for the doubling of the debt I guess you missed the consolidation of both the SSTF and the first loan from China being rolled in to Obama administration even though they both occurred PRIOR to his administration. under GWB they were kept separate. Also regarding budgets and continuing resolutions please see my post much earlier in the thread.

        Now do I think Obama is great .. no .. as a matter of fact I have a great deal of issues with him. However I will only lay at his door what belongs to him… I lay at congress’s door what belongs to them .. same with past administrations.

      • chasrmartin

        Well, no. Barney Frank was quite proud the Democrats had fended off every attempt to get them under control.

      • SineWaveII

        You know what happened in 2007 Erik? The democrats took control of both houses of congress with large majorities. The downturn was created by the democrats.

      • the hypocritical left is still blaming a man who was in the White House 6 years ago for the problems of 2014.
        So yeah, it can go both ways, bucko.

      • Way to chime into a 5 month old conversation bucko.

      • Mike Metroulas

        Cold War

      • V the K

        I would add that Obama’s smallest deficit… $700B … is still larger than any prior deficit under any previous president. It is nothing to brag about.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        hey scumbag,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, got any IDEAS which are constructive??? NO?? Hmmmm,,,,, U are a regressive crybaby republican!

      • V the K

        Is it possible for leftists to argue without childish name-calling? Or is that all you can bring?

      • regressive rightwing trash

        my overbearing inquiry remains

      • V the K

        And if I am approached by an adult wishing to have a serious and respectful discussion about reducing the deficit, I should be happy to engage him.

      • Here’s a constructive idea–get an education. Learn how to properly use commas, capitalization, the word “you”, and learn how to properly use question marks.
        Also, lose the name-calling leftist mentality, because all it does is make you and your hypocritical party look worse than they already do.
        So yeah… there’s an idea, and it’s even constructive.

      • Sam Gompers

        Deficits have shrunk under Boehner.

        Deficits exploded under Pelosi.

      • jayjay4142

        Pelosi was speaker until 2010 and the deficit was part of the leftover mess that Bush left us. Boehner was fortunate enough to flourish due to the few policies that the Democrats could get through with the idiot Tea Baggers blocking everything.

      • The deficit under the remainder of the Bush Years (2007-2008) was actually caused by the Democrat-controlled congress. Boehner was able to flourish because they finally were able to take part of Congress back–in 2010, no less.
        not a coincidence, BTW.

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        You mean deficits have shrunk under Obama.

      • People Corporation

        No, because Harry (the pederast) Reid hasn’t brought any house budget up for a vote in the past 5 years. Even though he is required to pass a budget each ONE year. So republicans are forced to either pass a continuing resolution, continuing to spend at twice the rate in which the feds earn, or let the government shut down and be somehow accused of “HOLDING AMERICA HOSTAGE!!!111. Right? Librtard. Isn’t that how it actually has gone down for 5 years in a row? And isn’t that how democrats have added more to the national debt than all the past presidents combined in 5 years.

      • White Tigers

        Yet the republicans could also choose to Work with other views and reach a consensus. Neither party is blameless, they reflect U.S. Citizens polarization. Both “sides” choose to hate the other, rather then find common ground, and build from there. Those who refuse to compromise to better the country only serve to divide and destroy the country.

      • Shawn

        Exactly, just take a look at this comment thread! It’s a bunch of hate and finger-pointing with people on both sides refusing to accept partial blame for anything. Like you said, no side is blameless, no side is perfect. Most Americans are moderates with ideas in both camps, maybe its time for the government, or at least certain solutions to our various problems, to start reflecting that.

      • People Corporation

        Because when R’s do something wrong, it’s R’s fault. And when dems royally screw up and destroy the healthcare industry or destroy the housing industry it’s “shared” blame (or R’s fault still, depending on which kook is talking). Sorry dumbocrats, you own this 6 trillion dollar deficit (with noting to show for it but 5 years of depression) and destroyed health care industry in one presidential term lock stock and barrel.

        When you had both houses, it was your mission to destroy the US economy in order to blame Bush and win the WH, and you succeeded, the economy started its downhill spiral in 2007, but then when Ogabe won the WH, you forgot to stop destroying. And now you claim its all “shared” blame. Sorry, you’re not fooling me, and/or many others who happen to have a memory greater than that of a goldfish.

      • SineWaveII

        They did that in January. They raised taxes on the rich and cut spending a little. They were supposed to cut more but the democrats weaseled out of their end of the bargain. Like they always do. And that is what the democrats always do. That’s why you can’t enter into any bargain with the democrats.

        We’re still waiting for the democrats to keep the amnesty bargain they made with Ronald Reagan. That’s why they aren’t getting another amnesty. Because they didn’t keep their word on the last one.

      • Steve Hughes

        What country are you from TeaTard? DUBYA ( yer hero) attacked 2 countries that did NOTHING to us on 9-11, remember? Then in True CON-servative Fashion, he puts the Bill on the U.S. CREDIT CARD. Typical TEApublican strategy…..Obama gets the entire F**king Bill form Dubya, the killing of 150,000 INNOCENT Iraqis for GOP Shits and Grins was added on as a Freebie and here we are.

      • People Corporation

        Better check the roll call votes on that Libtard. Oh I forgot, Bushitler LIED!! Yeah thats the ticket! You were somehow duped by the dumbest guy ever. Nevermind that there are ten years worth of democrat quotes on WMD’s prior to him getting in office. Or that every time a funding vote came up for that “illegal” war dumbocrats couldn’t vote for it quick enough. (pork is a strong inducement).

        Remember the time Kucinich tried defunding? You don’t, just as a gold fish doesn’t remember ten minutes ago. He had to pull a special rules loophole to even get it to a vote, and the MAJORITY democrat house ran from that bill faster than Bill Clinton from a rape scene.

      • Steve Hughes

        This entire country was duped by that TexAss CON-servative. Held up High as a TEApublican Icon, right there next to Ronnie. I notice you didn’t touch on anything I said. Hey TeaTard, Democrats were Supporting the President after the worst attack in U.S. history, something TeaTards don’t understand. TeaTards only support whack jobs that have a hard on to screw over the poorest Americans while Throwing Trillions at Big Business as if they actually need it. They didn’t expect Dubya to pull a TexAss sized LIE out of his ass. Gee lets see, Rumsfeld announces on national TV that they have ‘misplaced 2.1 TRILLION Dollars, we CAN’T find it.’ CON-servative indeed. If any of this is too hard for you just Google it. This being said on 9-10-2001. Then the missle, OOPS, I mean plane that hits the pentagon Just Happens to hit the exact Side, the Exact Floor and the Exact office in the building where all the records of that missing money was. Poof! You’re in over your head, and in True TEApublican fashion you are a coward, you won’t look into the facts of 9-11, you too Chicken Shit to actually question the Bullshit that Dubya and the CON-servatives ofered up as “truth.” Time to call me some names and don’t forget, stay away from Facts.

      • People Corporation

        Calm down. I know things are tough in Libtardia as of late, what with Ogabe of Kenya cratering in the polls, civil war in the party, and half the dems in full on panic, and rightly so, and about to lose the Senate, maybe by a supermajority, 3/4ths of the population about to despise you for life when 90 million lose their health care. When only last month the Libtards were gleefully claiming that the R’s would never win another election. Thats what makes this so damn amusing.

        Things might turn around for you in a decade or so. Or not. It was a good run, unfortunately socialism always fails. But you never learn, because you can’t. Retards can’t learn, thats why your kind are retards 🙂

      • jayjay4142

        Dream on Jim. You people are running scared that is why you are so big on gerrymandering and taking away peoples right to vote and so far the only voter fraud that has been found has been those voting for Republicans.

      • the only people that we want to keep from voting are dead people and people who shouldn’t be here anyways (read: 12 million+ illegal immigrants).
        That’s why things like Voter ID laws make the hypocritical left tremble in their crocs.

      • jayjay4142

        He might have been dumb but he did whatever Cheney , Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld told him to do. The most evil men on the planet. They should have been tried for war crimes.

      • concreteblue

        ” And isn’t that how
        democrats have added more to the national debt than all the past
        presidents combined in 5 years.” And you have the nerve to append an
        invective with “tard” when you get all your facts from FLush Rimjob?

        THe total debt of the country when Mr. Obama took office was
        approximately 10.7 trillion. At the end of 2012 it stands at 16.5
        trillion. Nowhere near “all presidents combined, but to be expected from
        a CONservative.
        I suggest you turn off the tv and radio, and read a book.
        w w w . skymachines “dot” com/US-…

      • jimb82

        Not sure where you got that $10.7 trillion number, but it’s probably pretty close. At end of FY2008, it was right at $10 trillion, a little above or below depending upon whether you use OMB’s or the Treasury’s numbers (seems like they could agree on the same number, since they both work for the Executive Branch, but whatever).

        What Jim should have said is that by the end of President Obama’s second term, four months into FY2017, national debt would have doubled under Obama, which makes him a bigger spender than all the other 42 Presidents combined (Grover Cleveland counts once). But for the debt ceiling deal last year and the sequester, that would probably have been true. Now, I’m not so sure. We may end the Obama presidency with around $18-19 trillion debt.

        In the larger picture, though, that is shameful and unprecedented. What do we have to show for it? Can our children and grandchildren repay it? It’s obscene.

      • jayjay4142

        Even if what you said was true (which is not) It is still better than the planet that your party will be leaving them. The oil companies will be destroying the clean water supply and the energy companies the air, and the lack of regulations on corporations will destroy our safe food supply. They have already destroyed unions. Now on the table is doing away with the minimum wage and child labor laws. So it is back to the days of Tiny Tim and Bob Cratchett. If you cut your arm off at work due to lack of safety regulations then you get fired for being careless.
        I think these things are going to be far more important to our children than the debt. But you keep on pushing those ideas and hope they never find out just which party grandpa voted for.

      • jimb82

        You’re trying to change the subject. That’s what leftists do when confronted by facts. Start calling names next – that’s usually your next move. Then end with racism.

      • jayjay4142

        If I go out and start a housing project and charge the materials to the credit card then sell you the business but forget to tell you just how much is not paid for then whose fault is it that you didn’t disclose the amount on the credit card. Bush had Trillions in debt on the credit card that he did not put on it. They lost 2.7 trillion dollars that they didn’t know where it went. The papers that would have substantiated that were destroyed in the Pentagon on 9/11.

      • jayjay4142

        No I leave the name calling and accusations with no facts up to you Tea Party people . You are so very good at it. I think your hero Rush does a better job than anyone I know. While he was making fun of Clinton saying he didn’t inhale he was shipping illegal drugs from South America. This is your party live with it.

      • Mr. Fever Head

        Well, let’s look back at the Federal Budgets produced between 2008 and now…hmmmmm…doesn’t seem to be any. Odd, I wonder why?

      • Walknot

        As long as the Senate continues to force continuing resolutions every year, the President gets to keep his $870B slush fund which is what his is using to prop-up the stock market via the Fed.

      • SineWaveII

        Yes and no. The republicans passed two budgets that cut spending. They are both on Harry Reid’s desk in the democrat controlled senate awaiting a vote. They have been blocked by the democrats in the senate. Yet in spite of that the republicans in the house have been able to apply enough pressure to bring down spending a little. And of course Obama takes the credit for it.

    • Sheareader

      Presidents propose budgets and are the leaders of their party, as well as the country. We do hold Presidents responsible, in many cases, for what Congress does. That’s if it does anything.

      • Presidents didn’t start proposing budgets until 1921, prior to which they merely made specific requests of the Congress and then either signed, vetoed, or pocket vetoed the resulting budget.

      • Anon

        The financial conversation here is talking about things that happened since the 50’s so your point is kinda moot.

      • Mr. Fever Head

        There hasn’t been a budget in 6 years so your point is kind of moot.

      • The POINT being that the President is NOT required by the Constitution to submit a budget at all. Congress is the branch charged with budget matters by the Constitution.


      • SineWaveII

        Yes and Reagan’s proposed budgets were always voted down by the democrats and replaced with budgets with much higher spending. So how is that Reagan’s fault?

        On the flip side Obama’s proposed budgets have never netted a single vote (not even democrats will vote for it). So congress pass the CR instead because it’s the only thing both houses agree on and it’s still smaller than Obama’s budgets. If Obama’s budgets had been passed the deficit would be up to 1.75 trillion by now.

      • Sheareader

        Reagan had a Republican Senate for 3 of his 4 Congressional terms. But let’s get real. Reagan was the ass who began the policies of taxing the middle class and cutting taxes on the wealthy–his idiotic “trickle down” policy. The Progressives ‘#1 priority is getting rid of the vestiges of that disaster and rebuilding the middle class. As to your second point, no Congress has passed a Presidential budget without changing it–ever. And Presidents propose budget items knowing they will be cut, out or down. If we hadn’t elected (by a strong majority) President Obama, we’d have gone from recession to depression. You want to brag about what Republicans have done under Obama? They’ve done nothing. The worst do-nothing sessions of all time. And what would have passed without the Republican’s rule changing super-majority vote? Jobs bills. Fair pay law. Expanded background checks for firearms. The First Responders and Teachers Back to Work bill. Restoration of student loan assistance. It’s a dirty joke, as is. My credit cards have lower interest rates than student loans do. All of these and more would have passed with a simple majority vote.

      • mouse31

        That’s truly incredible. Reagan “began the policies of taxing the middle class and cutting taxes on the wealthy?” Just… Wow… Reagan’s tax plan cut taxes for everyone. Across the board cuts in every bracket. The top rate went from 70% to 50% then later down to 28% and the bottom rate went from 14% to 11%. Seriously, do two minutes of actual research before posting. You’ll look less idiotic.

      • Warren Hanes

        -“top rate went from 70%… down to 28 and the bottom rate went from 14% to 11%.”

        And you think that did not shift the burden to the poor and middle class? lol
        You don’t even understand basic math. Keep trying and maybe one day you might grow a brain.

    • Well Said.

    • HollywoodF1

      Some skillful point-dodging there. Have you considered a career in politics? I have other things to do, so I won’t point-by-point you, but re. the first two– the President has no veto power in your world. He could have stopped it, but he didn’t. In my job, if I don’t stop people from doing things I disagree with, I own their decisions. And #3– tread lightly; that’s a Leftist response.

      • Mr. Fever Head

        You’re wrong and point-dodging but I have other things to do than refute you?

        Irony overload!

      • Shawn

        That’s a good point. While the President doesn’t write the budget he DOES have to approve it. He DOES have to approve and decide whether or not to veto certain laws. The guy you’re responding to made some good points, but not all of them were particularly honest either.

      • SineWaveII

        If he vetoes the budget the government shuts down.

      • SineWaveII

        Yes and you know what happens when a president vetoes a budget? The government shuts down. Remember that horrible crime that only lowlifes engage in?

    • June Clinkenbeard


    • texbarb

      Out freaking standing reply Kevin! All facts!

    • The Bible states that we are to both submit to and pay our taxes to our government because the Government – like anything else – is assigned by God. (Romans, Chapter 13.) This is not conditional to the type of government or the officials themselves. It was written at a point in time when the government was not in any shape or for Christian, by a man who was legally able to persecute early Christians. The idea is that God, not the law, ordains government to do his will, and we should pay them accordingly. It is NOT a matter of taking your wealth against your will. Christians are commanded to pay their taxes as a matter of obedience because we as a people should not be overly attached to such material matters anyway. This Biblical directive comes straight from Saint John – so your answer to #10 is invalid and a blatant misinterpretation of scripture for your own financial interests… which, incidentally, is also against what Jesus taught. He was very specific that to follow him correctly, we have to give up our attachment to money and aspire instead to take care of one another. (Matthew 6.)

      As long as you serve money, you cannot serve God.

      IF we are to consider ourselves a Christian nation, (which we’re not, but I’ll get to that in a second,) we can never put money above humanity, which undercutting social programs for the most needy most certainly does.

      And since we’re on the subject, the Founding Fathers had no interest in dictating the religious morality of America. They clearly stated in the Treaty of Tripoli that this country was “not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” This blows your answer to #8 out of the water as well.

      But regardless of the status of our government, our directives as Christians are crystal clear. We are to pay our taxes anyway. When our leaders DO the will of God (taking care of the needy, healing the sick, etc.) no Christian who earnestly believes in the directive of Christ would fight to save money at the expense of another human being. If they do, then, per Matthew 25, they are goats among sheep.

      • And notice that I can counter your point without insulting you in the process. That, too, is a Christian directive.

      • MarkJansen736

        The absence of a profane insult from a Progressive is especially appreciated as it is so rare.

      • Jamie Howard

        Allow me to. I am a secular humanist;)

      • MarkJansen736

        Those same Founders, when enacting the Northwest Ordinance in 1787, had this to say about the role of religion in education and thus public policy:

        “Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to
        good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

      • And what was (were) the religion they practiced to influence their policies?

      • Abiss

        So by creating an ever larger dependent class, you’re serving ‘God?’ By stripping away the basic human dignity of ‘work’, you serve God? By taking away by force, the gain that comes from an individual’s efforts – you’re serving ‘God’? By subverting God-given individual liberty you serve God? By ‘utilizing’ scripture in service to your political goals, you’re serving God?

        Finally, as a curiosity question – have you given everything away to the poor, or are you too still ‘serving money?’ I ask because I notice you still have a computer.

      • Jamie Howard

        Abiss, likely not your intention, but you validated my point exactly. Even the most well intended, charity minded among us often fall short which is why social safety nets are a good thing to have in a society. So since Ms. Voight is not selling her computer any time soon to feed the needy, I am glad there are safety nets, though meager. Also never assume. Ms. Voight may well be at a computer at the library for all you know;).

        Further, are you not overstating a bit when you say that social safety nets take away from dignity and biblical prescriptions of work? I would say that the current job trends takes away more dignity than anything. To say a dependent class has been created due to people wanting meager handouts is making quite a leap. Rather I would argue (again) that a record lack of job opportunity, zero upward mobility, increased cost of living, and a laughable wage structure contribute more to a dependent class than anything. The handouts (as you call them) are a natural out cropping of such conditions (and these are stats you can look up at your own discretion if you care to do so).

        As well be mindful that the “bible” was written long ago when people worked using their hands and prosperity relied much on one’s own motivation and actual “work” (that and how many sons you had;). Today you hope to get hired to sit in a cubicle and push paper around doing an ill defined, usually useless job. It is not necessarily pure work ethics that gets you anywhere . Apples to orangutans.

      • Jesus didn’t leave charity to the government, and neither should we. But let’s be honest… charity alone is insufficient. In fact, charity and social programs together are insufficient, because human need is too dire. But which should a Christian vote to spend their tax money when they have a chance? Social programs? Or corporate subsidies that pad the pockets of the rich on the backs of the poor? We’re instructed to pay our taxes either way, the type of government and the amount of taxes are irrelevant. There is no Biblical argument – anywhere – that any Christian can use to justify the desire to undercut the least among us. This isn’t about creating a “dependent” class. Our insistence on a “trickle-down” economy has already done that. Between 1979 and 2007, the richest 1% saw their income rise more than 280%, while those of us in the middle class only saw a 25% rise. That proves that Republican economic policy doesn’t work except for the richest among us, leaving the rest of us to scramble and *help each other.*

        And as for my computer, I am self-employed and use my computer and Internet connection to work, which I do 12-18 hours a day to pay said taxes, tithes AND charity.

        You may want to reconsider your argument on policy/theology if you have to employ the ad hominem fallacy to make your point. Your thoughts should stand on their own without attacking something about your opponent.

      • f2000

        In general, I think you are correct about Jesus’ commandment to submit to our government, but to apply it in the way you have is simply incorrect. Government welfare is simply no replacement for charity, both in physical and spiritual effect. In fact substituting the government for personal giving is proven to be spiritually harmful.

        Christians do not fight to save money for their own personal use, but to encourage personal giving and to prevent others from suffering the spiritually corrupting effects of government dependence. Arguing that any refusal to support governemnt confiscation of wealth is greed is overly simplistic at best, if not outright dishonest.

      • f2000

        Well, some Christians anyway, if they’re going about it right.

      • Jamie Howard

        I hear what you are saying and have mulled this one over time and again. I worry though, without some form of government social services, how many among us would be charitable.

      • John Morris

        Open your history book. Prior to embarking on the Progressive experiment there was plenty of ‘social services’ and charity in the US. It just wasn’t done with tax money.

        More importantly, we have had a welfare state long enough now to judge the experiment. Is the condition of the poor better or worse than fifty or a hundred years ago? I say worse, they now live shattered lives of desperation in utter depravity and dependence. Ok, they get access to iPhones now, poor trade for a massive loss of upward mobility and hope in general.

      • Jamie Howard

        Mr. Morris. I am not sure what you are asking of me. What non governmental “social service” is documented in a history book and what monies were used to fund these services? Are you talking about from religious organizations (sham) or what? Why don’t you just tell me what you are referring to and what coffers said monies were derived? No need for the mystery.

        Further I could argue that the current state of our problems, lack of upward mobility and such as you mentioned, has to do with capitalism gone amok combined the back bone of pure greed, misplaced values.. (among others). Mr. Morris you do not have to look into a history book to find this out-just look at inflation vs. cost of living for a real life example.

        Perhaps you are a religious man b/c you used the word depravity. Does the Bible not say that man is depraved and that as we spiral toward the return of Christ all things will get worse (in a nut shell). Not saying I believe this, but just saying;). If this is the case you should not be surprised.

        What are you talking about I-phones? Again the phantom welfare queen all blinged out;). First the phone program for which I believe you are referring started under Clinton and continued with Bush and now with Obama. As well it is low end phones with limited minutes. Mr. Morris I worked in social services for a decade and the individuals on my case loads receiving food stamps often worked two jobs to make ends meet. I am not saying cheating does not exist, it most certainly does, but in my experience the people receiving benefits merely did not make enough to make ends meet.

        I believe you should take a look at Wall Street and corporate bail outs if you want to see some real depravity:) but then again seeing how you get bent out of shape when you erroneously thought people on welfare also received iphones I fear you may have a heart attack when you see the monies they made off with like bandits. Also what about employers who do not pay a living wage? Does that not pose a societal problem-see Wal-Mart and friends. Essentially we all subsidize companies like this who do not pay their employees.

        We have all sold ourselves out to greed, that is a poor trade IMO.

      • Abiss

        Oh – the Treaty of Tripoli was in effect for a little over 4 years, made with Muslim pirates who were having a severe impact on our ability to trade in that part of the world. Those pirates would not make a treaty with infidels, hence the language of said treaty. Beyond that, most have never heard of this treaty, and few of those who have understand anything about its context. There is no one on the planet however – who’s either ignorant of it, heard of it, or knowledgeable about it – that would argue it is one of America’s “Founding Documents.” To argue as though it were, is disingenuous. Were you serving God with your answer?

      • Dave

        Even more important, the language quoted was not in the version of the treaty that was ratified by the Senate, but, meh, details and facts. when’s the last time a Prog cared about either?

      • jimb82

        We can agree that, as Christians, we have a duty to perform charitable works to help others.

        We could agree with other people who believe as we do that it is more efficient and effective to have government do that work for us, because we are not experts. I submit that Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army, just to name two examples, do a far better job than government, but be that as it may, we could agree that we will let government tax us to redistribute our income to others more in need.

        But when we start using the police power of government to tax our neighbor to contribute to our charitable works, Christ has nothing to do with it.

        And when the recipients of the charity have the ability to vote to use the police power of government to tax others to give “charity” to them, that is so far from a Christian scheme that it is almost blasphemous to call the redistributive work of government Godly.

      • John Morris

        I’d go further. I’d say anyone claiming such a scheme is Godly is Bearing False Witness. If bearing false witness against a neighbor makes God’s Top Ten List of naughty things to do, I suspect bearing false Witness against His Word is at least equally sinful.

      • Greg Toombs

        “As long as you serve money, you cannot serve God.”

        And, clearly, our political class is not serving God either, as they are all about money: taxing, borrowing, spending, fundraising and bribery.

        I wonder if the Devil got hold of our political apparatus some time ago.

      • John Morris

        Those arguments of consenting to the laws of Men apply to kings and other autocratic forms of government, not to the Republic we had. When the State’s power derives from the Consent of the Governed you (as in YOU, the person in the voting booth punching the D button) may not morally use the power of the State to do things that are sinful when done personally. Thus if you are bound by Thou Shalt Not Covert or Steal thy neighbor’s goods you may not vote to have the State do the Stealing for you.

    • Chuckles Hotzenpfeff

      #11: What fucking planet are you on?

    • Fairy Larry

      Since Roastin Ronnie’s piss down my leg shit came into being the top 2% income has increased 280+%. The middle class income in that same time period has increased 18%,while the working poor only 11%.
      They have been redistributing the wealth from the middle class to the bloated immoral filthy rich
      The only boats the rising tide lifted were the yachts in the middle of the bay. The middle classes boats were in the canals and the level was being manipulated by the filthy fu**en rich on their yachts in the bay remember. The poor,well the poor were in dry dock and never even got wet.
      No one is buying that giving to the rich benefits society in anyway. You know why we are no longer buying it? Because over the past 30 yrs our economy has tanked but the stock market has soared and the rich have gotten filthy.
      We are investing in guillotines to take the heads off the Capitalistic Kings.Elizabeth Warren is taking out banks and working on putting bankers in prison and Walmart is causing an uprising of the ppl.
      The rich should be afraid,very afraid. Their days are numbered….gonna use their blood to fuel our socialistic society.

      • Bowdoin81

        I was low income in 1982. I rose into the middle class a few years later. People in my age cohort moved up to the upper income levels. Your stats give the impression actual people do not rise or fall from lower to higher or higher to lower income levels.

      • steves_59

        Hate much? Bring it on.

    • Robert C. Deschene

      Sorry Kevin, you’re dead wrong about No. 10:

      Mark 10:21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

      Luke 12:33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

      And let’s not forget that Jesus’ overall view of material wealth is shameful:

      Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.

      So, no matter how you try to slice it politically, to be rich is not Christ-like.

      • realityman

        So you argue that this is in no way a christian country, but then demand that everyone do the christian thing and sell everything they have to give to democrat chosen “groups”.

        Can we pick one or the other here? I would imagine those biblical quotes don’t extend toward questions like abortion.

      • alanstorm

        You didn’t actually read the response to Incoherent Talking Point #10, did you? Nowhere does Kevin say that ” to be rich is not Christ-like.” Also, your own examples indicate that Jesus preached that his followers should practice chariy as individuals, not to outsource it to the State.

        But then, I don’t expect reading comprehension from liberals. After all, the blog is called “Forward Progressives”, which is two lies in two words. Moving backwards towards an all-powerful government, one of the oldest political arrangements in existence, isn’t going “forward” and does not resemble “progress”.

      • Mr. Fever Head

        Missed the part where Jesus said to use the State to force men to give charity. My bible must be broken.

      • SineWaveII

        I’m sorry I must have missed the part where Jesus said. “Now go accumulate much wealth to yourself and live a life equal to the Ceasars, and remember that you deserve it for you talk endlessly about helping the poor and you support people who would rob those who have less than you. Blessed you are for you see that charity means being rich yourself while advocating the theft of the wealth of others to help the poor and the sick.”

        I’ve checked and that’s not in there. Instead he says that each individual is to VOLUNTARILY give away their OWN wealth to the poor and sick.

        It isn’t Christian charity when you give away my money. Try giving away your own for a change. Where is Obama right now? He’s at a fundraiser of the rich for the benefit of the rich and he’s rich himself. The people of the left are hypocrites.

    • Robert C. Deschene

      Oh, and as for No.8, it doesn’t matter if the majority of a nation population happens to be of a particular, if it’s not explicitly stated that a nation belongs to religion, then no faith can lawfully claim it. So, if anything, the only people that have the a dilemma of “Freedom of Religion” are those who do not consider themselves religious. Everything else is constitutionally fair game Christian and NON-Christian faiths a like.

    • Steve Hughes

      Typical TEApublican CON-servative answer.Obviously RayGun had NOTHING to do with his ABYSMAL Record. It’s ALWAYS gonna be ‘someone else’ that did it.

      • SineWaveII

        Just like Obama has nothing to do with his even more ABYSMAL Record. It’s ALWAYS gonna be ‘someone else’ that did it.

      • soxfan4evah

        Turned around a worse economy than Obama inherited and created the longest run of peacetime prosperity in our history. Complete failure in your eyes speaks volumes on your character, and it’s not good.

    • AbbeyRoadkill

      That is so replete with simple factual errors, I’d be here all day trying to correct them. Read a history book.

      • Roger Misbach

        yet you didn’t spend 5 minutes disputing at least 1?

      • Shawn

        Right, if you feel so strongly about something why not submit your opinion rather than merely telling us to “read a history book”. Admittedly, he may not wish to submit an opinion due to the vitriolic nature of political discourse. I can respect that.

      • alanstorm

        Kevin did – which is why he has answers where you have none.

        Thanks for playing!

    • MarkJansen736

      Kevin Williamson delivers one epic a$s whupping. Can anyone play?

      10. If Jesus spent his life helping the poor and the needy, how does it make sense that a party which claims to be for “Christian values” continues to cut funding for programs that help the poor and the needy?

      Answer: Jesus also spent his life laying out a firm code of morality and behavior which the progressive left treats like a visit to a salad bar as it suits their appetites and political purposes– give me a little taste of this but none of that.

      • tomgnh

        And yet Jesus said “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” and “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”

        You sound a little more judgmental than the Jesus I worship.

      • Mr. Fever Head

        What about casting the second stone?

      • tomgnh

        I’m not sure “piling on” is a Christian virtue.

      • Mr. Fever Head

        “You sound a little more judgmental than the Jesus I worship.” Sounds a lot like a stone being thrown.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        or receiving a bigger stone back at ya???

      • Millie Tyler

        There is a difference between “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” Mt. 7:1 and (notice at the end of Kevin D. Williamson’s comment) “By their fruit shall ye know them” Mt. 7:20
        Jesus said, “..the bad tree bears bad fruit.” (Think abortion for instance.) We’re told not to judge but that we can know what kind of people we’re dealing with without judging them.

      • Jamie Howard

        What? Please decode? Are you saying judge the children based on the acts of the parents? We are all depraved Millie. All.

      • Millie Tyler

        No, not at all. Follow the thread back. I was referring to references made concerning a liberal’s inquisitiveness regarding their inability to square the Christian conservative values of giving to the poor as Jesus taught and (question #10) voting to reduce increases in expenditures for the poor. Some considered that judgmental while others considered that as “know them by their fruits”. Read Matthew 7:15-20 “Fruits” is used by Jesus as deeds and actions of a person, not the children they produce although I can see why you would have taken it that way.
        Jesus was saying that if someone does evil things (bad fruit) then we know what kind of person he or she is. We can know what kind of person is in leadership over us by their deeds without judging them.
        I do not consider myself depraved Jamie.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        hey C*NT——— if that’s ur example of bad fruit allow my impediment her: kids born to underage moms and now in a family(??) which cannot afford them,,,, cannot feed them ETC so these KIDS have not the chance of other kids: ergo a larger potential for engaging in poor selections of behavior( IE drugs/ gangs/ crime ET AL),,, also– “fruit”?? how about white trash scumbags bemoaning “entitlement” spending yet (of course) crying the LOUDEST when THEY need medicare or SS benefits or THEIR white trash state get crushed by a natural disaster??? and they NEVER ever CRY about HUGE corporations avoiding any /all taxes with the ubiquitious help of overpaid lobbyists and accountants HIDING the money in other countries while the 50K per year employees they overwork pay a much larger tax rate……..wanna comment on FRUIT now? U myopic FOX “news” watching urchin?

      • Millie Tyler

        Thank you for providing such a perfect example.

      • Erik Martin

        Some people like to remember that Jesus said “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” while forgetting that the next thing he said was, “go now and sin no more.”

      • White Tigers

        And had she been brought back due to a similar situtation, would Jesus have condemned her the second time? Or would he reserve Judgement until she has shuffled off this mortal coil. Jesus acted tolerant, because while the rules set forth in the Old Testament were strict, the way that man chooses to use them is wrong. It is our place to choose to associate with those that share similar beliefs and to be compassionate to those that don’t in the hopes that our example of how to live a good life by treating everyone as we would like to be treated would show them the errors of their ways and allow them to redeem themselves. No one can redeem another person, that is their choice. You cannot force choice on others, or it is no longer a choice.

      • tomgnh

        So one’s behavior is to be good, but it is not the place of others to judge- right?

        By the way, do you eat shellfish? Pork?

      • reinzig

        Huh? The progressive left subscribes to “give me a little taste of this but none of that”? You mean like “the bible says it’s wrong to be gay” while mentioning nothing about the hundred other things that the bible similarly condemns mightily (shellfish, mixed fibers, adultery, I could go on….)?

      • Henry Chapman

        Naturally, you confuse the Old Testament with the New Testament, where Christ described the New Covenant.

        Do cite the the chapter and verse of the New Testament where Christ endorses anal sodomy and abortion?

      • tomgnh

        Or capitalism; or lending money at interest…

      • Burn_the_Witch

        Cite the chapter and verse that prohibits those.

      • John Morris

        I don’t know the chapter and verse but I do know lending money at interest is forbidden within the Tribes of Israel. Lending to outsiders was enough of a ‘grey area’ to allow European Jews to become rich from the practice.

        As time goes on I realize the wisdom of the prohibition and wonder if it shouldn’t be revisited and applied more generally. Doubly do when combined with fractional reserve banking. I’m personally an agnostic but gotta give props; inspired or just wise old coots, those old Hebrews were right a lot more often than they were wrong when they were laying down laws. It wasn’t blind chance that resulted in most of the developed world still using most of their rulebook thousands of years later.

      • Wayne Moore

        There is a difference between laws given by God, and laws given by prophets, such as Moses.

        Moses gave laws to keep order in society and keep things from falling apart. He was basically a dictator who had a direct line to God, and was trying to keep a mob of rowdy Israelites alive in a wilderness.
        The fact that he managed it for forty years says a lot!

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        You’ve never read the sermon on the mount? Really? lol

        Jesus says he did not come to overturn the old laws, but to fulfill them. So, according to Jesus, all those draconian laws from the Old Testament are still operative.

        Wow, the ignorance of Repubs is stunning.

      • Wayne Moore

        “Jesus says he did not come to overturn the old laws, but to fulfill them. So, according to Jesus, all those draconian laws from the Old Testament are still operative.”

        Only certain laws; Those given by God.
        He overturned Mosaic law because it had become more important to the people than God’s laws.

      • Waynus

        Lets just remove the old testament from the bible then?

      • Joenuff

        So the Old testament is not condoned by christianity? because murder, slavery and polygamy are rife. And it is upon that foundation the books about the time of Jesus are laid. Please cite where Jesus himself opposes homosexuality or says to disregard ALL of Leviticus. because if you hold it up as a reason for opposing homosexuality you must also embrace capital punishment for adultery, and slavery.

      • John Morris

        Sad. “…because if you hold it up as a reason for opposing homosexuality you
        must also embrace capital punishment for adultery, and slavery.”

        Really, do try harder. Most conservatives do oppose adultery; the left is the ones who embarked on legitimizing and popularizing it as part of their War on Tradition. Whether they would support capital punishment for it is a different question but at that point we are down to arguing a matter of degree of punishment. In a secular Republic like we were originally given even the most religious understands not every law will be directly taken from their version of scripture.

        And yes, the bible lays down laws regarding slavery, both for slave and master; as it lays down laws for every other aspect of life at the time it would be remarkable by its absence. But I don’t think (might be wrong, I’m rather agnostic) it REQUIRES the practice. So there is no conflict between current Western Civ practice to universally outlaw the custom and the bible.

      • John

        show me where he mentions it at all actually. He doesn’t. Also if we go through the old Testament and correct the mistranslations you might find the meaning of confusion in place of abomination ..

      • Mike

        We learn in the 4th chapter of Acts (32-37) that the apostles – the people that actually knew and lived with Jesus – lived this way after his death: 32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. 33 With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35 They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.”

        I wonder why more people who profess Christianity don’t live that way?

      • tomgnh

        How can a Christian also accept Ayn Rand?

      • Wayne Moore

        Because Ayn Rand was all about personal choice, and not compelling anybody else to do anything that was not in his own interest.
        Jesus was all about personal choice and not compelling anybody else to do anything that was not in his own interest.

        They both clearly stated that people must live with the consequences of their decisions, and nobody else bore responsibility for pulling their nuts out of the fire if they made poor ones.

      • Henry Chapman

        For the same reason “more people who profess Christianity” aren’t Galilean fisherman?

      • me

        One of the most reprehensible things Marxists do is to use the Bible to justify charity by force. Mike commits this exact crime against the truth by not reading far enough. The VERY NEXT CHAPTER of Acts describes how Ananias and Sapphira sold land, gave part of the money to the church, kept back some, but said they gave all. Before they were struck dead for lying, Peter said “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control?” They were not forced to give in any way.

        Paul said regarding charity (2 Corinthians 9:7) “Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”

        If you liberals want to justify your theft to buy votes, use your own Marxist ideology. May I suggest “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”? But stop using the Bible. You know, the one that says “Thou shalt not steal”.

      • Hyrule

        Because using our military to perpetuate the global inequality that provides our capitalists cheap enough labor isn’t stealing? I’m curious as to your use of the word “stealing”. How is/was ownership determined?

      • jayjay4142

        Warning to the Rich Oppressors James chapter 5 Vs. 3 thru 6.
        “You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay your workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the days of slaughter. You have murdered innocent men who were not opposing you. ”
        Fight fire with fire. When you so called Christians stop using the Bible to justify starving the children the elderly and the disabled then we liberals will keep using that same book to go against you.

      • if you want to give an actual warning to people whoa re real “rich oppressors”, start with the White House and the US Capitol. Ignore all the Rs and Ds, while you’re at it.

      • doppelganglander

        Something that works well for a few dozen or a few hundred people isn’t necessarily workable in a nation of umpteen million.

      • tomgnh

        So Christ wasn’t serious?

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        EXACTLY! They cite Jesus when it suits them. When it doesn’t they say “Jesus didn’t really mean it.”

      • SineWaveII

        The better question is why don’t you liberals who profess such regard for the poor live that way. So go give away all your wealth and help the poor with it. Nobody’s stopping you. Then when you’re done with that you can ask why all of your leaders are in the 1% themselves.

      • joenuff

        because they don’t profess christian values while living a lifestyle that directly and with soaring hypocrisy contradicts them. they do however advocate taxation for spending on social services and this in fact is a direct way of giving their income to the poor. who doesn’t like that prospect? the christian right.

      • John Morris

        Not at all. Taxing other people is entirely NOT about giving of your own money; it is about being generous with the property of others. Because you do not need the government involved at all to give on your own. You believe in it, you DO it.

        Jesus did not preach stealing from the rich and giving to the poor[1] for a very good reason; He didn’t revoke the Ten Commandments. Thou Shalt Not Steal is pretty clear as is Thou Shalt Not Covet. To claim a biblical basis for forced income redistribution would also violate Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness[2]. Jesus wasn’t nearly as clever as a Supreme Court Justice and was thus far more limited in his ability to ‘reinterpret’ The Law as laid down by Moses.

        [1] And just for the record, Robin Hood wasn’t either. All of the myths record him in rebellion to an usurper who was oppressing the people with rapacious taxes. When the rightful King was restored Robin was a faithful taxpaying vassal.

        [2] With the definition of ‘Witness’ in the more evangelical sense but almost certainly in scope here; bearing false witness of the Word of God is almost certain to get you some major demerits.

      • SineWaveII

        Nonsense. Advocating taxation is crap. It doesn’t bestow any virtue on the person doing it. It also doesn’t help the poor. Most of the money goes to well off bureaucrats and politicians. Who doesn’t like that? The poor slobs who are always stuck paying for it. And does it help the poor? No, more often than not these programs hurt the poor.

      • gaultfalcon

        A “direct way of giving their income to the poor”. You’re about three trillion dollars of bureaucracy away from being accurate on that quote.

      • Janice Pushinsky

        Yes Our leaders who are in the 1% have no problem with their taxes being raised. Its the Republicans who I can’t say go to work but they go to the building and do everything to protect the 1% while they cut everything for the rest. Ever since Reagan the middle class has all but disappeared. I”m still waiting on that trickle down to reach me to tell you the truth. Speaking of Jesus he said It would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to give up his wealth and go to heaven. I wonder how many charities would dry up if the US would take away the tax benefits of giving. Jesus also said Give unot Ceasar what is Ceasar and God to what is God’s. That means everyone should pay their fair share of taxes and not send their money to hide in the Cayman Islands. And Jesus said : Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. That goes for Governments as well. And why should the richer help pay with paying their fair taxes? Well my mother used to say: People who are rich most likely stole the money from other people. By that she meant by using people to work for them for little pay etc. And it’s true cost of everything has gone up but pay hasn’t. Coorporations have taken away many of the perks from their employees such as vacation days sick leave some like the company I work for give what they call PTO Personal time off. In lieu of sick leave and vacation days. Many companies change the pay without even telling their employees they just stop paying for things they did in past. You don’t see the owners of the companies taking fewer days off do you? Do you see them giving up their luxury cars or taking less vacations? Nope because they just make their employees work harder for less money /benefits and they themselves give up nothing. Thanks Ronnie.

      • SineWaveII

        Nonsense. The democrat party is full of tax evaders who never get punished. And if they really believed what you say (they don’t) they could write checks for millions of dollars to the government to support their causes. None of them ever do. And if you’re “still waiting for that trickle down to reach you” you must be an uneducated fool. You can’t work at Wal Mart and expect to be a millionaire, baby.

      • Janice Pushinsky

        You are the fool if you think literaly I was waiting for trickle down, because I knew since the day it started it wouldn’t work. The greedy people at the top were going to hog it all, as they did. No I don’t work at wal mart, and No I am not a CEO milionare either. But when I go to work and I am away from my family and my home for days-weeks, I should have something to show for it. I wouldn’t call my employment a job though. It is more of a lifestyle, In that I never know when I will have a day off or when I will work. I drive a charter bus localy, statewide or across country. I carry everyone from the Military to preschool age children. I love my job but at the same time Ive given up alot to put food on the table for my children who Ive basicly raised alone. While I take other peoples children out of state to camps ive never been able to afford to take my own kids across the street. (NO SineWavell I have managed to take them across town, but thats just a metaphor) I find that the people who are from the lower income status give me better gratutities then the rich ones that I carry. I also have noticed that the ones I do the most for are least likely to tip, while the ones I do the least for I get better tips. Which leads me to believe that is why cooperations treat their employees that work the hardest by paying them the least aka wal mart , one of the many.

      • SineWaveII

        So you chose to drive a bus for a living and now you’re whining because the wealth of the ages isn’t bestowed upon your head? And then claim it’s everybody’s fault but yours? You proved my first point about not being educated. So what do you want? To be paid $200,000.00 a year to drive a bus? How much do you think you would have to charge your passengers to afford that salary? How many people would be able to afford to ride it? You need to take a course in basic economics. And while you’re at it you might think about developing a useful skill set before you set your sights on stealing wealth you did nothing to earn.

      • Janice Pushinsky

        Are you a complete idiot or you just play one on Disqus? The point i’m making is that the richer the person is the greedier they are. Trickle down voodooeconomics would never work. Tax the poor and spare the rich is what has happened. No I will never get rich driving a bus duh you’re stupid if you thought I even thought I would. But why don’t cooperations pay a decent wage to their employees so that you and I don’t have to subsidize them with food stamps? So they don’t have to have their own food drives to feed their own employees for Thanksgiving. While the Walton Family eats caviar.

      • SineWaveII

        Not hardly I’m way more educated than you and more intelligent as well. That’s why I don’t drive a bus for a living. But we’ll ignore that and I’ll ask you a question in an honest effort to try to understand what you’re trying to say to me.
        So let’s start with this. What do you consider a “decent wage” for driving a bus. Which my economics professor would describe as “medium skill – low demand labor”? Btw while I’m considering your point of view you can consider this. “Trickle down” is just a euphemism for “Basic economic transference” which means that way that value works its way from the wealth creation center into the hands of the basic consumer. Case in point. The bus you drive probably costs a couple hundred thousand dollars. You could never afford to buy one yourself therefore the only reason you have a job is because the people can afford it (who are richer than you) hired you to drive it. Without them you would have no job at all. So the pay you receive is trickling down. That’s actually how economics works. And here’s a newsflash for you; it works the same way regardless of the type of economic system. You can never get rid of “trickle down” no matter what you do. Anyway tell me again, what’s your idea of a decent wage for driving a bus. I’m not working today so I’ll be here waiting for your answer.

      • Janice Pushinsky

        First of all you do not know my education. Me driving a bus has nothing to do with my intelligence. Lets just say I was NEVER off the deans list. You are wrong about trickle down because at the same time they cut the taxes for the rich and not only they they subsidize them too. All that the Government is missing to pay it’s bills. All that and the amount the Government is losing out on would pay for Snap program who knows how many times over. How many bridges could be fixed with that money? And I will have you know the company could have a million buses but without the Motorcoach Operator the buses wouldn’t move. We are the ones who have the responsiblity of 55+ people on the bus and all the people driving around us. Many people can’t hardly manuver their own car around (ive seen it with my own eyes) It takes skill, endurance and inteligence to do what I do so don’t try to demean my job or my job choice. As far as what I think a decent wage is really depends on where one lives in the country. The BART train drivers didn’t think they got paid enough at $76,000 a year before overtime wages in San Francisco. And all they do is stand there and watch the computer in front of them and they get to sleep in their own bed. I dont make but half of that but part of the reason not to sound like a whiner but is because I am a female. Part of it is the buddy system that we used to have and there is at many companies where the dispatchers dont dole out the work evenly and instead give the good paying jobs to their buddies. But that happens in many jobs. With new management and different system I am hoping next year will be better and fairer. But like I said I love my job and sometimes that counts a lot more then the amount of pay. And I could buy my own bus but that would take the fun out of it.

      • jayjay4142

        You truly are stupid. You are arrogant enough to think that you are irreplaceable. Wait until they start bringing in those people from India and other Third World countries to take your job. I cannot believe that you people are so arrogant as to think if they screw us that they will not do the same to you. Corporations or politicians do not care about people.

      • StupidDetector

        Your dumb enough to waste your time on rediculously long, pointless internet comments and then you turn around and claim to be smart? lololololololololololol… Priceless!

      • jayjay4142

        I don’t know what you do for a living but if it is not that of a service industry your job will be going the way of the do-do bird also.
        If you think that these corporations are going to pay big salaries to American workers then you are in for a big wake-up call. Why do you think that they keep saying we must bring in educated workers because our college grads are just not smart enough. They want to import them because they will work for less money. You think because you are a college grad or something that you are smart. Actually it takes common sense to see that you will soon be in the line at Wal-Mart for a job.

      • jayjay4142

        Your side is the only idiots waiting for trickle down to work for you. I have been in the workplace since 1955 paying taxes and making a decent salary until the likes of Reagan kicked in. All of a sudden wages became stagnant and union rights were slowly destroyed.
        Now you and your ilk want to make sure that I do not get my SS. Wait until you are forced to take a job in the service industry. When you vote for a party whose agenda is to see to it that they do away with minimum wage either you or your children or grandchildren will be in need one of these days. So keep on destroying what our ancestors did to see to it that anyone who labored hard deserved a piece of the pie. Without the back breaking labor of those you call lazy good for nothing the big ones at the top would not be able to sit on their a$$ and wait for the money to roll in.

      • jayjay4142

        Oh that part of the bible you just want to skip over because it might not agree with your selfish way of thinking.

      • Burn_the_Witch

        Because they are free to live however they want?

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        Because they are hypocrites, pure and simple.

      • Rick

        Mike that is a good plan but at the same time read Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians chapter 3 starting at verse 6. “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” Every one keeps using the Bible to justify their standing on political views but they are the same people who refuse to live their lives by Biblical standards. i.e. chased, holy and perfect life. Love is not always giving people what they want but what they need, that need may not be financial but wisdom. Both parties are arrogant and conceded and care nothing for people they do not know. Time for all Americans to wise up and realize that once the government started collecting federal income tax permanently (1913) we the people lost, period. Stop fighting with each other and be the solution.

      • Henry Chapman

        Perhaps the Progressive theologians posting here might direct the rest of us to that part of the Scripture where the Lord endorses educated and self-interested elites pursuing a political strategy that has them confiscating the property of some by coercion and threats of force and transferring that property to others. And doing it for the purpose of converting the recipients into helpless children dependent on trading their votes to the elites for the basic necessities of life.

      • SineWaveII

        Don’t forget the Elites never sacrifice anything themselves. They expect everyone else to sacrifice.

      • Dianna Deeley

        And with substantial sums of both money, property and (of course) power sticking to the institutions controlled by these self-appointed Elites.

      • Jamie Clay

        Obummer administration all the way!

      • Ackston

        Another false premise. Liberal big government programs designed to help the poor usually skim the greater portion off for administrative budgets and benefit bureaucrats more than the needy. In addition those regulations and programs end up hurting the poor more than helping through a variety of social engineering regs.

        Free market principles are much better at providing jobs, income and a chance at prosperity to the poor.

        Besides, Christ never advocated creating a huge bureaucracy to redistribute wealth from one group, unless they happen to receive special “credits” from their pals, to another once it made its way through the sticky palms of government.

      • jimb82

        I think Henry Chapman was being sarcastic.

      • Jamie Clay

        Sounds like a progressive liberal obummer lover to me.

      • Joenuff

        progressive left does not tout christian values on one hand while earnestly seeking to defund programs that best embody them. It is the hypocrisy he’s commenting on. You failed to grasp that.

        progressives DON’T claim to stand for Christ’s values, yet the do a better job of seeking to protect the sick, poor, weak and under served.

        Did Jesus only help those that adhered to his “firm code of morality” or did he wash the feet of the whore?

        This rationalization of not caring for some seems to perfectly exemplify the salad bar example you yourself gave and the hypocrisy Mr. Clifton was outlining. Your “answer” if it can be called that, seems to suggest that while Jesus preached judge not, the conservatives are fit to judge whose life lives up to Jesus’ firm morale code and cut funding along those lines accordingly?

        Why not go back to Fox News website or some other fictional fantasy land where you’ll be more comfortable?

      • Kranston Snord

        I guess I should explain to you the concept of the “Give a man a fish” proverb. Why do libs always think you can solve all of society’s problems by throwing money at them? You have fed them for a day, but you care nothing for their long term growth and benefit. Seems to me like my desire to force them to make better decisions helps them more in the long run than your day-to-day fixes. I guess I must care about the poor and hungry more than you do.

      • KiTA

        Why do the Teahadists always think we can solve all of society’s problems by throwing money at rich people?

      • Kranston Snord

        Hey Kita, Red Herring fallacy much? Why don’t you go think about what I wrote and come back with a response that actually addresses the issue.

      • jayjay4142

        I guess you forgot the one where Jesus fed the multitudes just because they were hungry.
        I hate you people who pretend to care about the fetus but when the child is born then you would allow it to starve. Not all people who get help are lazy. Corporations have outsourced their jobs. Many of them had worked at those jobs for many years. Now they are in their 50’s bodies worn out from hard physical labor and no one wants to hire them for anything.
        I can’t wait for you who do have a job right now to lose everything you have and be forced to work for peanuts. All of you public school teachers out there are in the crosshairs of the Republican Party. Just what is it you think will happen to you when they declare your credentials inadequate . McDonalds anyone.

      • Kranston Snord

        “I guess you forgot the one where Jesus fed the multitudes just because they were hungry.” — Straw man fallacy. I never forgot about Jesus’ teaching. Question: Why were there only two recorded instances of Jesus feeding the multitudes? Answer: Because he didn’t want people to look at him as a meal ticket and become…ready for this…dependent on him for all of their needs. And if you were to study the scriptures, historical context, etc. you would see that those multitudes were so eager for truth, they probably did not eat for several days. That is why they were hungry.
        “I hate you people” — You really shouldn’t b/c it only hurts you in the end…”who pretend to care about the fetus but when the child is born then you would allow it to starve.” — Another straw man fallacy. I never said I wanted children to starve. I am all for feeding children when their parents are unable to. As for their parents….

        “Not all people who get help are lazy.” — You really love the straw man fallacy, because you have done it again. I never called all people who get help lazy. Just the ones who are capable of working but do not.

        “Corporations have outsourced their jobs.” — Well maybe if corporations were not strangled by high taxes, regulations, and unreasonable unions that drive them overseas, this wouldn’t be a problem.

        “I can’t wait for you who do have a job right now to lose everything you have and be forced to work for peanuts.” — You are actively hoping that I lose my job that I worked hard to earn and that I use to feed, clothe, house, and support my wife and children? That sounds a bit vindictive and sadistic. Why are you so angry?

        “Just what do you think will happen to you when they declare your credentials inadequate.” — Need I say again…just another straw man fallacy. No one in their right mind would tell any significant number of professionals in a high demand profession that their credentials are inadequate.

        I get from your post that you are a person driven by strong beliefs and emotions, but you will convince more people of your point if you stopped with the fallacies and started using actual facts. But that’s just me.

      • jayjay4142

        I guess you forgot the parable of the sheep and the goats. He place the goats on one left and the sheep on the other. Matt: 25 vs.41 thru 45 Then he will say to those on the left . Depart from me you who are cursed into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink . I was a stranger and you did not clothe me . I was sick and in prison and you did not help me.
        They will answer ” Lord when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or in prison and did not help you.? ”
        He will reply ” I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for the least of these , you did not do for me. ”
        Book of James Warning to
        Rich Oppressors You have hoarded wealth in the last days . Look! The wages you failed to pay your workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you . The cries of the workmen have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the days of slaughter .
        You have teachers in the crosshairs of the Republican Party. You have police officers, firemen, the PO a group that has for years been the life blood of this country.
        You want some facts. In 1950 corporate taxes was 30% of our federal revenue. In 2012 it was 7% and you have the nerve to say that taxes are too high on corporations.
        In the 40’s 50’s & 60’s the corporate tax rates were 90%. In spite of that one person working could make a living and our economy grew like a weed. In the 70’s it was 70% Under Reagan it dropped to 50% and the beginning of killing unions began. Under Bush it dropped to 36%.
        Now with all of the tax loopholes that our bought government has given to corporations 10 of our largest corporations made billions in profits. paid 0 in taxes. I started my working career in 1954 and I have seen it all so don’t try and play me off as stupid. I have lived it.

      • there’s clearly a reason he smote those that were on the left. 😉

      • Kranston Snord

        “I guess you forgot the one where Jesus fed the multitudes just because they were hungry.” — Straw man fallacy. I never forgot about Jesus’ teaching. Question: Why were there only two recorded instances of Jesus feeding the multitudes? Answer: Because he didn’t want people to look at him as a meal ticket and become…ready for this…dependent on him for all of their needs. And if you were to study the scriptures, historical context, etc. you would see that those multitudes were so eager for truth, they probably did not eat for several days. That is why they were hungry.
        “I hate you people” — You really shouldn’t b/c it only hurts you in the end…”who pretend to care about the fetus but when the child is born then you would allow it to starve.” — Another straw man fallacy. I never said I wanted children to starve. I am all for feeding children when their parents are unable to. As for their parents….

        “Not all people who get help are lazy.” — You really love the straw man fallacy, because you have done it again. I never called all people who get help lazy. Just the ones who are capable of working but do not.

        “Corporations have outsourced their jobs.” — Well maybe if corporations were not strangled by high taxes, regulations, and unreasonable unions that drive them overseas, this wouldn’t be a problem.

        “I can’t wait for you who do have a job right now to lose everything you have and be forced to work for peanuts.” — You are actively hoping that I lose my job that I worked hard to earn and that I use to feed, clothe, house, and support my wife and children? That sounds a bit vindictive and sadistic. Why are you so angry?

        “Just what do you think will happen to you when they declare your credentials inadequate.” — Need I say again…just another straw man fallacy. No one in their right mind would tell any significant number of professionals in a high demand profession that their credentials are inadequate.

        I get from your post that you are a person driven by strong beliefs and emotions, but you will convince more people of your point if you stopped with the fallacies and started using actual facts. But that’s just me.

      • Belavirino

        When Jesus healed, he would say ‘go and sin no more’. He didn’t hand out a bunch of money but he did provide them the ability to work and provide for themselves. Jesus and the disciples all had jobs. They didn’t expect handouts. Christ preached self reliance which I have never heard mentioned by the elite liberal leaders.

      • jayjay4142

        BS. They had jobs but quit to follow Jesus and be disciples. They went into towns and depended on the people of the town for food and shelter.

      • Cheryl Simon

        Salad Bar Christians™

      • Myers

        If by epic ,you mean ,epic deflection, obfuscation, misdirection and
        obtuseness ,then I will agree.
        1.& 2. Technically correct but
        disingenuous. Presidents don’t control the purse strings but as head of their
        party, they do set policy agendas. It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that neo
        liberal ,trickle down economics hasn’t been the DC orthodoxy for so long ,that
        people have come to accept it as the only form of capitalism that is or has ever
        existed. Reagan ran on tax cuts and massive increases in defense spending. The
        Congress was guided by the will of the people his election represented.
        Something that is no longer the case.
        3. Answer: Tax breaks are not the main
        force behind job creation; demand for labor is the main force behind job
        Actually it is the demand for things that labor creates. What better
        way to create that demand than giving even more money to the top 1% of the
        population and moving jobs to areas where people will work for pennies on the
        dollar and cutting unemployment and food stamps, right?
        Also, this opens up
        to another question. Tax breaks might not be the main force behind job creation
        in the mind of Mr. Williamson but are you suggesting that isn’t and hasn’t been
        the stated rationale for them since day one? If yes:

        How long will tax cuts need to stay in place before any of those promises
        become reality? Alternatively, if time isn’t the determinant factor, then how
        much more should taxes be cut and for what reason? If tax cuts are so important
        to economic health how did we have growth when top tax brackets were 70 to
        4. “What on earth do you mean by socialized medicine?” Pretty simple
        really ,I believe everyone should have access to affordable health care. Period.
        What’s yours?
        “If you mean single-payer, then your premises are, as seems to
        be the developing trend here, wrong. ”
        I didn’t but since it is one of the
        favorite ploys of the reactionary mind, to frame an argument not in evidence, I
        will pretend I did. Leaving aside the indisputable fact ,that we spend more
        than any developed nation on healthcare with less favorable outcomes he said.
        “The longest-lived countries are Japan and Switzerland, neither of which is
        Again, true as far as it goes and I would be fine with
        either of their systems over ours. First of all they regulate the hell out of
        the providers and restrict the profits they and the industry can make. They also
        don’t allow the income distribution to be skewed to the ratios we tolerate in
        this nation.

        Examples : In March 2013, Swiss voters overwhelmingly passed one of the
        world’s strictest controls on executive pay, forcing public companies to give
        shareholders a binding vote on compensation. Voters ignored the business lobby’s
        claim that such curbs would undermine the country’s investor-friendly image.

        Next month, November 24, a separate proposal to limit monthly executive pay
        to no more than what the company’s lowest-paid staff earn in a year, the
        so-called 1:12 initiative, faces
        a popular vote.

        Now, on Friday, Swiss activists submitted over 130,000 signatures to the
        Swiss Parliament likely forcing another referendum this one to create a new law
        guaranteeing all Swiss nationals a basic income of CHF 2,500 a month ($2,756

        And unlike the Heritage Foundation’s corporate friendly ACA and
        Obama’s ,don’t throw me in the briar patch sales pitch on its behalf, EVERYONE
        is covered.

        6. Sorry, there is nothing in there that says for
        this to be true, it must be according to Mr. Williamson’s schedule. Long term
        political projects only matter in the final results. Question: Are you claiming
        that Nixon’s Southern strategy is a complete fiction? Google Kevin Phillips ,its
        author, and do some reading on the subject before you answer that.

        7. Even if I believed the explanation, it ignores(again) the fact that the
        rationale for cutting taxes has produced results 180 from those promised. Again,
        the promise, full employment and balanced budgets. Either defend it as a success
        on that premise or tell us how long it will take for it to fulfill the promise
        .Also ,it once again ignores the ratio of distribution from CEO, to school
        teacher ,to laborer. Failing to recognize this as a problem only assures that
        gap, will continue to widen.

        9.Answer: Since when did you guys start loving the stock market, which
        contributes so much to the inequality you’re so worried about in No. 7?
        Counterquestion: If a Republican president’s term coincided with the lowest
        workforce-participation rate in recent history, an illegal war in Libya, and the
        illegal assassination of U.S. citizens based on their Facebook histories, would
        you not call him . . . something less than heroic?

        Unfortunately, I have
        skin in the game as most all working class people do ,thxs to the same rotten
        market ideology ,which conflates all forms of capitalism, to casino,which in a
        just world is called criminal and prosecuted. If we actually valued justice we
        would be filling prisons with criminals of global finance instead of running a
        protection racket out of the justice department. If the claim is I have no right
        to care about my portfolio, then you need to start praising the DOJ for seeing
        that the people responsible for financial collapse of 2008 are still in

        As for civil liberties violations, you only prove the fallacy of party
        affiliation as defined by the corporate media ,i.e., Dem = liberal, Rep.=
        I can’t defend those Democrats that down play Obama’s
        codifying of executive branch excess of the Bush administration but neither will
        I listen to people claim they objected to such things as the FISA violations,
        the Patriot act etc. when they did no such thing.
        There is absolutely no
        doubt in my mind that if we actually had some progressive leadership, not just
        this country but the entire world would be better. Calling
        a POS bill cooked
        up at the Heritage Foundation, “socialism” only demonstrates that the corporate
        propagandists have so successfully corrupted language and narrowed the
        discussion that solutions will never even be discussed let alone

        Conclusion, Mr. Williamson is just a John Kenneth Galbraith quote personified:

        “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral
        philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for
        selfishness. “

      • jayjay4142

        Just because there are a few who manipulate the system ,does that mean that Jesus would deny a hungry child, a disabled person, a vet who comes home to find there is no jobs, or a woman whose a$$hole husband is nowhere to be found to help with the children he created?
        Jesus also based morality as an individual issue. Jesus asks people to follow him he did not try and stuff it down their throats.
        One of the big things that Jesus said was he who is without sin let him throw the first stone. And what you have done to the least of these you have done unto me. Or how about Take the log from your own eye before you try and remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
        You need to take care of your own morals. Judge not lest ye be judged. Judgement is mine sayeth the Lord.

    • SemperRectus

      I think you just earned yourself the right to do a smack down dance!

      • Ms. K

        He only does those when he confiscates phones from rude movie patrons and throws them across the room. Anything less confrontational is just not badass enough 😀

      • Kevin D. Williamson

        Wasn’t a movie, it was theater.

    • Khiri

      You missed a WHOLE bunch of lies in #9, Kevin. He didn’t save the auto industry, The number of jobs lost in the private industry and those who have given up looking for jobs FAR outweighs the jobs added. The real unemployment rate is almost 14% Domestic oil drilling is up on private land. Any increase on public land is from Bush because it takes years to get that in place. The Seals killed Bin Laden. Almost all of what it took was due to Bush. The stock market is up because the Fed is pumping BILLIONS of dollars into it each MONTH.

      Obama and the Marxist Democrats are an abysmal FAILURE! But they won’t lose anything. They’ll keep their money, power and lavish lifestyles. We are the losers.

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        You are a loser, that’s for sure.

    • Cynic

      Brilliant. But shame on you for using facts, logic and reason against a liberal.

    • Dan Kemp

      You, sir, just won the entire Internet.

    • Erik Martin

      Came here to answer, but I can’t compete with Kevin D. Williamson’s answers.

    • David Ewers

      Lets destroy every one of your talking points.

      1. Wrong again,. Newt did not balance the budget, the revenue of taxes due to a great economy did that.

      2. Reagan presented a budget to the house, the house and the president went round and round in circles and then agreed to a budget which the president signed.

      3. You are confusing Tax cuts to tax breaks, so your whole answer goes out the door. Tax Breaks for new technology will create jobs, tax breaks for bringing jobs back into the US will create jobs. Tax cuts do neither.

      4. Changing the subject does not answer the question, the question is about socialized medicine. Not the payment method.

      5. Taxes are not a right, but an obligation. Getting married is a right and again you did not answer the question.

      6. The south started voting for the GOP in 1968 and did so all the way through today. The only break in that voting was during the Carter period. So again you are not telling the proper facts. And they continued to vote for their Dixiecrats such as the racist Thurmond.

      So again false

      7. Again non answer, the founding fathers were not a religious group what so ever.

      8. Again non answer, and asking a counter question and changing the subject is a tea party tactic.

      and last if we are that Christian nation as you say, should it not be the action of that said government to take care of it citizens. You can’t have it both ways. And your own ignorance is showing. Most people that are on welfare are employed many have two jobs. Stay away from a keyboard until you eduacte yourself, right now you just speak absolute BS

      • soxfan4evah

        Dixiecrats such as Gore Sr and Byrd remained Democrats until the day they died. Funny how 1 out of 16 changes parties yet the GOP owns them all. the KKK, Bull Conner, and George Wallace all belong to the Democrats.

    • John

      1 and 2 ) I do applaud you on much of what you have said, actually kind of funny since I have been pointing this out to my party (republican btw ) regarding them pointing their finger at Obama regarding the budget – which as you so eloquently point out ( as I have been doing ) that it is Congress that does that. Please help enlighten our party regarding that.

      3 ) I agree with you here as well, However, they are asking a question regarding what many of our party has espoused as to why we need the tax breaks. So they are throwing our own party’s words back at us. Granted neither side was rather bright on this point.

      4) You are right about those two not being on single pay option however we fall behind most of the civilized world (most of which does actually have socialized medicine). Now to answer your counter question- it has a lot to do with the cost of care in the states. Example a hernia operation for an inguinal hernia – in the states this costs 20,000.00 USD while in Canada it costs 2,500.00 CAD for the exact same procedure. ( I know this because I had mine done in canada after investigating three different hospitals within the US ). There is actually no reason for this disparage of pricing outside of price gouging that is allowed to happen within the medical community ( this would be pharmaceutical and insurance companies for malpractice costs among others ) reason for out of pocket in canada is that I was not covered under their system as I was on a visitors visa at the time. As such the cost of care on any socialized system won’t be truly effective until the costs come back into alignment

      5) Actually on this point you are incorrect. If it is a recognized religion ( now the definition of recognized religion is something that can be up for debate ) by disallowing tenents of their faith you are actually abridging their rights.

      6) While the majority of southern democrats didn’t come over until 1994. The KKK which was founded by a democrat was welcomed in to the republican fold in the 60’s(was even a televised event btw still some footage floating around if you would care to view it .. hug and all )

      7) you are both correct and incorrect – Correct for most of what you said however you left out that outsourcing to other countries with lower cost for labor has increased once more ( and has been on the rise for a number of years again )

      8) I agree with you on your examples however I would like to point out that Washington was a polytheist ( in letters to Jefferson stated the God he followed was but one of many (his words not mine) ), Jefferson questioned Christianity in many ways and argued against founding on the religion – went as far as taking all acts of God out of the bible in his translation known as the Jefferson Bible. Also there was one member of our founders who was a Druid .. can you guess which one ( he states it in a letter to Jefferson as well when Jefferson was writing the Jefferson Bible, also we know this from his diary ).

      9) Your counter is correct but then again so is their assertion both sides are hypocritical on this one.

      10 ) actually these programs do help, I was homeless for two years in Philadelphia. They helped me get off the streets .. I am now the father of twins the sole support for a family of four and we are DEBT FREE completely. I also have never declared bankruptcy ( rich man’s welfare actually since the banks and creditors pass their losses on to the rest of the consumers. sorry I call a spade a spade) I have given back to the same programs that got me off the street. I have money in the bank for retirement. You say there is no proof. I say I stand in front of you .. oh and I am a Republican, with the values that the Republican party was founded on. To today’s republicans they would call Lincoln a RINO .. and that is what they call me lol

      • Hyrule

        Shh. There is no place for civil discourse on the internet.

      • John

        I know .. spooky isnèt it when one dares to have it lol 😛

      • John

        I know I already replied to you, though I was kind of surprised that no one actually took me up on having an actual civil discussion on this. May be it is I am not painting either side as all evil but both as shades of grey ..

      • Hyrule

        People don’t want to agree with that, then they actually have to start thinking for themselves and form opinions based on discourse rather then just ranting about the “other” party.

      • John

        I know .. I find it funny that any time I try with a person who seems like they would actually be a good debate … they disappear – case in point Kevin D. Williamson .. he replied to others that disagreed with him however totally went right by me…

    • Burn_the_Witch

      You went pretty easy on them in #9, but in your defense, there’s just too much stupid to unpack in that one.

    • NavyIC1

      ” Presidents don’t write budgets, cannot authorize spending, and cannot authorize taxes. Congress does that.”

      So what you are saying is that President Obama did not get us 18 Trillion dollars in debt? Why you are 100% right. You should talk to the Conservatives about that. I hear that at least two to three times a day from Conservatives. I heard Rush Limbaugh spout that garbage just this afternoon.

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        Logical consistency is not the Republicans strong suit.

      • John Morris

        Nope. Pelosi and Reid get the blame for that. Not that Obama wasn’t beating the bully pulpit exhorting them to spend, spend, spend. He certainly wasn’t issuing veto threats to Congress if they threw so many Trillions of dollars down a rathole… remember there weren’t actually any ‘shovel ready jobs’ yet the money was spent anyway. But yea Obama isn’t personally responsible for it.

        Go look at the timeline. The .com meltdown, 9/11, recessions, two wars and the country muddled through. Reid and Pelosi take over unified control of Congress in Jan 2007 and the country almost instantly take a turn for the worse, ending in a total KABOOM! less than two years later. From which it has not recovered in the slightest. The only claim Obama and the rest of the prog team can honestly make is that we have stopped going KABOOM! But really, how much longer could we keep falling that fast without the whole world falling into a new dark age? So if you are so desperate for praise I’ll throw ya a bone.

        Obama, Reid and Pelosi didn’t quite plunge the world into a second Dark Age. Yea!

        Happy now?

    • Ken51

      Wrong. The President (through his Office of Management and Budget) DOES write the budget and submits it to the House of Representatives. President Clinton was the last President to submit a balanced budget to Congress for it to act on.

      Ronald Reagan liked to whine about the need for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and a line-item veto for the President, but the truth is there was nothing stopping him from submitting a balanced budget. If he really wanted to show how he would balance the budget, he didn’t need to wait for a bill on his desk from which he could strike the things he didn’t want to pay for. All he had to do was submit a balanced budget that showed how he would and would not spend money. He never did that. No Republican President in the past 50 years has done that.

    • James Graham

      Touche’, Kevin. Very nice clock-cleaning! 🙂

    • tamlewell

      Sophistic BS and you know it. Your answer to question 3 alone demonstrates the worth of your reasoning. Repositioning the debate is not the same thing as winning it. Nor is winning the argument what should matter in politics.

    • kcponte

      “8) If our Founding Fathers wanted this nation to be based on Christianity, why don’t the words “Christian” or “Christianity” appear even once in our Constitution?”

      “Answer: They expected the republic to continue as part of Christian civilization, not to have a U.S. version of the Church of England. India has a secular constitution, but nobody seems to much doubt that it is a Hindu country, in spite of the presence of non-Hindu minorities.”

      Then why do we have a Constitution? Didn’t they expect civilization to take care of all matters not just Christianity? There certainly was an amendment in the Constitution to protect our guns, so I am guessing guns were more important than Religion, wouldn’t you think?

    • Mark Choi

      Nonsense. You need to seriously consider retaking whatever courses you have taken that erroneously referred to themselves as “Civics”. Your grasp of the legislative process is tenuous, at best. Point by point:

      1a) “Presidents don’t write budgets”

      Of course they do. Anyone can author federal legislation, not only the President, but any person anywhere on the planet. It is up to Congress to then pass that bill into the full legislative process, eventually (except in Republican-controlled branches) submitting it to a majority vote. But the language can originate anywhere, including the White House. In fact, just about every President of the modern era has submitted a budget. You’d know this if you knew what you were talking about, which you don’t, so you don’t.

      1b) Gingrich’s budget would have no more balanced than Reagan’s. Any serious examination of the math involved makes that clear. It was based on a number of erroneous assumptions on growth increasing revenue that have NEVER been bourn out in real life. More to the point, even if it would have, it is neither here nor there, as his budget did not pass, nor did it have any chance to. Republican President’s budgets DID pass, sometimes with Republican legislatures, and they did NOT balance the budget.

      As to balancing the budget in specific, any idiot can balance a budget; it is no mean feat.

      Defense spending: $10.

      Tax revenue: I’ll pay the $10 myself, and chip in an extra buck. Look, I am a genius. We even have a surplus.

      2) Already addressed. Ibid. More to the point, if you knew what you were talking about, which again, you do not, you would know that the budget that eventually passed was almost identical to one submitted by a particular group of citizens headed by one man. That would be the Executive Branch of the United States of America, and that man would be Ronald Reagan. In fact, the main reasons we ran such a high deficit was his foolish, ideological obsession with military spending on the mistaken belief that that would topple the Soviet Regime (who were NOT communist, BTW) and belied a complete lack of trust in their own ideology. Think: if Soviet “Communism” was inherently flawed, as they believed, and morally bankrupt, then it was only a matter of time before it collapsed under its own weight. Insisting on driving our nation toward bankruptcy due to a failure to really believe your own talking points shows how little the believed their own B.S.

      3) You have misstated the general Right Wing stance on taxes, and missed the point.

      4) Typical straw man argument. Socialized medicine does NOT imply single payer. Period. Socialism means a SPECIFIC thing, not just whatever you feel like it should depending on your argument.

      And beyond that, of the countries with single payer, most of them out-perform us on most all metrics as well, so your point is?

      5) What a load of nonsense. No one is preventing you from believing what you wish to believe, or establishing a belief system. But if you want your followers to behave in a certain way, that is between you and them. For instance, if you are (Roman) Catholic and are against birth control, you have every right to not use it, and to advise your parishioners and employees not to use it. However, you do NOT have the right to refuse to pay for blanket health coverage if you offer health care. If your employees use it to purchase birth control, that is on them. You didn’t do a good enough job indoctrinating them. That’s on you. Step up your game and suit whining.

      6) More utter nonsense. First, the temporal relation between those two things is irrelevant to causality. Second, and more importantly, party affiliation, which was dictated more by tradition than belief, had NO relevance to positions on issues, and moral and ethical affiliation. If the populace of a given area voted for Republicans, their party affiliation has little relevance. Nor is your counter even factually correct, as the data are quite clear that the Southern shift toward the Republican party began long before the 90s (there is no apostrophe before the “s” in dates). In fact, the demographic shift can clearly be seen beginning as early as 1928.

      7) More complete nonsense. You appear to imply that globalization and integrated markets lead to income disparity per se, due to opposing pressures on different income brackets, yet offer NOTHING by way of support. Instead, you ironically bring up Sweden. How amusing. Did you even bother to check your facts before posting? Contrary to your assertion, while Sweden IS getting richer, it is doing so while becoming the most financially equal country in the industrialized world. Income Inequality is lower in Sweden than any country in all of Europe or Asia. So what is your point, exactly?

      8) Nice job begging the question. Note that you completely failed to address it. Not wanting a Church of England reproduced in this country has NO relevance to whether or not broad references to Christianity in general would be expected if the founders had intended our government to be based on Christian principals. Beyond that, the majority of the founders WERE NOT CHRISTIAN. They were Deists FTMP, and did NOT accept the basic tenets of Christianity.

      Beyond even that, some of them were openly hostile, either to Christianity itself, such as Jefferson, or to its role in government, such as Washington.

      “Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.”
      — Thomas Jefferson

      “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
      –Thomas Jefferson

      “Jesus did not mean to impose Himself on mankind as the Son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced
      –Thomas Jefferson

      “The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
      — 1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by John Adams

      “No religious doctrine shall be established by law.”
      — Elbridge Gerry”

      And on and on.

      9) Loving the stock market? You reduce an entire paragraph into a single statement about the stock market that you then attack? Cherry pick much? FTR, stating stock market growth in NO way, shape, or form, indicates a love of the stock market. It addresses the knowledge that one’s audience imparts importance to it. Nor do Democrats as a group have anything against the stock market, per se. So your “answer” is nothing beyond incoherent rambling.

      I would normally ignore your counter question, as it is a bald-faced attempt to distract from your failure to address the original question, but it is so absurd it is hard to let lie. Speaking of lies, it is simply disingenuous to imply that Obama presided over “the lowest workforce participation in recent history”, as this was a direct result of the policies of his predecessor, and the legislature, and was turned around at a rate almost exactly as predicted by Keynesian theory. There was no war, let alone an illegal one, in Libya, and no one was assassinated based solely on their Facebook activity.

      10) First, you clearly have no idea what “begging the question” means, as, well, that is not what it means.
      Second, Yoshu ben Yusef (Jesus would no have been his name) implored his followers to feed and clothe the poor as part of their obligation under religious law, a law that held sway as the law of the nation of Israel (as much as possible in a country subjugated under the rule of the Roman Empire). Funny that you forget that part as well, in your suggestions vis-á-vis Caesar. He would not have suggested petitioning Caesar, as Caesar was head of an occupying power. If Caiaphas had been head of the State, he very well MAY HAVE implored them to petition the State to do exactly that. What do you think his actions in the temple with the money-changers was all about‽

      CONCLUSION: You have, literally, no idea what you’re talking about, other than repeating tired and disproved dogmatic talking points spoon fed to you in a cynical, and correct, belief that you won’t have the mental fortitude to check your facts.

    • ohb552

      any president EXCEPT PRES OBAMA!!! He has been held responsible for the sun not shining and the moon hiding behind the clouds. But as you republicans say–the buck stops here so your selections of presidents are every bit as responsible as the Dems are. The fact is BUSH IS RESPONSIBLE since he was the CIC and put two wars on a credit card along with Congress’ help. Yes YOUR president was and will always be held responsible for all the unnecessary deaths and bringing this country to its knees regardless of how much you go into denial over it.

    • Carroll27

      I’m a straight, married man, yet I now want to have your babies. Explain. 🙂 Best comments ever, thank you.

    • Skeletor Farnsworth

      See? This guy’s got all the answers. They’re stupid answers, but they’re answers none-the-less.

    • 1, and 2.

      I think you know as well as me that while the president doesn’t draft a budget he does have some influence over it, but fair enough. Perhaps, since you know better, you can go tell fellow Republicans to stop blaming Obama for the budget?

      I’m no economist, but this sounds right at least in the main, though there are likely lots of other factors that effect job creation as well, but again since you agree lowering taxes will not necessarily create jobs then perhaps you can tell other republicans this since a lot of them seem to think it will.

      On this one you are wrong, at least partially. I don’t know about Switzerland but I have actually lived in Japan. While they don’t exactly have a single payer system they do require everyone to have health insurance (same as the ACA, and one of the major complaints of republicans) and many of them use the state insurance. It’s also important to note that correlation is not necessarily causation. (on both sides of the argument)

      5. You are correct, this is a mater of law, which is why we should give the same legal status to gay couples as we do to strait.

      So will you know tell fellow republicans that they are being ridiculous when they claim that legalizing gay marriage is going to harm freedom of religion? I realize that this view is not universal to ALL republicans but there are certainty quite a few who think it.

      6. You may be oversimplifying this one. Most people don’t argue that everyone became a republican over night. In fact during the 50’s and earlier both parties had strong contingents of both liberals and conservatives. I don’t think you can argue that these two parties haven’t stratified quite a bit between then and now. Sure you can point out a lot of this change over happened in the 80’s and 90’s, but you can also see evidence of this change progressing long before then. The 60’s and 70’s saw many seats in state legislatures change hands to the republicans after being held by democrats for decades.

      Though in part you are right, it would be wrong to blame this change entirely on the civil rights movement, Jerry Falwell and his religious right coalition getting their hands into the Republican party in the 80’s had a great deal of influence on this change as well.

      7. This may be true in part, though I doubt it is the only cause for such wage discrepancies. (economics is never that simple) The real question is what do we do about it? Adam Smith, (the founder of modern capitalistic theory) argued in his book that in order for any capitalistic economy to continue working every worker, even the most unskilled, must be making money enough for himself and his family, including at least two or three children. If they can’t then the system is doomed to collapse eventually because the labor pool will dry up, and companies will go bankrupt for lack of people to buy their goods. People who don’t have enough money for even essentials won’t buy as many products and will thus lower the sales of a company thus causing them to cut wages which only deepens their problem instead of fixing it in the long run.

      I don’t think we could even begin to argue that people are making enough money to support themselves, this is why there are people out there working 50 hours a week who STILL need food stamps to make ends meet. A company that pays their workers so little that they do not have enough to eat has no right to complain that the government taxes them extra so that they can provide that meal which the company will not. Whatever the cause for this situation we need a solution, and I’ll be the first to agree that food stamps and welfare shouldn’t be a long term solution, they are a stop gap.


      Personally I wouldn’t set the bar so low as the way India runs things. India still deals constantly with major human rights violations due to people still adhering to the caste system despite it now being illegal to do so.

      In any case I don’t consider India a Hindu country. (once again you speak of a country I’ve actually been too and many areas are majority Muslim) It is a country where most of the population on average is Hindu but that doesn’t mean the country is Hindu. They, at least officially, have a secular democracy like us.

      I’m an atheist, so I have no reason to want American to continue as a Christian civilization, but I don’t seek to take any rights away from anyone else to believe what ever they wish, but Christians don’t deserve any special rights in this country, and right now they get quite a few of them.

      I can’ speak for democrats since I’m not one, but I have no problem with the stock market, investment is a good way to produce wealth. I do have a problem with some of the excesses of the market, insider trading and such.

      You are spot on with the actual problems with Obama in my book and these are the main reasons I don’t care for him much. That being said I still voted for him in the last election because on these issues I saw no evidence that Romney would do any better, and on other issues I thought he would do worse. (lesser of two evils I suppose) I could have been convinced to vote for a republican if they had addressed these actual problems with Obama’s presidency, but instead they railed at the ACA the whole time.

      I understand the distinction you are making here, however, I already answered this question in the main back on point 7. As an atheist I couldn’t give a care what Jesus said. We need solutions. I agree that our current relief programs don’t always work well, but I don’t see how replacing them with no systems and asking every poor person out there to go beg from a local church will fix the issue either. We don’t need more government or less government, we need smarter government.

    • Hyrule

      Questions 1,2, and 3. If that is so, get off Obama’s nuts about it and stop campaigning as “job creators” *cough* Romney*..

      4. Japan has one of the most regulated health care systems in the world. The U.S. would never allow for such a system that would dictate exactly how much care givers can charge for damn near every single thing they do. Also, Sweden’s health care is by and large funded by the government, much more so than America. Is it wholly funded by the government? No, but to say it isn’t socialized for that reason is absurd. Single payer does not equal socialized. But nice try.

      5. Not the same. The argument has been by republicans that marriage is intrinsically a religious ceremony. The argument has gone, “If the government forces churches to accept gay marriage isn’t that a violation of their 1st amendment” even most liberals answer yes to this. The inverse, however, is interesting because then you have government defining the characteristics of a “religious” ceremony. Arguing by analogy is difficult. Try harder next time.

      6. Fair enough, it was a pedantic question anyway.

      7. It seems, then, if the goal is to strengthen the middle class in America we would provide more abilities for individuals to acquire the skills that are sought after in such a globalized economy. Kind of like the FREE UNIVERSITIES SWEDEN has. Arguing by comparison is difficult too. Make sure you don’t reference one of the most socialist countries in the world when defending our economic system and our opportunities for social mobility.

      8. Thank you for clarifying the “expectations” of those who lived several centuries ago. Do you have a direct line to Jesus as well?

      9. We are right, but we shouldn’t care because it goes against our values.? That’s rich. This wasn’t about the democratic approval rating of Obama, and these are very much key points Republicans care about. So, can you dodge this point again?

      10. Sure, but you are missing the point, Caesar was NOT a christian. However, the majority of leaders in a “Christian” nation would seem to be Christian, and therefore commanded by Jesus to do these things. Either we have a lot of hypocrites in office or we are not a practicing Christian nation.

      It’s such a catch 22 for republicans. We are a Christian nation when it comes to determining the morality of your lifestyle but when it comes to practicing the gospel its “meh, Jesus didn’t mean that”.

    • M. Lewis

      The fact that you don’t know what Socialized Healthcare is makes it hard to take you seriously.. You’re answers to these legitimate questions are nothing less than ridiculous and typical of a brainwashed conservative.. Sad!

    • Doc_Rock

      Tip O’Neill quadrupled the national debt

      So then, Presidents dont have to sign budget legislation to become law? So…Tip O’neal just passed a budget every year without the president’s signature? Really? Nope.

    • nolidad

      Awesome! No wonder why I was delayed in answering this, you did much better.

      Let me add some points to Question 9. Domestic oil increases happend in spite of Obamas policies not because of them. Permits to drill on federal lands have decreased since Obama. The new oil fields that are causing great booms where they are are on private lands and out of the reach of Obama.

      All economists agree that our economy must create an average of 150K jobs/month (low of 120k high of 180k) just to absorb the new entrants into the job market. So given the 8,000,000 figure (BTW the bulk of them are only PT due to the restrctiveness of Obamacare) then his administration has only covered the new entrants and did nothing to bring those who lost their jobs back to employment.

      As for deficit reduction. Are you serious??? He has run up the greatest deficits in history. So he has dropped them by less than 50% of the high he signed up for. Last fiscal year the deficit was $680 billi0on which was $230 billion higher than Bush’s biggest deficit (TARP) was not included in deficit figures) So lets hope he has brought down the debt. Including TARP bush added $2,8 trtillion to the debt. Obama in 5 years has added $5.86 trillion

      Question 10. Jesus did not spend HIs life helping the poor. He helped on just a few occasions. Jesus earthly ministry was to announce He was the Messiah to train the Apostles and to go to Calvary to die for the sins of mankind. The church helps the poor as part of getting that good news out.

    • Maple

      I believe this questionnaire was written as if it was being asked by Republicans and those are their “talking points”.

    • andres herrera

      Way to inject lies to support your bs.

    • andres herrera

      You say Tip O’neill raised the debt under regan, since the potus cant raise the debt, then you go on to blame Obama for raising the debt. How can Obama raise the debt if he doesn’t have the power to do so?


    • Gian Keys

      Wonderful comment, Kevin. The light’s on and the libs are scurrying. Priceless.

    • bluenote1231

      Astonishingly selective recall of history and fact – just stunning. And 838 people bob their heads in agreement…the civic incompetence is just breathtaking.

    • Nathan Frigerio

      Nicely rationalized. Think maybe the truth is really somewhere in between? That you consider these 10 questions “liberal agenda lies”, just puts you firmly in the camp of the deluded,

    • Doug Sanfilippo

      OK Kevin,

      1) If you are correct, why does Obama get the blame for the current budget deficit? You guys can’t have it both ways.

      2) Same question.

      3) If you are correct, then why do Republicans continue to tout tax cuts are the answer for job creation…wouldn’t demand for labor increase if we used more tax dollars toward education? I would think a highly skilled labor force would be in greater demand. And the rich have benefitted greatly from this system..they need to be taxed as a higher percentage of income as their duty to reinvest in our nation.

      4) You’re trying to change the question..I think it’s pretty clear what was meant originally. The Japanese government pays for most of people’s care..and it is no where near what we had prior to the ACA. So you’re wrong here, big time.
      Answer to your counter question: People on medicaid have other issues contributing to these poor outcomes and you know it.

      5) You are on the wrong side of history on this one…and eventually there will be equality in every state. It’s just a matter of time.

      6) I don’t know enough about this to comment.

      7) Incorrect. The reason why the rich are richer than ever is because of deregulation making it easier for them to continue to stack the cards and take advantage of a system that is inherently unfair. And they are not paying workers what they are worth, period. They make people do more for less without any repercussions.

      8) Sorry bud…no mention of Christianity in the Constitution…so you can’t try to rewrite history on this one.

      9) We can just go round and round on this one…take your own advice I think is the point here.

      10) I am so confused with the concept of taxing the rich more fairly as “stealing”. The rich are taking advantage of a broken system and make their money on the labor and consumer dollars of the middle and lower class. I’ve met plenty of rich folks that don’t work hard and even more poor folks that do.

      And what don’t you get here? You people are cutting programs for the poor and putting the money into the military, while bragging about how Christian you are…you don’t see the irony?

      Conclusion: You really didn’t provide any counterpoints that addressed the original questions, without the exception (maybe) of #6.

      Your responses are disingenuous at best.

    • bluenote1231

      Most selective reinterpretation of history and fact ever — so much so that it borders on the delusional.

    • Pam Siegert

      Thank you for explaining the above to the liberals out there!

    • Renee

      You are awesome Kevin! NOW I’m laughing at his stupidity 😉

    • KiTA

      1) Strawman. Newt Gingrich was never, nor will ever be, a president.

      2) Diverting the blame. It’s somehow Obama’s fault the budget is messed up, but it’s not Reagan’s fault that he quadrupled the debt? Reagan is heralded as a Conservative saint, when in he deserved to locked up for war crimes, right alongside Bush and Cheney.

      3) Agreed. So why is the answer to “we need more jobs” always “give the rich even more money?”

      4) You are incorrect. Switzerland does have universal health care. Japan has 30/70 partial coverage — the Government pays 70% of all medical bills, no questions asked. The other 30% is covered under a Single-Payer health Insurance system ran by the state.

      5) The legal status of Same Sex Marriage is not a first amendment question. It is a question of the separation of church and state. To wit — can anyone give a reason why we should have institutionalized bigotry against a race / creed / orientation (in this case, LGBI citizens) without referencing any form of religion? No? Then the laws prohibiting said marriages are, by definition, unconstitutional.

      6) Thank you for confirming the existence of the GOP’s racist southern strategy.

      7) Incorrect. The majority of wealth gains by the 1% are a result of gamesmanship and economic trickery. It is not the result of any form of actual talent or entrepreneurial ability. In short, the rich are getting richer because it’s very easy to become rich… if you start out rich. Social mobility in the United States is the worst it’s been in a century. Yes, Sweden’s wealthy are becoming wealthy, but to try and compare the income disparity between the US and Sweden is absurd – the US is vastly, vastly more broken, economically, than Sweden.

      8) Absurdly false. The founding fathers are very clear in their writing and personal notes — they did not want this to be a “Christian Nation.” In fact, they were busy FLEEING “Christian Nations.” The United States is secular and any attempts at rewriting history fly in the face of the fabric of our nation.

      9) Ad hominem? Strawman? You utterly ignore the question involved. The fact of the matter is, if Obama were a Republican, or even merely a White Democrat, he would be heralded as overseeing one of the best recoveries in American history, doubly so due to the fact that if he was White or a Republican (but I repeat myself) he wouldn’t have had to deal with the most obstructionist, seditious, treasonous Houses and Senates in the history of our nation.

      10) Only in a diseased Republican’s mind would giving $100 to a banker help the homeless man dying behind the bank. Conservative economics do not work, period.

      • Riley

        Absolutely devastating treatise. Great job KiTA

    • Elizabeth Sullivan

      The writer of this article was right, you guys are hilarious.

    • John

      Regarding Reagan, he was spender president. After his first four years he turned the US from a lender country to a debtor country. See the NY Times article from 1985, when his Commerce Department made the announcement.

    • DamOTclese2

      Behold the Republican IQ, people. Lovely, huh?

      Sarah Palin? Is that you?

    • Jack Frost

      Alabama was solidly a democrat stronghold for decades after “Reconstruction” Republicans ravaged the South. George Wallace, a democrat, stood in the doorway to the University of Alabama denying entrance to black students to gin up the white voters. Alabama elected their first Republican voter by default. One rich lawyer Democrat won the party nomination but another wealthy Democrat lawyer objected and he had the party connections to prevail. The winner was booted after some trivially outrageous explanation. (Baxley/Graddick). The public sent a message by electing a itinerant preacher/farmer from the small town of Holly Pond, Guy Hunt. The wags said it was a one time thing. But he was reelected when he ran again and the Democrats eventually lost almost every office inside the state of Alabama. On a side note, Guy Hunt did not complete his second term because of a case of hubris. He was using the state airplane to fly around the state to preach. When advised that collecting love offering on these trips violated the ethics rules against using state equipment for personal gain, he did not apologize, but became defiant and went to court instead. He was found guilty, removed from office and the Lt. Governor assumed the role. Hunt retire back to his farm to live out the remainder of his life.

    • regnaD kicN

      Now wait just a minute Kevin, your “false premises” are based on false premises; I.E. the questionnaire writer is merely repeating conservative perception(s)!

    • DJ

      Right on. Liberals, read this respond and learn. Or walk away and say don’t confuse me with the facts.

    • Alex

      Really? I read your answers are they’re full of holes. Such as your
      supposition that the president doesn’t make the budget. They sign it
      into law, often publicly release their own budget plan, and if what you
      say is true, why are sooo many conservatives howling about Obama and
      “his” spending? #3) you just proved your own party is wrong #4) single
      payer health care systems lead the world in outcomes of treatment, not
      overall life expectancy. Kind of like how governments that have strict
      gun control have less gun crime. #5) separation of church and state. You
      just proved your party wrong, again. Are you sure you’re conservative?
      #6) to deny something as common sense as cultural racism in the south,
      shows that you’re a closet racist, often heard saying the phrase “I’m
      not racist, but…” followed by saying something racist. #7) the reason
      that the rich get richer is because we’ve given money, instead of
      people, a voice. They have the power and aren’t about to let their
      profits drop in the least to appease their most likely non union
      workers. They have already shown that businesses can’t be counted on to
      do the right thing, they need to be regulated. #8) read the treaty of
      Tripoli, or a book about the founding fathers, less than half were what
      we would call Christian. #9) you didn’t even attempt to answer the
      question, instead, you did the typically right wing shuffle and asked a
      question instead of answering one. #10) you just exposed the hypocrisy
      in the conservative movement today, Pretend to follow your religion,
      until it requires something FROM you, then, it’s pick and choose what
      you want to believe, and then say your beliefs should be legislated,
      but only the parts you agree with.

    • foolproof

      I do not know the data of Medicaid patient outcomes vs. everyone else’s but I think it is safe to say that negative outcomes of Medicaid patients are very likely due in the greatest part to age…plus considering those didn’t have great (or ANY) medical coverage UNTIL they got Medicaid. For those on Medicaid due to disability… well, that speaks for itself regarding outcomes. Also, the Japanese system is regulated very much by the government, not unlike the new Affordable Care Act plan system:

      . “Japan relies on a statutory health insurance system with over 3,500 insurers (in 2005) to provide health care to the entire population. This system of multiple health insurers is regulated by the federal government to ensure that all Japanese have access to health care and that Japan’s broader health policy goals are met by the many independent insurers and providers.” That’s from a paper “Health Care Lessons From Japan” by Nadeem Esmail, comparing Canada and Japan’s systems.

    • JonMon

      Great response. Only ONE thing: your answer to #8. “They expected”. Conjecture. Try again! You can do it!

    • jayjay4142

      I don’t like my taxes go to subsidize billionaires. I don’t like the fact that we are in a constant state of war which costs this country trillions each year.
      We are in a constant war. Since your Bush declared a war on terrorism that means it is never ending. Terrorists foreign and domestic have always been and always will be.
      Anyone who thinks that corporations are not out to find the cheapest labor they can find wherever they can find it is delusional.
      Why don’t you tell a child that is hungry that SNAP is bad for them. Or an elderly shut-in that meals on wheels doesn’t help them. You sir are a selfish corporate shill who promotes lies and distortions just like the 1%.

    • bb333

      Nailed # 6 BIGTIME……..

    • Axehandle28

      I love it – this is classic Republican strategy right out of the Karl Rove playbook (a little tattered around the edges by now, but so is Republican dogma in general): Always answer a question with a question OR dispute the premise of said question. This chucklehead’s response clearly demonstrates why we should stop trying to debate with the top 1% And Those Who Carry Their Water and instead concentrate on signing up more voters. For every 10 new voters, the odds are that 8-9 of them are getting screwed over along with the rest of us and will vote Democrat. We. Are. Awake. See you at the polls.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      ” The longest-lived countries are Japan and Switzerland, neither of which
      is single-payer.” Check out T.R.Reid’s Sick Around the World. He profiles both Japan and Switzerland, both of which have universal coverage.,

      Counterquestion: If socialized medicine is great, how
      come people on Medicaid have some terrible health outcomes?

      Because few physicians want to take care of Medicaid patients. They are poor and their social problems are independent of payor source.

      And Southern voters were moving towards the Republican party with the beginning of Nixon’s elections. “Dixiecrats” were Democrats only because they hated Republicans, once the party of big business and liberal elites. They were not what most of us considered “Democrats.”

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      “Answer: Let me help you out here: Jesus commanded his followers to feed
      the hungry and clothe the naked. He did not command them to petition
      Caesar to seize their neighbors’ assets and to use them to feed the
      hungry and clothe the naked. Also, you’re begging the question: If you
      compare money spent to changes in the poverty rate, there is little or
      no evidence that these programs actually “help the poor and the needy.”
      They do create a lot of full-time jobs and vote banks for Democrats. By
      their fruit shall ye know them.”

      If you are an elected official proclaiming to be Christian, then yes, you are one of Jesus’ followers and should act as such. We don’t live 2000 years ago. Times change. I have no problem with my taxes helping the less fortunate. I have more of a problem with them subsidizing multi-billion dollar industries and allowing rich people to avoid taxes. I’m not sure why THAT doesn’t bother YOU.

      We live in a communal society. You don’t want to pay taxes, find another country that doesn’t tax its citizens. I hear Somalia is beautiful this time of year. Otherwise shut up because you too benefit from taxes.

    • rockribbedrushy

      This questionnaire proves once again that Liberalism is a Mental Disorder!

    • David Lee Armstrong

      Brilliant. You can almost hear liberal’s heads exploding.

    • Bryan

      This idiot that wrote this article is a joke. If he pulled this list of hack questions on me, I’d verbally castrate him with the answers… then point out the hypocrisy of many of his own premises.
      Typical Liberal… proceeding from a false sense of intellectual superiority. Most don’t have an IQ that qualifies for above average, let alone any higher. They parrot bullshit like this and never learn how stupid it makes them sound.

      • tomgnh

        And your intellectual contribution is what? Other than dump on the author, I mean, like in seventh grade.

    • Randy Breeser

      I think some of these questions(and answers) lack relevance. What is at the heart of the debate is the questions surrounding the human condition. I honestly want to understand the conservative mindset and what they want society to look like. Is the object of our existence on this planet simply to acquire wealth and the pleasure it allows? Is it to assure that those among us that are less talented, less courageous, less motivated or less able in some way do not share in other’s success. Does greed not exist? or is it simply a good thing for society and the advancement of the human condition? Aside from the moral questions, there are also practical considerations. Nearly every violent revolution in history can be traced to the concentration of wealth and the need to safeguard and grow that wealth. It may be attractive to some to return to an economy exemplified by the gilded age where exploitation and greed dominated but the wealthy ruling classes of the time were also forced to employ private armies to protect their families and their property. If you think the current state of society is not on track to this new feudalism, you only have to observe the obsession with lowering the tax burden on the wealthy, the diminishing of the respect for the working man, the growing acceptance for the idea that only certain segments of society should be encouraged to vote and the contempt for science and intellectualism exemplified by the tea party movement. All of this enabled by the arrogant view that our society is so great that the lessons from thousands of years of human history are irrelevant.

  • Greg Heilers

    and 2) – “Fiscal responsibility” is not the same thing as “balancing
    the budget” – it is spending wisely, and only on things that are the
    responsibility of the Federal Government.

    If tax rates were reduced to zero, we would create jobs the same we we
    did *before* we had “income taxes” – the free market *will* flourish
    and prosper, if allowed.

    “Life expectancy” is simply how long one is expected to live. It does
    not necessarily take into account the amount of freedom in one’s life,
    and the quality of that life. It is the old “freedom vs. security”

    5) Failure to “officially” recognize/endorse/support “gay marriage” is not the same thing as “banning” it.

    Wow. The two can not be compared, and are flawed historically, to
    boot. For example, the support for Slavery was not limited to “the
    South” by any means. The Western states almost seceded, themselves,
    after the “war aims” steered further towards the elimination of Slavery.

    Once again, historically flawed. The differences between “rich” and
    “poor” were far greater 100 years ago, and even larger 200 years ago.

    ) Because they wrote of “inalienable (and God-given) rights” – which
    had *nothing* to do with the Constitution, nor could they be interfered
    with, by the Constitution. There was no need to mention Christianity,
    as its presence and influence existed *before* the Constitution.

    could ask a Liberal: Where in the Constitution or Declaration of
    Independence does the word “democracy” appear? Or, where in the
    Constitution is the “right to vote” given?)

    9) We saw it reported last week that the employment rate(s) during Mr. Obama’s first term were intentionally misreported.
    Mr. Obama had nothing to do with the extermination of bin Ladin, other
    than simply *allowing* the already-existing, long-ongoing military
    operation to continue. So, the question can not be accepted as valid.

    Jesus Christ espoused the philosophy of *private* individuals helping
    the needy, as *individual* acts of charity. That is not the same thing
    as forced income redistribution.

  • Elle

    Republicans call Bush a great president…were they all on vacation during his time in office?

  • TrustNo1

    Hip Hip hooray for the other 98% !

  • Holmezboy0116

    So much fail and short sighted thought in this article.

  • James

    Ha ha ha ha ha
    Ha ha ha ha ha
    Ha ha ha ha ha!

  • cobrown

    May I suggest you choose smarter Republicans to question?

  • Benjamin Friedman

    As a generally liberal person from the South who likes to try and understand understand the conservative views, let me try to give some hypothetical rebuttals.

    1. Republican states and municipalities tend to have healthier budgets because they have less spending. It makes sense to think this should hold at the national level. The last Dem with a surplus (Clinton) benefitted in getting the budget under control because of the tech boom (out of his control), tax hikes (from H.W Bush), and the peace dividend (Reagan).
    2. There was a good economy and much of the debt was a result of millitary spending to defeat the Soviets along with high spending by the Democrats who controlled Congress. Remember that Congress ultimately has control over the budget.
    3. That’s insane and no serious conservative would ever advocate 0% taxes. Look up the Army Curve. Besides, monetary policy, long advocated as an alternative to fiscal policy by many conservatives, is appropriate in a hypothetical situation like that.
    4. Socialized medicine is a global free rider problem. Countries with it benefit because the United States rewards innovation and then other countries reap the benefits at a lower price. By getting rid of the market based system, companies would find it uneconomical to invest in researching new medical technologies. Furthermore, the American system is so lodged in place that a radical reform could destroy a system that, while not perfect, isn’t completely horrible.
    5. Freedom of religion means the government cannot tell you how to worship (within reasonable boundaries), but your religion cannot tell the state how to behave. Some religions believe that all medicine is wrong, does that mean hospitals should be abolished? Of course not. Just because your church has a belief therefor doesn’t mean it can dictate the rules for everyone.
    6. Quit South bashing. Most people in the area either weren’t born or couldn’t vote during that time period. The South is no more racist than any other part of the country at this point and has more integration in many regards. This might have been true in the past, but now it’s beating a dead horse.
    7. Globalization and a capitalist winner-take-all system. Some of the most unequal states in the country are high tax New York and California, so taxes aren’t the whole story.
    8. The Founders all came from a Christian background and generally believed in God (of one form or another). Christianity was part of the unstated milieu. Leaving religion out of the Constitution was to avoid problems such as Catholic vs Anglican (Episcopalian) vs Congregationalist vs American Protestant branches from coming into conflict.
    9. It comes down to context. The Dem in office had nothing to do with a few of those points (oil and bin Laden) and the job growth has been very weak. Even with 44 months, the US still has massive underemployment and hasn’t made enough progress to bounce back from the recession. Further talking point, the Reagan recovery was better.
    10. The Great Society and related programs to help the needy have failed. They sound nice, but are very expensive and do little to help their targets. Poverty rates, pre-recession, were stuck at a pretty constant rate even though crazy money was being thrown around. That’s a good sign that the strategy has failed. What are the opportunity costs associated with that type of spending? Could we have done something more useful or effective? Besides, don’t many of these programs encourage bad behaviors such as illegitimate children and sloth? What about the relationship between expanded social programs and the decline of social capital? The road to Hell is always paved with good intentions.

    Just some thoughts on rebuttals, nothing too thought out, but I think some are reasonable responses. Many of these aren’t far right retorts, but I would suspect more moderate Republican arguments. Then again, the far right gets all the talk time, so it’s a bit hard to divine their beliefs these days.

  • Jua

    1) If Republicans are so fiscally responsible, why was
    President Eisenhower (in the 1950′s) the last Republican president to
    balance the budget? We are hopeful that the next Republican president will
    at least lower the debt, we know that the Democrats won’t even acknowledge that
    we have a spending problem…

    2) If President Reagan was such a fiscally conservative
    hero, why did he quadruple our national debt during his eight years in the
    White House? Because he was trying to defeat the soviet empire by out spending
    the Soviets in an arms race… He won… it worked

    3) If tax breaks are the main driving force behind job
    creation, how would we create jobs once tax rates were reduced to practically
    zero? Tax breaks are is not the main
    driving force behind job creation, but it does have a very negative effect when
    taxes and REGULATIONS (RED TAPE) are too high…. No Republican is talking about bringing
    taxes next to zero… But when Ronald Reagan lowered taxes; Revenues went up, ..

    4) If socialized health care is so awful, why does every
    country that leads the world in life expectancy have socialized health care?
    The US is one of the leaders of life expectancy and we don’t and never will
    have socialized medicine. New Zealand Does not have socialized medicine and is
    # 5, and has life expectancy of a whopping 81 years.

    5) If you support the freedom of religion (as per our
    Constitution), and my church recognizes gay marriage, isn’t your support for
    the banning of same-sex marriage an attack on my religion’s First Amendment
    rights? It is not illegal to get married, it is just that the Federal
    government and some states don’t recognize it legally… so no… it is not an
    attack on your first amendment rights..

    6) What’s more realistic? 1) That an entire region
    of the United States that supported slavery in the late-1800′s and support
    segregation in the 1950′s and 60′s suddenly stopped being racist, or 2)
    The racist southern Democrats in the south became Republicans during the 50′s
    and 60′s when the Republican party shifted toward an idea called the “Southern
    Strategy,” where the GOP appealed to the racism in southern whites who
    didn’t like African Americans voting for Democrats. When those southern
    states voted for Clinton you didn’t call them racists… By the way Republicans have
    a much more diverse group of front runners than the Democrats… Dr. Ben Carson, Condoleezza
    Rice, Herman Cain, Allen West… All black, Nicky Hailey, Booby Jindal East
    Indian, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz Hispanic…

    7) If taxes are at some of their lowest levels in
    history, and the wealthiest in this country are richer than ever, why hasn’t
    the growth in the wealth of the middle class matched that of the top 2%? Because
    of Government Red Tape, Unions and overall bad environment for business… not
    to mention the uncertainty that a socialized president and senate bring…

    8) If our Founding Fathers wanted this nation to be based
    on Christianity, why don’t the words “Christian” or “Christianity” appear even
    once in our Constitution? The Declaration of Independence begins thus:

    “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people
    to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to
    assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which
    the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the
    opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
    them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
    are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
    Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That
    to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
    just powers from the consent of the governed.”

    9) If a Republican president reduced massive job losses
    in the midst of the worst recession in nearly a century by more than 50% in his
    first 4 months in office; presided over 44 consecutive months of private-sector
    job growth creating nearly 8 million jobs; killed Osama bin Laden; saw stock
    markets reach all-time highs; saved the American auto industry; increased
    domestic oil production to highs not seen since the late-90′s and championed
    the largest year-to-year deficit reductions since World War II, would your
    party not be calling him a hero and a legend? NO… Unemployment has
    remained over 8% for 6 years, we are 17 trillion dollars in debt and growing…
    we have not passed a budget since the Bush administration… this is beyond

    10.) If Jesus spent his life helping the poor and
    the needy, how does it make sense that a party which claims to be for
    “Christian values” continues to cut funding for programs that help the poor and
    the needy?

    We do help the needy, we just don’t think that government
    does the best job at it… Government is not supposed to be a charity…

    • AbbeyRoadkill

      #5 The federal gov’t DOES recognize gay marriages. Your ignorance is stunning.

  • sheepdan

    These are idiotic questions. You must be mentally deficient.

    1. Because Republicans don’t control the government independently.

    2. Same.

    3. Nobody says tax breaks “drive” job creation, just they allow the natural job creation forth. If they were removed the economy could do its natural thing.

    4. Average life expectancy is: (1) not only based on one metric, they also have healthier lifestyles, and (2) not the only measure of a good system.

    5. No, that mistakes freedom of religion for a constitutional mandate to impose everyone’s religion on society. I don’t claim a first amendment right for the government to not recognize same sex marriage.

    6. No, choice 3 that everyone in the country became overwhelmingly less racist in the past 50 years, you northerners included.

    7. Because taxes are not at some of their lowest levels in history. The combined federal income tax, payroll tax, state tax, local tax, property tax, sales tax, and government fees is over 60% at least for that middle class.

    8. I don’t think they wanted it to be Christian. But, if they wanted abortion, why didn’t they put that in? If they didn’t want death penalty, why didn’t they put that in?

    9. “reduced massive job losses”? lol, what a way with words. Sure, because we were hitting rock bottom. Then, there was only one way to go. And at that, not many jobs have returned–you’re full of it. The reduced unemployment rate is because people are leaving the job market.

    10. Conservatives give much more charity than liberals do. We just believe in giving charity instead of grabbing it from the rich.

    • AbbeyRoadkill

      ‘sheep’ certainly describes you accurately.

  • char

    If you think these questions will stump republicans, you probably haven’t asked a smart republican. Almost all of them are easy to answer. I could, but I have homework to do, and I don’t want to do yours.

    • AbbeyRoadkill

      So in other words, you have no answers.

      • char

        No. That’s not right. I will take 5 for example..

        Generally applicable laws that prevent one from engaging in a religious practice generally do not not violate the first amendment. For example, the Supreme Court upheld a law that that banned peyote use, even though it prevented Native American Church members from engaging in that religious sacrament. Also, the church can still marry the individuals (thus engaging in the religious practice) without state recognition.

        Take 8…

        They didn’t want it to be “based on Christianity.” Thay wanted religious freedom, but they did put “God” into the declaration of independence because part of the political philosophy on which the constitution is based held that Christianity, or some other religion in the western tradition (with notions of rights and punishment/reward in the afterlife), was essential to the stability of the system.

        Seriously, these questions are weak. If I learn leftist ideology so that I know how they would respond to issues, the least you guys could do is the same.

  • Netral Libratarian

    1. If Republicans are so fiscally responsible, why was President Eisenhower (in the 1950′s) the last Republican president to balance the budget?

    Actually the only President who has overseen a balanced budget in the last 50 years was Bill Clinton, BUT he did this only at the urging of Newt Gingrich who was Speaker of the House at the time. This was one of the points that both Parties set aside their differences and worked together on.

    2. If President Reagan was such a fiscally conservative hero, why did he quadruple our national debt during his eight years in the White House?


    Well, there is another issue at stake here. There were 2 other factors involved when you look at Regan’s economic policy. First, he was taking office after Jimmy Carter’s 4 years of abysmal economic policy. He lowered taxes which spurred economic growth not seen since the 1960s. The second factor was the abysmal state of the US military. It had been in decline in both moral and readiness. Regan reversed this. He invested in new weapon systems that lead to the end of the Cold war.

    3. If tax breaks are the main driving force behind job creation, how would we create jobs once tax rates were reduced to practically zero?


    No one is saying that we reduce tax rates to zero. What most conservatives want is a fair, reasonable tax rate. Right now nearly ½ of the country pays no income taxes. If you truly want equality for all, why not then tax everyone at the same rate?

    4. If socialized health care is so awful, why does every country that leads the world in life expectancy have socialized health care?


    There are several answers to your question. First, Life expectancy does not tie 100% into health care. You have to take into account accidental death such as auto accidents. Genetics also play a large part in life expectancy as well as the societal stress.

    If you take a look at those countries who offer socialized health care, very few innovations come from these countries. Most of the advancements in medicine come from our current Health Care system. What incentive would companies have to invent new life saving devices if all they can look forward to is higher taxes and sever limits to what they can charge. They would never be able to recoup their investment in the research.

    5. If you support the freedom of religion (as per our Constitution), and my church recognizes gay marriage, isn’t your support for the banning of same-sex marriage an attack on my religion’s First Amendment rights?


    You are mixing your questions.

    I think that you would find that the country is pretty tolerant personally. The problem comes from when you try to infringe on the standards of conduct of the majority to appease a very small minority of the population. Most studies find that only about 3 to 5 % of the population is gay. Most people in the country still find homosexuality morally wrong. They don’t hate gay people, they just disapprove of their conduct. There is a difference.

    As for what a Church chooses to do, that is their business. I can choose to attend that church or not. The problem is when you want to change the law. That is a different story.

    I have an uncle who is gay and actually went to California to get married. To be totally honest, I could care less what he does in his bedroom. I just don’t want it thrown in my face or that of my childern.

    6. What’s more realistic? 1) That an entire region of the United States that
    supported slavery in the late-1800′s and support segregation in the 1950′s and 60′s suddenly stopped being racist, or 2) The racist southern Democrats
    in the south became Republicans during the 50′s and 60′s when the Republican party shifted toward an idea called the “Southern
    Strategy,” where the GOP appealed to the racism in southern whites
    who didn’t like African Americans voting for Democrats.


    Well, there is one major flaw in your theory. The late Senator Byrd of West Virginia. In his younger days was a key leader in the KKK, one of the most racist originations in the country.

    Your logic also fails on another point. Some of the Democratic Parties Social Hero’s President Johnson with his “Great Society” and Bill Clinton were both from the South. (Both of which are white.)

    You point is actually very discriminating. You want to call someone a racist just because they came from a certain place in the country. You probably don’t even take the time to listen to what they are trying to say.

    7. If taxes are at some of their lowest levels in history, and the wealthiest in this country are richer than ever, why hasn’t the growth in the wealth of the middle class matched that of the top 2%?


    First, taxes are actually not all that low and the problem that we are in is not all about taxes. This administration has imposed draconian regulations on multiple sectors of the economy, many without a single vote by congress. When there is an abundance of over regulation, fear and uncertainty about Health Care, people don’t invest.

    One question to you. Who do you think owns most American corporations? The majority of publicly traded companies are owned by “the public” This is most commonly done through Mutual funds, 401ks and IRAs. For all the bad things said about companies, just remember that they are owned and return dividends to their shareholders who are in fact the general public.

    8. If our Founding Fathers wanted this nation to be based on Christianity, why don’t the words “Christian” or “Christianity” appear even once in our


    Well, that was one of the most brilliant things that our founding fathers did. They knew and worked with people of several denominations and Jews. After seeing what happened to England and the rest of Europe after the Reformation, they chose not to specifically name a faith or denomination. Rather they gave us the Freedom OF Religion (NOT freedom
    FROM religion)

    Second, the Constitution was a document that was originally written to spell out how this new government would work. It was only in the 1st 10 amendments (The Bill of Rights) that they lay out the specific rights and limits of the government.

    9. If a Republican president reduced massive job losses in the midst of the worst recession in nearly a century by more than 50% in his first 4 months in office; presided over 44 consecutive months of private-sector job growth creating nearly 8 million jobs; killed Osama bin Ladin; saw stock markets reach all-time highs; saved the American auto industry; increased domestic oil production to highs not seen since the late-90′s and championed the largest year-to-year deficit reductions since World War II, would your party not be calling him a hero and a legend?


    I think you will find out that the numbers you are quoting are not quite correct.

    He did not reduce the number of jobs lost in 4 months, if he had done that our unemployment numbers would not have been as high as they were even 4 years later.

    Let’s assume that your 44 months of “growth” is correct. The problem is that there may be a report of 170,000 new jobs created but that was offset by an unemployment number of 300,000. We are still at a net loss of jobs due to our abysmal economic growth (less than 2%)

    I will concede to Osama Bin Laden. He didn’t say “no”

    Part of the record stock market growth is the unfettered printing of money by the treasury. Also with companies not spending capital in expanding their business, they are flush with cash and paying out dividends. I would rather take a lower dividend and see more expansion.

    Oil production increase growth is outside the power of the president. Most of the increase of oil production has come off of Private Land. This means that the government is not getting any royalty fees that they would normally be charging the oil companies if they were drilling on public lands. It also had to do with the technological advancements in the drilling industry which increases production from older wells.

    He has added more debt than all of the previous presidents combined~ It is only at the insistence of a Republican House of Representatives that there has been any reduction in spending.

    10. If Jesus spent his life helping the poor and the needy, how does it make sense that a party which claims to be for “Christian values” continues to cut funding for programs that help the poor and the needy?

    I think you will find that as a whole Americans are the most generous people on the planet. As a matter of fact, Churches play a huge role in caring for the poor in this country. They run most soup kitchens, food banks, clothing banks etc. What most conservatives have a problem with is someone thinking they are entitled to their charity. We don’t want anyone to go hungry but we do expect people to try and help themselves. Take advantage of the job training programs, employment agencies, and remember that there is no such thing as a job that is beneath you. If you are hungry and someone offers you a job bussing tables, take it.
    I think most conservative would say, let the local charities take care of the local people. They can do a better job than a bunch of politicians in Washington.
    Final Comments
    I think your approach is one of the big problems facing the country today. Both sides are so concerned about beating the other side that they have lost the ability to listen to one another. What do you expect to happen to this country in 5 years if we don’t learn to listen to each side? The last time we let ourselves become this divided it cost this country over 600,000 lives. It could have been avoided then and it can be avoided in the future….listen to each other. Don’t call each other name and be respectful.

    • sickofdems

      Well stated.

  • thanksforthelaugh!

    I know the liberals on here think they are ‘getting a good laugh’ .. but I can’t help but notice how angry most of you sound… I on the other hand am truely getting a good laugh out of your comments… by the way, whether you like or not money = power… so while you’re beating your brains trying to figure out how to ‘redistribute the wealth’, please know that you don’t have the power to make it happen… my money can easily be transfered to an account out of this country.

    • AbbeyRoadkill

      And that’s why you are a traitor.

  • Jerby Philodore

    Do you think you’re going to get anywhere productive bickering over the details and specifics of government budgets? Has Congress?

    The only thing you people want is to give up less purchasing power to taxes and to enable the government to do what is needed, with the least trouble to everybody, and within the limits of physical possibility. There! You’re united in your objective!

    The thing that seems to escape most people about the financial system- reasonably so, I suppose, given that we live in it like fish in water – is that the physical possibilities of what we can do is much greater than what the financial system would allow. Yet, we still restrict ourselves to what is possible within a broken financial system.

    Listen: The financial system is a government, in the same way as that founded by the US Constitution- and it can be changed by democratic pressure upon the aristocracy of experts that manage it. In order to progress as a society, we MUST change it, so that it reflects the physical facts and possibilities of the world around us- which are many. We can:

    -Provide good healthcare for all
    -Abolish poverty
    -Increase leisure, freedom and security for all to an extent never previously dreamt of in industrial civilization
    -End the main cause for all wars
    -And more

    simply by properly recognizing and acting upon the fact that we have the men, and we have the technology- and therefore, we should have the money, too.

  • joel veldheer

    these are really great questions that repugs would simply ignore because they could not answer them; I really like the last one; a great question!!

  • Zack Smith

    The list is nothing more than a pathetic collection of straw man canards in the false left-right paradigm. Spare me the MSNBC/Fox News talking points. Start off with the fact that the dichotomy isn’t liberal/Republican – it’s liberal/conservative or Democrat/Republican. Garbage.

  • tomgnh

    Might I suggest another question? Perhaps two. Perhaps more.

    How do you reconcile your positions as the Tea Party with the original purpose of the Boston Tea Party, which was to oppose a corporate tax break?

    How do reconcile your view of government with the original purpose of the Founding Fathers in Philadelphia, which was to create a stronger federal government with the increased power to tax to pay its debts?

    How do you respond to one of President Washington’s first major acts, which was to enforce the national power to require citizens to pay duly passed taxes?

    How do you reconcile you views on ObamaCare with the Congress requiring Seamen to buy insurance in the 1790s?

    I’m sure there are more.

  • Thomas J. Lucente Jr.

    What brain dead boob thought up these questions? Certainly not someone who claims to have a degree in political science.

    • AbbeyRoadkill

      I noticed you didn’t try to answer any of them. Maybe because you know you can’t?

  • zelduh

    Question No. 10 came up just today on Facebook:

    Bible; New Living Translation: “And he will answer, ‘I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me’.” –Matt 25:45

    Laura D.
    Ahh, that mandate is for people to feed them NOT governments. Feed the Children, Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, church food pantries etc. But still we are lousy at that too, thank God for His forgiveness!!

    What a bunch of conservative Dominionist Bullshit! We are the Federal and STATE government. We – the PEOPLE – can do it and, of course, we should.

    Laura D.

  • John Folsom

    1. Not all Republicans are fiscal conservatives 2. The President proposes
    the budget. It is the Congress that must approve the budget. Both
    legislative houses controlled by Democrats 3. When were tax rates
    “practically reduced to zero”? 4. Why is almost every country that
    offers socialized health care broke? 5. No. The Constitution forbids the
    establishment of religion, It doesn’t prevent people from worshiping in
    their tradition 6. #2 7. Stupid question. Taxes are not at their lowest
    level in history. Check out 16th Amendment, 1913. 8. Where does one
    find that our founders wanted the United States to be a Christian
    nation? See 5 9. A question based on false premises. Not logical. 10.
    Again, see 5

  • MLR

    Well you know how republicans are. If it’s a Democrat in the White House, everything is his fault. I’ve been hearing for years that PBO is spending money like a drunken sailor and yet there’s a response below that says congress authorizes the spending. Of course, they conveniently remember this only when there’s a republican president in the White House. So which is it? Like I’ve said before, they will twist themselves into a pretzel and don’t even realize that they contradict themselves all the time. As for religion, of course they only cherry-pick what they like from the bible AND the constitution. It’s the hypocrisy in the republican party that is truly breathtaking (and not in a good way).

    • AbbeyRoadkill

      Hypocrisy = Republican.

  • Sheareader

    Kevin D. Williamson Presidents propose budgets and are the leaders of their party, as well as the country. We do hold Presidents responsible, in many cases, for what Congress does. That’s if it does anything.

  • Douglas Antreassian

    It’s always nice to read a piece written by someone with an operating conscience and critical thinking skills (really, either/or is fine). As you can see from the comment section, however, logic and decency remain out of reach for many. It is difficult to be sane, Mr. Clifton, but you deal with it quite well.
    Here’s to sanity! (Does rhyme with Hannity… most disturbing.)

  • Chuckles Hotzenpfeff

    Loved it. Learn to spell “bin Laden” though.

  • Chuckles Hotzenpfeff

    5b. If you’re a Christian, and you believe in the Bible as truth, and the Bible says rich people can’t go to heaven (‘it is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle’), then why the hell aren’t you giving all your money away?

    • AbbeyRoadkill

      Simple. Republicans are hypoctrites.

  • Realist12

    Bravo…great questions Allen…

  • AbbeyRoadkill


    #1. Eisenhower could balance the budget because had much higher tax rates– 90% on the super-rich.

    #2. Because Reagan is not a fiscal hero. He wanted ‘guns and butter’ at the same time without paying for any of it.

    #3. Tax breaks are not the main force behind job creation– or even among the main forces. Feedback loops between consumers and those who produce what they want to consume creates jobs.

    #4. Socialized health care is not awful. It keeps the countries who have it healthy.

    #5. Of course Southerners steadily drifted away from the party of equality– the Democrats. This is a no brainer.

    #6. Of course banning gay marriage is an attack on religious rights. But Republicans only support the kind of freedom they like.

    #7. The rich get richer because the game is rigged in their favor, period. It’s not because they are smarter in an absolute sense, they are just smarter at rigging the game to keep themselves wealthy.

    #8. The Founders never intended this country to have any official, state religious belief. So they kept it out of the Constitution completely.

    #9. They be calling him both hero and legend and many other wonderful adjectives.

    #10. The Republican party only claims to have Christian values in order to get votes. As soon as the election is over and governing begins, they’ll swear they never heard Jesus say those things.

  • Michael Cook

    As a genuine Tea Party apologist and fellow-traveler, let me offer the following. I do believe that intelligent government spending can both stimulate and sustain the national wealth. The best examples are the hydro-electric dam projects started by Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Interstate Highway System of Dwight Eisenhower, and even JFK’s moon program. Spending which only subsidizes inefficient special interests on a highly selective basis fans the flames of political hatred and is like opening our veins and bleeding out on the floor. A profit system rewards success. A loss system rewards failure.
    I am praying that Obama’s Syrian, Egyptian, and Iranian policies work out because things will be too awful if they don’t. I mistrust lib-Dem thinking most on global warming and energy policy, as well as how to make a “fair” anything. Fairness (enforced by bureaucracy) is the enemy of excellence and of rapid innovation and technical progress. Always has been so. Anthropogenic global warming is a colossal scientific blunder based on mistaking correlation for causation.

    • AbbeyRoadkill

      So you are a scientist?

  • Stick

    “I honestly never thought I’d live in a day and age where climate change would be something millions of people suddenly doubted.” I stopped reading there. It would seem science was not Allen’s forte’. Why do I assume if he wrote this line 5 years ago he would have been amazed that “global warming” was doubted. Now its climate change. Political Science majors should really just focus on things they can understand like super sizing fries and wiping the tables after a diner finishes their Happy Meal.

    • AbbeyRoadkill

      Are you a scientist?

      • Stick

        I know physics and chemistry. How about you?

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        You didn’t answer the question. Another Repub sidestep, as usual.

      • Stick

        Dear Abbey, who are you and why do you feel I need to show my resume’ to you? Now go look up the U value of Carbon Dioxide.

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        Who are you and why do you think your uninformed opinion trumps that of 98% of climate scientists?

      • Stick

        Simple, because 98% of climate scientists are liars and frauds in search of funding. See emails. Now please explain how Carbon Dioxide, with no physical ability to hold heat can cause warming?

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        lol. Here come the psycho conspiracy theorists again! I see you’re not a serious person. NEXT!

      • Stick

        You must be bored. There is no conspiracy in physics and chemistry just facts. Now again, tell me how Carbon Dioxide creates and holds heat. I await your breakthrough in science.

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        You must be dumb. The data collected all points in the same direction, humans are driving up the temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans. Let me guess, you don’t believe in evolution either, because that’s a conspiracy! lol

      • Stick

        Abbey, 98% of used car salesmen are convinced that buying used is better than new. See consensus. In this case they may be right even though you should be able to see their self interest. So you imply that 98% of climate scientist have over ruled the Thermal Transmittance value of Carbon Dioxide. In fact they haven’t. They fully admit it is not really a ‘green house gas’. By definition it could not be. They posit that there is some correlation between Carbon and Thermal Temperature in their historical data. There is. The sticky part comes when they conflate the earth’s production of carbon causes heat to accumulate within the atmosphere. Here they have it backwards – carbon increases as temperature increases – not the other way round. Chicken and egg thingy. Correlation is not causation.

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        Used car salesmen is the best you can do? lol. Ask the poeple on the NJ shore or in the Philippines what they think of global warming. Fool.

      • Stick

        Ask yourself a couple of obvious questions, who decided they had polled 100% of ‘climate scientists’ and were they accurate? You are throwing around a very soft number that you were fed. You need to kick that tire good and hard before buying. Or just read up on the known physical attributes of carbon. Throw in photosynthesis and temperature variability and viola you might connect the dots.

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        More sidestepping. You are not a climate scientist, therefore your armchair ruminations are meaningless. The end.

      • Stick

        Sorry Abbey, your idiot meter is timed out. I understand that you are dimwitted and prey to all sorts of sharps, but your obvious inability to think for yourself is your handicap not mine. Adios.

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        At least I’m not a whore of the rich. Go defend your beloved elites over at Fox news. They’ll love your armchair science.

      • Stick

        Your right Abbey, whores have skills and a market.

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        And you use your whore skills to the utmost ability. Keep chasing that paycheck from Exxon, I’m sure they love your apologizing for them.

  • bkyguy

    this is how stupid people approach arguments, or at least weak people – if your strategy is to accuse someone of supporting a particular point, despite them never saying the words “reagan” and then demand they defend everything “reagan” and when they do you you declare victory, you are only an idiot with no thinking skills of your own – you only really make a point when you use someone’s own words or past behavior against them, so if you go up to an atheist republican and hit him with the jesus stuff, you are a loser in more ways than one

  • tomgnh

    I thought of another question- If you believe that no one should sacrifice his or her liberty or wealth for the welfare of the country, how do you reconcile that position to those and the families of those who sacrifice their lives in service?

  • waynef43

    Bengazi!!!!! Bengazi!!!!!! Bengazi!!!!!!!!!!

  • jimb82

    Note to commenters trying to rebuke the false use of Christianity by some posters below to claim that Christians should support large government expenditures on social programs: I tried to post twice, quoting the Bible, and my comments went off to moderation limbo.

    • jimb82

      So this post without a Bible reference did not. Draw your own conclusions.

  • reinzig

    In the spirit of Kevin Williamson, allow ME to answer these for you real quick (at least these are the answers I’ve gotten when I’ve asked these questions of Republicans):
    1) Because you’ve got your facts wrong. Because it’s not the president’s fault, it’s the responsibility of Congress. Except for Obama. It’s definitely his fault.
    2) Because small government, small government, small government.
    3) We don’t have to create jobs, we have plenty of jobs; people don’t work because they’re lazy and they’d rather liven on government handouts.
    4) You’re a communist. I knew it.
    5) Religious freedom?? Christians are being persecuted left and right in this country. No one even says “Merry Christmas” anymore. See?
    6) I’m not racist, I just want to see his real birth certificate.
    7) Everyone could be rich if they just tried. See #3.
    8) You clearly learned your history in a classroom, rather than from your pastor. No wonder you’re confused. It’s in there.
    9) No. I wouldn’t. You think you can trick me into saying what you want–this is proof that Satan controls your mind.
    10) Because if all those people just went to church, their church communities would take care of their needs. It’s you atheists that have destroyed our country.

    • AbbeyRoadkill

      lol. 100 points for house reinzig!

  • jcasteele

    It is interesting how lefties think they’re so clever when they are demonstrating their own ignorance.

  • soldiers&congress=same pay

    Just tell us exactly how the GOP has helped recently to do something positive, as opposed to just telling us what they dislike. It’s called pro and con.
    Present both sides of an issue fairly and the corrective actions to address it. Don’t like the AHC act as it is written, then where are your realistic ideas for universal health care and the myriad other problems facing our country.
    First you must stop believing everything said on Fox news, just view it in context as a one sided comedy channel.
    If you are a closet racist, homophobe, or religious fanatic, read the Constitution or get professional help. Unless of course you talk directly to God and do exactly what He tells you to do.

  • tomgnh

    My thanks to “V the K” for calling the President “Obamugabe” in a comment below, and settling the issue of whether any opposition is racially-based.

    • parthos

      I think that name was used because he’s acting like a tin-pot dictator, not because the color of his skin.

      • tomgnh

        Are you he? Why did he not refer to him as a Saddam? An Omar?

        I disagree; he reflects the same animus that created the Obama caricature as a witch doctor.

  • Cheri

    The assumption that all Republicans are Christians and hate gays is getting reeeally tiring

    • tomgnh

      Agreed; let’s get the GOP leadership to reach out to non-Christians and gays in their platforms and legislative positions to reflect those members’ values.

      • parthos

        Hard to believe but there is a difference between not hating people and not supporting their legislative positions and platforms.

      • Kevin D. Williamson

        You mean like the House majority leader? The GOP’s L.A. mayoral candidate? The first openly gay House candidate?

  • bo ure

    Why was I even linked here? The author of this piece sounds like a child.

    Thought I’d live in a day and age where climate change would be something millions of people suddenly doubted.

    That is the thing that child-progressive type says. Because nobody doubts climate change. Nobody does. To suggest it is childish. I’m going to say this again but it will not sink in and that is another thing that makes the author so childish, the inability for simple things to sink in. Nobody doubts climate change. Saying that is perfectly idiotic. Projecting it is mean-spirited. So, dumb and mean-spirited. The opponents reject progressive solutions to climate change which they view as perfectly normal. Climate change normal, progressive solution to perfectly normal climate change unacceptable. Got it? Now, when you say “don’t believe in climate change” in substitution for “don’t accept progressive solutions to natural phenomena” then you are too thick to talk to. Back to your playpen.

    Also the numbers are rejected. The models are rejected. The e-mails between British climate scientists are too damning to continue with the discussion. The political positions too ridiculous too contradictory to persist. Then you say your opponents “do not believe in climate change” as their position, and not your own cartoon version of their position so you can write sanctimoniously about it. That makes you a child.

    Shall I go on?

    Advocating policies that are clearly used religion to manipulate many into voting against their own interests. Privatize entitlement programs so rich people can profit from them? Because church says gays are bad and so does GOP

    answer: no

    The position is too convoluted to address sensibly. Religion does not say gays are bad and neither does GOP. You are the one who says that religion says that and GOP says that, they do not. That is your child-progressive summation of their positions. Your Saturday cartoon version of your opponent’s position.

    Privatize programs so people get rich is the assumption and the objection inherent in the claim. Using that faulted economic model then the government will be getting rich by administering so-called “entitlement” programs. The child-analyst has already accepted the language of “entitlement,” Only in the child-progressive mind does a thing like “entitlement” exist and only in the child-progressive thinking do “entitlements” blossoming from a thing so feckless and seasonal as government seem like a good thing. Goodness, there is so much wrong there we must go back to birth for the reconstruction process.

    Child-analyist, ask yourself who became wealthy dishing out Obamaphones. Do you object to that? What do you imagine non-partisans think of one man becoming wealthy dishing out Obamaphones and the inherent corruption in that? To point out one single thing. Shall we have a discussion about that? Will we have all day for it? It will open many more discussions.

    Then the child-writer delivers the shibboleth that no analysis is complete without, “Fox News,” a bug up the butt of every progressive because there is nothing to match it, and my, how they’ve tried. Perceived as vile because it is so damaging to their reason for being, they counter with vileness, and not just once but several times over, that is the impact that network has. And all together their compounded vileness cannot match the power Fox pulls. No matter who they throw out there they are still not counterweighted and that is why the name of the network appears so oddly like this, non sequitur like this, the obsession that eats at the child-progressive mind and troubles their nights.

    • tomgnh

      The deniers have traveled an interesting road:
      1. There is no climate change; then
      2. We can’t tell, because there’s no hard data; then
      3. Maybe there is, but you can’t trust the scientists; then
      4. It’s happened before, so it must be natural; then
      5. There might be, but it’s probably the sun; then
      6. There is, but it’s too late to do anything.

      But I have a hunch the two driving factors are the economic interests of carbon producers and consumers, and a Biblical world view.

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        Of course. Science is anathema to Republicans.

      • John Morris

        How about a natural suspicion combined with being old enough to remember when the same people were prescribing exactly the same solutions to avert the coming Man Caused Ice Age disaster? Too Hot and Too Cold both caused by the same things and solved by the same policy prescription?

        Or how about noticing AGW theory isn’t science at all since it can’t be falsified. Seriously. Propose a test which would falsify it and it will either be impossible (not hard, not improbable; impossible) or YOU will find yourself branded a heretic when we ‘deniers’ accept your proposal to test it.

        There is a word for a belief that isn’t testable but must be accepted on faith. Hint: it isn’t science.

    • I’m not saying every republican is against gay rights, but to act like this is not a central point in the current republican platform is naive.

      I quote from the 2012 GOP platform right off of the GOP’s website.

      Defending Marriage Against An Activist Judiciary (Top)

      A serious threat to our country’s constitutional order, perhaps even
      more dangerous than presidential malfeasance, is an activist judiciary, in which some judges usurp the powers reserved to other branches of government. A blatant example has been the court-ordered redefinition of marriage in several States. This is more than a matter of warring legal concepts and ideals. It is an assault on the foundations of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values.

      A Sacred Contract: Defense of Marriage (Top)

      That is why Congressional Republicans took the lead in enacting the
      Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal
      government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. The current Administration’s open defiance of this constitutional principle – in its handling of immigration cases, in
      federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a
      military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts – makes a mockery of the President’s inaugural oath. We commend the United States House of Representatives and State Attorneys General who have defended these laws when they have been attacked in the courts. We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several
      other States to do so.

  • sickofdems

    Just checked the dictionary for smarmy douche-nozzle and Allen Clifton’s picture popped up.

  • octobersurprise

    Every one of these questions is actually an attack and I sincerely hope that no one asks their republican friends any of them. I am pretty well as far left as you can get so let me answer these questions and illustrate how they set up and reinforce a false dichotomy between left and right.

    We should be building bridges, not setting fires.

    1. Balancing the budget and fiscal conservatism are not necessarily linked. Also this question implies that neither party has changed since the 1950s.

    2. A country can go into debt for social programs and in the case of Reagan, “defeating the communists”. This question implies that all republicans liked Reagan.

    3. This presumes that all republicans believe low taxes = job creation. I am not even a republican but I know that the correlation between the two does exist. Notice that a lot of employers are cutting hours to avoid having to pay out for the ACA. Not fair or cool but legal and happening.

    4. It is not fair to compare the US to small homogenous countries. Also a lot of republicans are cool with the idea of socialized health care, but they believe it is outside of the jurisdiction of the government.

    5. This assumes all republicans are against gay marriage and are religious and Christian.

    6. It is more realistic to assume that one cannot encapsulate the events of 200 years in a binary choice question that paints one side as saintly and the other as pure evil.

    7. This question has almost nothing to do with political ideology and is more about global economics. The rich are getting richer because labor has moved overseas and all the US exports anymore is military force.

    8. This assumes every republican is a Christian and believes that America was founded as a Christian nation. Also the majority of the founding fathers were Freemasons, who had a quasi-agnostic attachment to the mystery schools of all accessible religions but focused on Judeo-Christian symbolism and tradition.

    9. If that same president had armed the civilian police with military gear and increased the use of drones leading the some 1300+ civilian deaths overseas while clamping down on our rights and abilities online and simultaneously breaking his campaign promises of high speed transit and subsidized nationwide internet, then no, I would not hail him as a hero. He is a fascist and he is killing children with robots.

    10. Again this assumes all republicans are Christians. And again it misses the point – Republicans want charity to come from sources other than the state. They want charity to come from voluntary sources, not compulsory, not tax driven.

    • AbbeyRoadkill

      #10. TRANSLATION: If you get sick and don’t have insurance (or are just down on your luck and end up homeless), roll the dice, if you’re lucky maybe someone, somewhere, might, maybe, decide to help you. As a society we’re not going to make sure you get help.

      In other words… go die in a ditch somewhere out of sight so we don’t have to see it.

      • octobersurprise

        “as a society” and “the state” are two different things.

        As a society we can and should support the needy and the sick.

        “Should “the state” be in charge of it?” is the question.

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        You just reinforced my point. You don’t want a systematic way of making sure people who need help get it. You want it to be Russian Roulette.

      • Independent

        I guess that’s your solution to the millions of us who have lost our health insurance because of that brilliant policy called “Obamacare.”

  • Shawn

    I’m new to this site, but it seems to be a more liberal site….why, then, do people who are already closed-minded in their choice to be conservative insist on posting and seeking out a site like this? And then complain about it and its alleged factual inadequacy? It’s like Liberals going to a conservative site and telling them that they’re wrong and horrible and stupid…why would you do that?

    • Kevin D. Williamson

      I’m an educator; the world is my classroom.

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        Educate yourself first.

      • Kevin D. Williamson


    • SineWaveII

      I don’t know. Why don’t you ask the liberals who do exactly that 24/7?

  • Brian Gregory

    #4. Most countries DON’T have socialized medicine. Many of them have a single-payer system. This is what we should have except for repubicanderthals and their insistence on being toadies to the rich.

    • AbbeyRoadkill

      Repubs have their heads so far up the arses of Wall St and the super rich, they are incapable of representing anyone else.

  • SineWaveII

    Wow Allen I guess Kevin showed you. Did you learn anything? I didn’t think so. I hereby declare you Allen Clifton guilty of the crime of being stupid on the internet. (Gavel hit)

  • Gabriel

    You know what’s even worse that anything that you stated before? The consequencies that your economical policies have done to underdeveloped countries since the begining of the 20th Century. Also imperialism, the spread of war, the enforcement of the greatest monopolic corporations over the globe. And much much much worse is the ignorance spread in your country. You don’t care about anything but yourselves.

    • AbbeyRoadkill

      Please note that every war of aggression the US has started in the last 50 years was under a Republican.

      • SineWaveII

        Except Viet Nam which was started by two democrats. Bosnia which started by a democrat. And Kosovo which was started by a democrat, Libya which was started by a democrat and Syria which would have been started by a democrat if Obama had any credibility left.

        If you go back to the start of the 20th century…. we were pulled into the World War I and II by democrats. And Korea was started by a democrat.

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        I said the last 50 years. Someone can’t count.

      • SineWaveII

        I said I “if you go back to the start of the 20th century” someone can’t read.

      • John Morris

        Point to one of these wars of aggression? One.

        Inside your fifty year window I count Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. None of them launched a ‘war of aggression.’ And Nixon was a prog so I really don’t see why he counts anyway.

        Others tried to argue with you on details. I reject your f*cking premise and call you out for a liar. Name one or be known as a lying liar who lies.

        You might could make an argument for Grenada since that was a quiet takeover we stopped vs a hot invasion we helped repulse. But you would be hard pressed to find many people living in Grenada today who would agree with your assertion.

        Or are you a Truther and believe 9/11 was an inside job so the evil neocons could go all warmongery? Afganistan was a direct response to an attack, as endorsed by pretty much every D in Congress who wasn’t diagnosable as clinically insane and renouncing higher office on top of being crazy. And yea if Obama had actually been in the Senate he would have voted the use of force too. Wonder if you can actually admit that to yourself?

        Iraq was just a reevaluation of an already hot war that had paused. Saddam invaded Kuwait, remember? Saddam was playing games with the inspectors and taking pot shots at our planes enforcing the no-fly zone. Everyone’s intelligence agencies thought he was rebuilding a WMD capability. Being wrong is NOT a lie, it is just being wrong.

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        W’s Iraq: the ULTIMATE war of aggression. And I bet a true patriot like you signed up to go over there right when the war started, right? NOT.

        Republicans = Chicken Hawks

      • John Morris

        Oh right. ULTIMATE in all caps. At the risk of Godwins Law I’d say you are a bit confused and might wish to consult a history book for better candidates for the title of ULTIMATE act of aggression. While studying you might also want to consult a dictionary and look up ‘aggression’ because I don’t think it means what you think it means.

        As to whether the second phase of the Gulf War was even a non-ULTIMATE act of aggression I refer you to my previous remarks. You could argue it as a massive overreaction and have a real debate, many libertarians and some conservatives would even agree with that line of reasoning.

        As for the chickenhawk nonsense I simply declare it out of bounds as an argument against the man (Ad Hominum) and unworthy of any other notice.

        Again I reject your premise.

  • Richard StJohn

    1. No president Republican President since Eisenhower has had a balanced budget because the next Republican president was Nixon who took us off the gold standard. Since then we haven’t had a balanced budget. The national debt is not a liberal or conservative fault issue. Both parties bear blame for that one.

    2. I’m not aware that Reagan did quadruple the national debt in his time in office.Although government did grow in size under his watch.

    3. tax breaks simply encourage business to invest. We’re no place near taxes reduced to nothing and never will be. Baseless question. But if there were almost no taxes business would have more money to develop new products, ideas etc. That’s what creates jobs.

    4. if socialized medicine is so great why do people in Canada come to the US to pay for procedures out of their own pockets? Because they don’t want to wait a year or more for an MRI or other involved or highly technical procedure

    5. Does your church recognize gay marriage? Unlikely. But for arguments sake I oppose the redefining of the word marriage. What two people choose to do with their lives in the pursuit of happiness is their business. But redefining a term that has been around for roughly 5,000 years to suit the politically correct crowd is absurd.

    6. Please spare me. LBJ had a comment when he signed the 1964 civil rights act that I choose not to repeat. But if you’re as informed and educated as you appear you know exactly what I’m referring to and it’s not something you want to discuss.

    7. Taxes are not at or near or even close to their lowest levels in history. Nice try though.

    8. During the Constitutional Convention at first little progress was made. Very little. It was only after clergy was brought in to open each session with a prayer that things began to fall together. This was done at the unlikely suggestion of Ben Franklin. I believe congress still employs clergy.

    9. Deficit reduction? This is a joke right. he didn’t have a budget his entir first term and almost doubled the national debt. And there is just a bit of a difference between doubling 8 trillion and doubling 300 billion. Especially in light of the fact most of this money was given away to the lazy and illegals in the form of entitlements.

    10. Because the government is the most inefficient of all ways to help the poor and needy. i don’t need to be taxed. have a bunch of politicians argue over where it should go. Spend most of it then give very little of what’s left to one of those programs.

    Now that I’ve answered your questions maybe you’d care to answer a few of mine. Do you really think Barack Obama has the best interests of America at heart? Is there a valid reason for turning our terrorism protection mechanism on the very people it is supposed to protect? Did it ever occur to you that maybe the two parties are just opposite sides of the same coin? It doesn’t matter how it lands. Whenever one side or the other won a battle We the People lost a little bit of our individual liberty. 547 people run this nation as it was designed. Things are as those people want it to be or they would change. Do you know why we have such a crushing national debt? Do you know where our money comes from? We live under the influence of one of the most corrupt institutions in the history of mankind. Read up on the subject if you’re not familiar with it. It will make you really angry with our government. Thanks for the mental challenge and good day to you sir.

  • Teri Jordan Towse

    The uncivil war is only making sure Americans will never be free and our futures remain dim. Until we define the problems we face correctly we will not solve them. Why are we still at war with each other? It no longer matters what party you are affiliated with. Both are failing the people they were elected to serve. Corporate sponsors are ruining our politics and the planet.

  • Zack Morris

    Were these questions written by first graders subjected to the common core curriculum?

  • PaganLibertarian

    1) If Republicans are so fiscally responsible, why was President Eisenhower (in the 1950′s) the last Republican president to balance the budget?

    Rebloodlicans and Democrips are the same. We wouldnt need a budget if we got rid of our current monetary system.

    2) If President Reagan was such a fiscally conservative hero, why did he quadruple our national debt during his eight years in the White House?

    Reagan wasn’t a hero in any sense of the word. He was another puppet controlled by his banking cartel masters

    3) If tax breaks are the main driving force behind job creation, how would we create jobs once tax rates were reduced to practically zero?

    We wouldn’t have taxes if we didn’t have the IRS or the Federal Reserve. Get rid of those and we would be much better off.

    4) If socialized health care is so awful, why does every country that leads the world in life expectancy have socialized health care?

    This is actually not correct. The health care system doesn’t care about you being healthy…in any country. Instead of focusing on the policies created by people in government that have no idea how to actually be a doctor, why not look at the health care system itself.

    5) If you support the freedom of religion (as per our Constitution), and my church recognizes gay marriage, isn’t your support for the banning of same-sex marriage an attack on my religion’s First Amendment rights?

    I support every word of the Constitution and I don’t give two fucks if John marries Jack or Jill marries Vivian.

    6) What’s more realistic? 1) That an entire region of the United States that supported slavery in the late-1800′s and support segregation in the 1950′s and 60′s suddenly stopped being racist, or 2) The racist southern Democrats in the south became Republicans during the 50′s and 60′s when the Republican party shifted toward an idea called the “Southern Strategy,” where the GOP appealed to the racism in southern whites who didn’t like African Americans voting for Democrats.

    How about this? 1. Who gives a fuck what color skin a person has. 2. Judge a man by his character. 3. This is a loaded question, go fuck yourself.

    7) If taxes are at some of their lowest levels in history, and the wealthiest in this country are richer than ever, why hasn’t the growth in the wealth of the middle class matched that of the top 2%?

    There you go with the tax bullshit again. Get rid of the IRS and our central banks and I think we could get rid of these questions.

    8) If our Founding Fathers wanted this nation to be based on Christianity, why don’t the words “Christian” or “Christianity” appear even once in our Constitution?

    Being a libertarian, I can tell you that the founding fathers didnt talk about Christianity and definitely didnt use God in any sense in the Constitution. I only care about freedom, liberty and the persuit of happiness.4

    9) If a Republican president reduced massive job losses in the midst of the worst recession in nearly a century by more than 50% in his first 4 months in office; presided over 44 consecutive months of private-sector job growth creating nearly 8 million jobs; killed Osama bin Ladin; saw stock markets reach all-time highs; saved the American auto industry; increased domestic oil production to highs not seen since the late-90′s and championed the largest year-to-year deficit reductions since World War II, would your party not be calling him a hero and a legend?

    Actually, no we wouldn’t. Let’s break down these falicies one by one.
    1.Job Losses: He actually cooked the books on those numbers and it has been disclosed that he has.
    2.Job Gains: Those supposed 8 million jobs were also part of those cooked numbers, lets move on.
    3.Osama: He didn’t kill Osama…On the contrary, that picture of him in the situation room was actually photoshopped for PR. Also, there are stories being leaked(by Seal Team Six) that state that they didn’t actually kill Osama and he has been dead for nearly 10 years.
    4.Stock Market: As with anything to do with the Stocks, its a bubble. Also, “all-time highs” is bullshit. It has been higher before he was in office.
    5.Auto Market: He didn’t save it. Actually, he forcefully took over GM and turned it into a slave market for designing DHS war vehicles.
    6.Oil: He actually hindered it by ignoring the huge oil spill in the gulf and allowing BP to get away with just an apology. He also refused to support the new pipeline that could actually create jobs.
    7.Deficit Reduction: HAHA LOL, you have got to be fucking kidding me right now. The douchebag has allowed the debt ceiling to increase, then allowed super inflation to occur by letting the federal reserve continue quantitative easing.

    Conclusion: All of your points are null and void due to lies, media hype, bullshit figures and non-scientific research.

    10) If Jesus spent his life helping the poor and the needy, how does it make sense that a party which claims to be for “Christian values” continues to cut funding for programs that help the poor and the needy?

    Goodness, with all of these questions about Christianity and religion, you seem to be attempting to accuse all conservatives of being of a certain religious belief. I myself do not believe in either Republican or Democrat(liberal or conservative). I am a pagan libertarian and your religious bias is pure dogmatic bullshit. Go fuck yourself and your bread&circuses line of questioning.

  • Lisa Chapman

    Kevin D…..your facts on life expectancy in the world are incorrect, Japan is in the top 10, but not #1, they are #8. Oh, and they do have a single payer system. In fact a majority of the top 10 life expectancy countries have single payor systems. You are also over-simplyfying Tip O’Neill etc. A budget is passed by means much more complicated than one Speaker of the house. When Tip O’Neill was Speaker of the House, the Senate was controlled by the Republicans, which is why there was no budget passed, because the Republican controlled Senate couldn’t craft one! I could go on and on about your other lame comments, but intelligent people can fact check your stuff and see how deceptive you really are. Go back to whining about Obama causing all your problems.

  • I am a “poor or middle class conservative”. I will address

    your 10 questions.

    “Politics might be one of the few areas I know of where facts, reality

    and history can suddenly be subjective.”

    When one presents a subset of facts and represents them as all the

    facts, that is ‘subjective’?

    Reality is truly in the eyes of the beholder, but any who claims to

    understand reality for all must also give lots of examples

    demonstrating a profound understanding of “reality” that most

    Americans understand and accept.

    History – I have seen almost no demonstration from you that you have

    an understanding of history.

    “I honestly never thought I’d live in a day and age where climate

    change would be something millions of people suddenly doubted.”

    I doubt. Can you explain to me your understanding of why mankind

    is the one and only cause of global warming? If you point me

    to articles, all will know you don’t understand, you just


    “See, it’s one thing to believe something it’s quite

    another to understand why you believe it.”

    I not only believe what I say, I have written on it

    and understand in depth what I say. Social Security sucks

    for all Americans. HealthCare in the US is bad BECAUSE of

    government. As a polysci grad, you must have studied the

    mechanics and math of those political policies that have been

    forced on America. I would love to engage with a thoughtful

    and knowledgable progressive.

    Your 10 personal issues:

    1. “If Republicans are so fiscally responsible, why was President

    Eisenhower (in the 1950’s) the last Republican president to balance

    the budget? ” Republicans in the 50’s consisted of liberals and

    conservatives. Dem’s in the 50’s consisted of conservatives and KKK

    folks. Talk about conservatives versus progressives and you understand

    the politics of the 50’s.

    2. 2) If President Reagan was such a fiscally conservative hero, why did

    he quadruple our national debt during his eight years in the White


    Reagan gambled a huge future dept to WIN the cold war, just like

    FDR did with WW2. Both FDR and Reagan ware winners for America.

    3) If tax breaks are the main driving force behind job creation, how

    would we create jobs once tax rates were reduced to practically zero?

    Incoherent question. Please clarify.

    4) 4) If socialized health care is so awful, why does every country that

    leads the world in life expectancy have socialized health care?.

    Because other countries do not have the ability to solve problems

    America has. Progressives fall in line with those other countries.

    Most (Chile excepted!!!) believe government should rescue them. That

    is simply not an American value.

    5) 5) If you support the freedom of religion (as per our Constitution),

    and my church recognizes gay marriage, isn’t your support for the

    banning of same-sex marriage an attack on my religion’s First

    Amendment rights?

    “Banning gay marriage” is not the real issue and is a red herring.

    Why should Government have any say in marriage, gay, strait or

    polygamous? Answer that question and you will understand why Gay

    folks should be supported by the government.

    6) 6) What’s more realistic? …

    Beyond ignorant. Are you saying we should support Dem’s today,

    because Dem’s in the 50’s and 60’s were KKK (Robert Byrd) and against

    the Civil Rights act? Do you really have a Political Science Degree?

    If so from what college?

    7) If taxes are at some of their lowest levels in history, and the

    wealthiest in this country are richer than ever, why hasn’t the

    growth in the wealth of the middle class matched that of the top 2%?

    Taxes are very far from the lowest in history. Anyone can research

    that. Corporation taxes are highest in world. I’m thinking you don’t

    know what you are talking about. I could be wrong, but it would

    require a lot of effort on your part to convince me.

    8) If our Founding Fathers wanted this nation to be based on

    Christianity, why don’t the words Christian or

    Christianity appear even once in our Constitution?

    Our founding fathers did not want this nation to be Christiam. What

    college or person taught that. You have really not studied US History

    or the concepts delivered in the Decl of Independence and the US

    Constitution as far as you have demonstrated here.

    9) If a Republican president reduced massive job losses in the midst of

    the worst recession in nearly a century by more than 50% in his first 4

    months in office; presided over 44 consecutive months of private-sector

    job growth creating nearly 8 million jobs; killed Osama bin Ladin; saw

    stock markets reach all-time highs; saved the American auto industry;

    increased domestic oil production to highs not seen since the

    late-90’s and championed the largest year-to-year deficit reductions

    since World War II, would your party not be calling him a hero and a


    The assertions here are misleading, nuanced and false. Private

    sector job growth for 48 months (4 years) is slower than any time

    in US History!! FDR created more than BHO. Also, BHO had zero

    to do with increased “oil production”. He refused to allow oil

    development on government property. 100% of increase oil production

    and natural gas production (fracking) has happened on private lands.

    Deficit reductions are due to Obama Blaming Bush for 75% of the

    deficit in FY 2009 where Obama and ONLY Obama had power to spend

    during 75% of FY 2009. Deficit assertion is way disingenuous.


    10) If Jesus spent his life helping the poor and the needy, how does it

    make sense that a party which claims to be for Christian

    values continues to cut funding for programs that help the poor and

    the needy?

    I believe in Jesus. I help the poor. There is no place in the Bible

    where Jesus tells me to get elected to government and point the gun

    of government to all and force them to help those I ‘believe’ to be

    poor. Jesus’ message was to individual responsibility and action. I

    know you are not a Christian, so I don’t expect you to understand.

  • John Morris

    Oh please. I’ll step up to this ‘challenge,’ call it a silly thing and answer it anyway for giggles:

    1 and 2. Please examine control of Congress with special attention to control of the House, where the power to tax and spend resides. Newt quickly balanced the budget. Also note that Reagan did defeat Carter’s malaise and the Soviets while Bush II fought two wars, faced recession and the .bomb along with 9/11 without exploding the debt like Obama’s best score. And note that the current problems didn’t start with Bush or Obama but when Nancy took up the gavel.

    3. Reject as defective argument by someone who has failed to conceptualize something as simple as the Laffer Curve. Restated in a sane way the question is which side of the Curve we are on and most serious thinkers believe we are on the bad side. Let us cut taxes to the point where further cuts no longer increase net revenue to the treasury and THEN we may debate further ways to increase revenues should such action remain an issue.

    4. Statistics often lie and ALL modern liars use/abuse statistics Most countries play games such as not counting as persons premies we do count since we can save a fair numbers of them… but not all. Also, many countries lack the massive underclass the US has. It should also be noted that the existence/non-existance of socialized medicine is not very important to the question posed since US hospitals must admit anyone so few are actually denied care. We are debating how to PAY.

    5. This one is truly ignorant. Many religions (Islam, Mormonism prior to the admission of Utah, etc.) recognize marriage M-F(n) yet US law does not. Some religions permit marriage to minors younger than any US State. No religion (anything newer than a century seems to be defined as a cult or new age thing) recognizes M-M or F-F pairings as ‘marriage’ and neither does any dictionary published more than fifty years ago. The bottom line is secular marriage law is influenced by moral and religious teachings but the US is not a religious state. So what exactly is your point?

    6. Oh this chestnut again. Yup, Tricky Dick was such a political naif that he thought southern Dems would pick him over the Dixiecrat ticket. Yall keep on believing that one guys.

    7. Reject your premise. In what way can you measure taxes and say they are at historical lows? Not in gross receipts to government (Fed, State, Local) nor percentage of GDP consumed by the State. I await enlightenment.

    8. Another inane question. The Founders didn’t create a religious state, they created a state based on morals and beliefs common to and required by most religions.

    9. Since we are still awaiting Recovery Summer to actually arrive we can dispense with theoretical questions as to what conservative reaction might be should it happen on Obama’s watch.

    10. As someone who is a socialist you are confused by Christians who do not worship the State as a god. Christians believe they are obligated to do certain things to lift the poor from their misery. They do not believe that their religion tells them that it is their obligation to covet other’s property and then to collectively steal it to redistribute to the poor.

  • flankton

    Number 6 is ridiculous. There are all kinds of people living in the south. The reason they vote republican is because they are happy and enjoy life, and dont need goernment handouts. Also, a government employee does not get much respect around here, unless its a mailman or an officer. The food banks down here are always overflowing, and often times there is too much food. Noone goes hungry because the food bank is always open. And its run on charity, NOT GOVERNMENT> The cold states and the West are so inefficient its pathetic. STAY OUT OF OUR SOUTH. It has nothin to do with race. its about priorities. We dont think everyone is entitled to buttered popcorn at the movies, because most us hard working folks dont even get that. The welfare states are horribly twisted and pathetic with what they think is necessary to be happy. just because you live around a bunch of rich people doesnt mean you should get stuff for free that people around the world never get after working their whole lives. SPOILED DonkEYS, most DEms.

    • Eric McLean

      Hey the deep South’s Einstein, have you checked numbers lately or do they not teach you arithmetic after the second grade? If you did your research, you would know that most of the Southern states are biggest “takers” when it comes to government assistance. You may not WANT the government in your business, but don’t EVER say you don’t NEED government because the numbers tell a totally different story!

  • amandamore

    The answers can sound like a 3 year old “I don’t wanna” or middle school kid “but all the cool kids are at this table” then high school “George believes in the right wing and he is just so dreamy.” I keep asking. I live in the South. I still just don’t get it- or understand them. At some point, many times the wives and children just don’t think it is all so cute anymore. But can a Southerner consider reality even from those nearest and dearest?

  • BringBackBeHeadings

    ) That an entire region of the United States that supported slavery in the late-1800′s and support segregation in the 1950′s and 60′s suddenly stopped being racist, — wow — so there are no racists in the North or West huh? and the North fought the War just to end slavery? is this why Mass and Ill became the first two states that said no Blacks shall enter their territory and be allowed to stay — they could only pass through — guess those ghettos in NY and Detroit really were warm and fuzzy for blacks — South side of Chicago is great — oh what about stop & frisk? Hey you are black — I have the right to pat your down — even if you are just walking down the street —

    • tomgnh

      You are right; that’s what makes it so difficult to convince me that there is no race-based antipathy to Obama.

  • JFC

    My favorite question to ask – If the theory of an unregulated free market is so great, point to one working example in use today.

    • Kevin D. Williamson


  • SemperLibertas

    Some of these answers are similar to others provided, but I thought I’d contribute some answers to the cliche-ridden “questions” posed above.

    1) I’ve never claimed Republicans are fiscally responsible, nor do I believe them to be. Even Paul Ryan’s supposedly “austere” budget still proposed spending far more than even Bill Clinton’s most expensive budget, the one that led to the 1994 landslide, even when corrected for population and inflation.

    That said, I’d prefer spending restraint to spending profiligacy. Criticism of Ryan’s aforementioned budget as “austere”, or, as President Obama claimed, “so far to the right, it makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal” shows either an ignorance of previous budgets or simply a lack of regard for intellectual honesty.

    Speaking of the New Deal, it’s an interesting exercise to go back to the most excessive of the New Deal budgets and correct that for population growth and inflation. Submit that exact budget, and President Obama would really come unhinged. Hint: It’s nowhere near as big as even that proposed by Rand Paul. But hey, what are facts when there’s good rhetoric to be utilized?

    2) If you look at the spending that occurred under Reagan, the biggest part of the increase was in military spending, in an effort to defeat the Soviets. Which happened, allowing a large decrease in military spending during the 1990s, which paved the way for several years of budget balancing.

    Note too that much of the increase in the deficit was the result of a success: original budget projections were made on the assumption that the severe inflation experienced under the Carter Administration would continue; it didn’t.

    Overall, Reagan did a fairly decent job of holding the line on discretionary spending. Also, his recovery was much more pronounced and speedy than the “Obama Recovery”; basically, other than a short recession in 1991, we saw record economic growth from 1983 until 2000. That’s a pretty good legacy.

    3) This “question” makes little sense. Who’s talking about “reducing tax rates to practically zero”? I’ve heard no such proposal.

    As Williamson states, it is demand for labor that drives job creation. Raising the cost of labor through taxes, mandates, etc. certainly doesn’t help increase demand for labor, and requiring companies to send more money to the government does leave less money available for investment in infrastructure, labor, etc.

    My counterquestion would be this: why, specifically, do you believe that increasing the cost of labor — or any other business costs — would provide an incentive for a business to hire more workers? How, specifically, am I better off (the generic “I”, not me in particular) if my employer sends more money to the government, leaving less money to spend on hiring more employees, increasing salary and/or benefits, investing in R&D, purchasing new equipment, expanding facilities, developing infrastructure, dispensing profits to shareholders (including pension funds, labor unions, and individual investors), and other uses deemed more efficient allocation of resources? What about politicians makes you think they know better than company managers how best to spend their money?

    4) Not much I can add here to the Williamson answer. Life expectancy is a single parameter. How about standard of living? That’s another. But I’m pretty sure Americans are notorious for making bad choices. That can’t be helping our life expectancy. Ever eaten Southern food? It’s a walking heart attack on a stick; my arteries are hardening just thinking about all the Thanksgiving food about to be consumed. I see nothing that “socialized medicine” provides that makes people eat healthier… unless you’re talking about some sort of government coercion…

    5) Another stupid question, lacking in any intellectual rigor whatsoever. Any church can choose to recognize or not recognize any marriage for any reason. Any person is welcome to associate with whatever church he or she wishes… or none at all. Some churches don’t even recognize divorce. What your church does or doesn’t recognize is none of my business, and vice versa.

    I was glad, however, to see President Obama change his personal stance and join me and the position I’ve held for over 10 years. I’m a bit disappointed that he was apparently so incensed at Vice President Biden for forcing his hand before he was ready to announce his “evolution”.

    6) Perhaps Mr. Clifton should read a bit more history. His knowledge of it is lacking, at least in regards to his understanding of election demography.

    I would also note that racism isn’t and never has been monopolized by the South. And, of course, if we had had the same policies under a President Hillary Clinton, people of a certain ilk (such as those who write such inane “questions” and congratulate themselves on the cleverness of their trite hack-ism) would be saying that opposition to her was based on misogyny.

    7) Income never distributes itself equally; fortunately, distribution of income (or wealth) is not important. What IS important is standard of living, and standard of living has improved — for ALL income and wealth demographics.

    Or, to think about it another way: whether Bill Gates has $5 billion, $50 billion, or $500 billion does not impact my life (again, the generic “me”) in anyway, so long as it didn’t involve theft, fraud, or coercion.

    8 ) The Founding of this country isn’t “based on Christianity”, it’s based on liberty. That means the freedom to participate in any religion… or none at all.

    9) The President’s signature issues have been the so-called “stimulus”, which was a total flop (well, he did at least learn that there’s no such thing as “shovel ready”; expensive education) and health care “reform”, which is a total flop (well, he did at least learn that buying insurance is “complicated”; again: expensive education). Unemployment is still unbelievably high, workforce participation is unbelievably low, and the “recovery” has been unbelievably weak.

    Interesting the parallels between his response to the “Great Recession” and President Hoover’s response to the Great Depression: both sought dramatic expansions in government spending to fuel economic recovery; both sought (and received) tax increases on “the rich”; both saw the efforts consistently not work as planned or as promised.

    But hey, he did give the order to go get bin Laden. As Jerry Mathers, Bob Denver, and Barry Williams have shown, the gravy train can last a long time.

    10) No funding has been “cut” (although a TEMPORARY increase in food stamps was allowed to lapse). And, as others have noted, Jesus never advocated using the coercive power of government; rather, He instructed His followers to give of themselves. The measure of compassion is not how much charity you can outsource to someone else.

    Hmm, I kept waiting for “hilarity to ensue”, but it never seemed to happen. Hopefully, these are “coherent” enough and devoid of rambling so as not to upset Mr. Clifton.

    • Doc_Rock

      Right Wing perspective and justifucations do not convince. So does answering questions that were not asked.

      • SemperLibertas

        Which of my answers, specifically, would you like to refute?

      • Doc_Rock

        Just the stupid ones.

      • SemperLibertas

        Thank you for such an intellectually enlightening discussion.

      • Doc_Rock

        No prolemo. Just trying to match your level of insipid banality.

  • G.l. Villars

    Its amusing that a book written by men can cause such division and hatred while our country is being raped and pillaged by billionaires who preach how you are all sinners for not doing your share by shopping and buying their shit. keep arguing over frivolity, they love it.

  • Rafael

    It’s funny because as I type this there are 666 comments….

  • John Burton

    Every single one of these questions has HUGE logical flaws. Surely the author realizes that, and is only using them to confuse. Dishonest, if you ask me.
    Question number one does nothing to prove that Republican POLICIES are or are not fiscally responsible, which is the real issue. Question 2, of course, has the same problem. Question 3 could only seem REMOTELY logical to someone who’s never seen a bell curve before! Question 4 would make a statistician die laughing. If the answer to Question 5 is “yes,” then anything a church supports ought to be allowed (if my church supports murder, then murder must be OK under the Constitution). And so on, and so on, and so on.

    My point is, the use of these questions is frankly unethical. They’re unanswerable because they’re illogical, just as the question, “Has President Obama stopped beating his wife yet?” is illogical. If you say yes, you’re screwed; if you say no, you’re screwed.

  • Independent

    I don’t have much to add to Kevin Williamson’s epic takedown of this insufferably smug nonsense. Williamson took it easy on the author on Question No. 9, so I’ll add my quick two cents: Talk about false premises (and selective editing). The President halted the massive job losses of early 2009? By doing what? The recession was actually over in June 2009, before the stimulus kicked in. The massive job losses were halted either because they had run their course and/or because of the extraordinary measures started under Bush. The President’s record on growth and job creation is abysmal; he’s presided over the worst recovery since they started keeping these statistics. His horrible economic record is a direct result of his oppressive regulatory and tax policies (most prominently Obamacare). The President didn’t “kill” Bin Ladin; he gave an order that any President would have given, and we would not have found Bin Ladin without the Bush-era intelligence programs that Obama scrapped. The stock market has reached all-time highs because the Fed has been artificially pumping liquidity into this anemic economy. People pump money into the stock market because with the Fed’s monetary policy, it’s the only place you can get a return above zero. The auto industry was “saved” by continuing a bailout that was designed and initiated under Bush. The increase in domestic oil production has come in spite of, not because of, this Administration’s policies. It’s all come from the private sector; on public lands, this Administration has done everything it can to stop oil production. The deficit reductions are large because the deficit was run up to record levels. We had never had a trillion-dollar deficit before Obama; he’s given us four. The deficit has been brought down because Republicans called his bluff on the sequester, but it’s still well above the highest levels under Bush.
    Counterquestion: If Obamacare is such a great idea, why didn’t the President trust Americans and try to sell it on the basis of what it actually was (an intentional plan to throw people off their plans and into the exchanges, where the young and poor would subsidize the old and rich)? Why did he have to sell it on the basis of lies?
    Second counterquestion: Why are smug liberals like the author so emotionally invested in feeling superior to people with whom they disagree? There are plenty of dumb conservatives. But there are even more dumb liberals (and the author of this piece is one of them). (Libertarians tend to be the smartest.) So why try to get laughs by questioning dumb conservatives? Why not try arguing with the many smart conservatives? Arguing with dumb conservatives won’t transform Obamacare from the idiotic policy it is into a smart policy.

  • Michael Wiese

    Obama won. Nice try rednecks. : )

  • Ed

    Let’s examine your little questionnaire:
    * You must be concerned about fiscal responsibility since it is mentioned in three of your questions. Yet it is well established that liberals believe we should just “pass the buck” to someone else.
    *Ques. 3 makes no sense. A tax break is for a certain period of time, it is not a permanent change in the tax rate.
    *Ques. 4 is so wrong I don’t have the space to explain it.
    *Oh I see the first amendment means something to you, good. Not what about the rest of the amendments. Anybody. Anybody.
    *Racism, poverty, and crime. Let’s just lump those all together since liberals believe the conservatives are responsible for all of those. All three have existed for hundreds of years even while Democrats controlled all branches of government simultaneously, how did that happen?
    So please tell me how much money we should spend (I’m sure you think money is part of the solution), or how many freedoms (whatever we have left), we should give up to solve these societal problems.
    Maybe if conservatives really wanted to help this country they should raise the minimum wage to $50/hr. and force businesses to hire people with no skills or just raise welfare to $75,000/yr.. Of course there will be no charge for healthcare.
    Will that make you happy?

  • JMoran

    1) Fiscal responsibility: Because many of the GOPers
    on Capital Hill are RINO’s or Washington Whores. The TEA Party wing of the GOP absolutely
    wants to take a machete to the budget. That and every time Republicans have
    moved to aggressively cut budgets, Liberals howl, like when Reagan proposed
    dissolving the Dept. of Education.

    2) Why did Reagan quadruple our national debt? To
    kill the USSR that’s why. And it
    worked. Suck it Ivan. Any of you liberals worried about a Soviet
    ICBM strike since 1989? Nope? You can thank Reagan for that. Unlike Liberal boondoogles that go on and on,
    Reagan’s Military spending spree forced the Soviets to match it, and it broke
    them. Then we used that Bad Ass Military
    Reagan made to kick ass in the First Gulf War.
    Have any of you liberals used Oil in your car since 1991? You can thank
    Reagan for that too.

    3) If tax breaks = job creation: How would we create jobs once tax rates were
    reduced to practically zero? This is only a question because I liberal thought
    it up. Jobs that matter, the ones that
    are a net positive on the economy are private sector jobs. Yes, low tax rates stifle Govt. job creation,
    but those jobs are a net drain on the economy.
    That’s why Texas is booming and California is near bankruptcy.

    4) Socialized healthcare: Why does every country that leads the world in
    life expectancy have socialized health care? Several reasons. Most of those countries are in Europe. Figures lie and liars figure. Chronically ill people die much earlier under
    socialized medicine regimes. Only the
    strong make it to old age, this inflates the mean life expectancy. I also believe that in socialist Europe where
    most people don’t drive and live packed into cities, they walk more and ride
    bikes more. They also eat better. And most significantly they are less free
    than us. So if you think that European
    socialism is swell, go live there. For
    me, I’ll take my chances as a free man not a Euro-slave.

    5) Freedom of religion: My church recognizes gay
    marriage, isn’t your support for the banning of same-sex marriage an attack on
    my religion’s First Amendment rights? My
    religion recognizes my right to own 5
    machine guns and drive my 4X4 on the sidewalk—So right back at you.

    6) What’s more realistic? Was there a question here? What’s more
    realistic, that the Liberal Dems actually believe that their poverty and welfare
    initiatives are helping people? Or that they are just building poverty plantations
    in order to create a permanent underclass utterly and hopelessly dependent on
    Govt? Thus always voting Democrat.

    7) Low tax levels versus the wealthiest richer than ever:
    Why hasn’t the growth in the wealth of the middle class matched that of the top
    2%? One because taxes are still way too
    high, and there’s more to wealth creation than just low taxes. Democrats love regulations too. Onerous regulations be they labor,
    environmental, zoning etc. all take their toll.
    That and both parties are whores for Union and big industry $$. The GOP is guilty, but when the Dems
    controlled Congress they weren’t exactly ythe enemy of Wall Street.

    8) Founding Fathers nation to be based on Christianity:
    Most Conservatives I know don’t believe this.
    The founders were all ostensibly Christian. Which is convenient since this nation was
    ostensibly Christian. The US is a
    Secular Nation. American’s are a
    Christian people. More Americans, way
    more, identify as Christian than anything else in this country by a significant
    margin. The purpose of the First Amendment
    is to prevent the Govt. from forcing you to attend Mass if you’re not Catholic,
    or to have a State Sponsored Church. Its
    purpose is not to prevent an Atheist from ever having to hear the word Jesus.

    9) If Obama was a Republican: Reduced massive job
    losses in the midst of the worst recession in nearly a century by more than 50%
    in his first 4 months in office; presided over 44 consecutive months of private-sector job
    growth creating nearly 8 million jobs; killed Osama bin Ladin; saw stock
    markets reach all-time highs; saved the American auto industry; increased
    domestic oil production to highs not seen since the late-90′s and championed
    the largest year-to-year deficit reductions since World War II, would your
    party not be calling him a hero and a legend? Yes we would. But Obama didn’t do any of these things. Well the US Military, which Democrats hate
    and always want to cut, killed UBL. So
    Democrats need to make up their mind on the whole military thing. If Obama wants credit for killing UBL, then
    he needs to champion the Military, which he doesn’t. So he’s a failure.

    10) “Christian
    values”: Why do Republicans cut funding for programs that help the poor and
    the needy? You can tell a Liberal thought up this question because it displays
    a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity.
    One single bible quote: “Render onto Caesar that wich is Caesar’s and
    render onto the Lord that which is the Lord’s”.
    Once upon a time in this country there was no SNAP, WIC, AFDC, Section
    8, HUD, EBT, Head Start, School Lunch and Breakfast etc. etc. etc. Now, there
    was poverty. So how did this reconcile? Charity, that’s how. Liberals believe that they are somehow
    magnanimous because they take my $$ in taxes, hire some unionized Govt.
    workers, create a bureaucracy, and a little bit of the $$ trickles into the
    hands of the poor. Guys like Mitt Romney
    give Millions to Charity. Barrack

    Obama—Champion of the poor—gives dick.
    But pat themselves on the back for spending some tax $$ on the
    poor. See the question I posed on # 6 to
    determine the true motivations here.

  • Michael Cook

    Abbey road kill asked if I am a scientist. No, an engineer, which means the first question I ask of any scientific proposition is: Will that actually WORK in the real world? Whenever lib-dems bring up Eisenhower and the “wonderful” economic times of the 1950’s, I point out some things. The USA should have enjoyed a totally wonderful economic time from 1946 to 1960 because the competing industrial economies of the world were either exhausted (Britain) or bombed-out ruins (Germany and Japan.) The Asian Tigers hadn’t risen yet. Russia remained dedicated to armaments. American industrial goods had a virtual monopoly in the world.
    Yet still, the economy I grew up in was brutally hard. Recessions were frequent, strikes were frequent, and the top tax rate was 90%. Actor Ronald Reagan only worked 6 mos and then he hit the top rate and quit working the rest of the year. He began dabbling in politics in all that spare time.
    Old rich families were converting their homes into museums. Women workers had returned home to have babies in the immediate post-war but still it was hard for a guy to keep a job that would support a family in the newly-sprawling suburbs, so people treated their jobs like gold. Most government jobs still paid less than what a hard working high school graduate could make in industry or trade jobs. Our family doctor made a house call when I was sick and after he checked me out and gave us a bottle of pills from his black bag, mom handed him a $20 bill and he counted her back $8 in change–$7 for the pills, $5 for the house call (for 2013 $, multiply those numbers by 20.)
    When Ike had his heart attack the doctors at Walter Reed told him to stay home in the White House and gets lots of bed rest. Surgery for any cardiac condition was very rare back then. Ike continued to smoke and drink, but not as much as Winston Churchill, who did both to excess and lived into his 90’s. I grew up thinking the way to a long life was to feel really good about yourself because you had done important things in life. We boomers did eventually have some opportunities to do extraordinary things, so much so I feel sorry for today’s generation and their restricted scope of possibilities in a very highly regulated and increasingly tax-heavy environment.

  • Richard

    Ok, here we go..let’s see how rambling & incoherent I am.

    1 & 2) The Cold War.
    3) Citizens of Abu Dhabi, UAE receive a stipend from the gov’t & last time I checked they were doing pretty well in terms of economic growth and infrastructure.
    4) The author does a nice job framing this question. Unfortunately it’s a logical fallacy; correlation does not imply causation. The countries with the highest life expectancy tend to be industrialized nations, as do countries with socialized medicine. There is nothing to suggest that these two things have a causal relationship.
    5) Some esoteric religious rituals call on their members to perform human sacrifice, that doesn’t make it legal.
    6) This is an oversimplification of an entire century of political history, encompassing not just different cultural & socio-economic groups, but also different generations of people. To lump them all together into one big group of racists is childish at best. Also, most of those people are now dead. So what’s your point?
    7) In case you haven’t noticed; our credit rating was downgraded, we’ve experienced multiple economic downturns in recent memory, there’s a group of antagonistic partisan politicians on both sides willing to watch the gov’t burn to avoid compromise…This is a crisis of confidence & the wealthiest Americans (people worldwide for that matter) are stockpiling cash at never-before-seen rates. That is not how the system was designed to work.
    8 ) This country was founded on Christian beliefs whether the founding fathers wanted it that way or not. The framers of the Constitution did not create this country, they presided over the drafting of the laws that unified it. Part of getting all the individual states to agree to the compromise was the separation of church & state, but at the same time vehemently recognizing individual states the right to recognize religious beliefs in their own state compacts.
    9) This is very true. Elements of the Republican Party would applaud the record of this President if given a “blind sample.” Many others would not. The truth is that the two party system is exposed here as being broken. Progressives from both parties who are serious about enacting meaningful change should really start a third (or even a third & fourth) political party to distance themselves from the radical elements among them, as well as to set themselves in opposition to the status-quo, business-as-usual beltway crowd. As it now stands, the two party system invites politicians to pander to the lowest common denominator.
    10) Pointing out injustices done by bureaucrats in the name of Religion is not an indictment of Religion. It is an indictment of bureaucrats.

    • Leftcoastrocky

      “In case you haven’t noticed; our credit rating was downgraded,” And why was that? According to the S&P it was in large part because the Teapublicans threatened the full faith and credit of the U.S.

    • Leftcoastrocky

      “1 & 2) The Cold War.” The USSR dissolved at the end of 1991. George H.W. Bush was president from 1/1989 to 1/1993

      and George W. Bush from 1/2001 to 1/2009

  • drowning in red

    Kevin D- then why do republicans constantly blame Obama for the budget woes of our country?

    • Leftcoastrocky

      because they have a knee-jerk philosophy — anything that is not going the way they want it to is Obama’s fault

  • drowning in red

    PS: Spending is not and has never been the real problem. The problem is the true motivations of the people in power. If they were trying to run a country instead of simply breeding hatred ignorance and resentment, to provide a distraction as they steal more and more every day from the poor and working classes… we could get back on track. The simplification of all issues and a bitter intolerance for education and an impatience when it comes to details and facts are the real problem. “Spending” is a smokescreen for the regressive zealot bigots and greedy rich gerrymanderers. Governments provide certain things for their citizens. That requires spending.

  • hothsolo

    I’m libertarian, but I’ll answer.

    1) If Republicans are so fiscally responsible, why was
    President Eisenhower (in the 1950′s) the last Republican president to
    balance the budget?
    Agreed. Rs have been terrible at spending too. Generally though, democrats have been worse. Clinton was pretty decent except for the ticking time bomb of the CRA. Bush was bad, but not as bad as Obama.

    2) If President Reagan was such a fiscally conservative hero,
    why did he quadruple our national debt during his eight years in the
    White House?
    Agreed. Reagan spent to much.

    3) If tax breaks are the main driving force behind job
    creation, how would we create jobs once tax rates were reduced to
    practically zero?
    That’s a silly question. It’s not as if reducing the tax rate 5% creates 100k jobs and then you have to reduce it again to create another 100k. Low tax rates allow efficient use of capital, which is a continuous job creator, not a one time blip.

    4) If socialized health care is so awful, why does every
    country that leads the world in life expectancy have socialized health
    False premise. University of Iowa study showed that, adjusting for auto accidents and homicides, the U.S. does indeed have the highest life expectancy. It’s not that our healthcare is bad. It’s that we like to engage in things that kill us that good healthcare is not much help in preventing. You have to factor these things out of any mortality data in order to have a proper comparison.

    5) If you support the freedom of religion (as per our
    Constitution), and my church recognizes gay marriage, isn’t your support
    for the banning of same-sex marriage an attack on my religion’s First
    Amendment rights?
    Agreed. Government should have nothing to do with marriage.

    6) What’s more realistic? 1) That an entire
    region of the United States that supported slavery in the late-1800′s
    and support segregation in the 1950′s and 60′s suddenly stopped being
    racist, or 2) The
    racist southern Democrats in the south became Republicans during the
    50′s and 60′s when the Republican party shifted toward an idea called
    the “Southern Strategy,” where the GOP appealed to the racism in southern whites who didn’t like African Americans voting for Democrats.

    Neither. Racism, while is still does exist, is vastly decreased from the 50’s and 60’s and continuing to eliminate itself. We need to stop calling each other racists. Period. Unless it is flagrant and blatant. There is too much race baiting.

    7) If taxes are at some of their lowest levels in history,
    and the wealthiest in this country are richer than ever, why hasn’t the
    growth in the wealth of the middle class matched that of the top 2%?

    Because the data is messed up. The government measures HOUSEHOLD data, which, back in the 50’s was pretty much analogous with individual income when there were far less single parent households and much fewer women worked. If you work the number of earners per household into the CBO numbers, it accounts for over 60% of the alleged income gap. So, the main problem is that the collection of income data has not kept up with the social trends of increased divorce and more working women, therefore making comparisons across time periods invalid.

    8) If our Founding Fathers wanted this nation to be based on
    Christianity, why don’t the words “Christian” or “Christianity” appear
    even once in our Constitution?
    I don’t have any comment on this one other than: freedom of religion is in there.

    9) If a Republican president reduced massive job losses in
    the midst of the worst recession in nearly a century by more than 50% in
    his first 4 months in office; presided over 44 consecutive months of
    private-sector job growth creating nearly 8 million jobs; killed Osama
    bin Ladin; saw stock markets reach all-time highs; saved the American
    auto industry; increased domestic oil production to highs not seen since
    the late-90′s and championed the largest year-to-year deficit
    reductions since World War II, would your party not be calling him a
    hero and a legend?

    Obama did not “do” all this. Some of it happened despite him (energy production). Some of it really isn’t verifiable (reduced job losses – there’s no way to known what *might* have happened). Private sector job growth has been the slowest recovery after a recession in modern history, so that’s not such a good thing. Stock market gains are largely helping the wealthy, so I’m shocked a liberal would even bring that one up.

    10) If Jesus spent his life helping the poor and the needy,
    how does it make sense that a party which claims to be for “Christian
    values” continues to cut funding for programs that help the poor and the

    Because Jesus NEVER would have advocated for use of state force to COMPEL people to compassion and charity. The bible is a very anti-power structure book: from God not wanting to give Israel a king in the OT to Jesus fighting against both the Jewish and Roman power structures of his day. The bible is also very pro-private property. Two of the 4 commandments are about private property (steal, covet).

    So, Jesus would have advocated for PERSONAL responsibility in helping the needy, but never for a coercive solution. He certainly wouldn’t be for a system based on the threat of violence in order to solve those problems. If indeed I decided that sending my money to help a struggling village in Africa is what God is calling me to do and I took my tax money and did that, the police would be knocking on my door. If I continued to refuse and wanted to protect myself and my property, violence would be visited upon me and I would be thrown into jail.

    No, Jesus wouldn’t have advocated for that system. It MUST be voluntary or it is immoral. You can’t vote someone else to charity. They must come by it themselves and forcing them is wrong.

    • Leftcoastrocky

      “To the extent that the U.S. does get good outcomes in non-trauma health care, it pays far more for that non-trauma health care than its developed country peer nations by any measure. There is absolutely an overpayment problem with U.S. health care even if the quality problem may not be quite as bad as it seems in most kinds of care.”

      • hothsolo

        Data please?

        I do generally agree there is an overpayment problem. And it’s precisely the fact that we have disengaged costs from service that this problem exists. When costs are not tied to service, you get over-consumption. Over-consumption causes systemic waste, which raises prices. THe fact that we’ve injected middlemen into the system and removed price transparency is the issue. With any insurance system, you’re going to have some middleman, but we’ve moved away from true insurance where you only use it in a financial emergency, to putting a middleman even in the center of a routine doctor’s visit. How can you expect to ADD a middleman, and not have costs go up? And then, we added the middleman of the employer with the unfair tax break which discriminates against the self-employed. Now we want to add another layer of government. Costs will keep going up until we put the control BACK into the hands of the consumer.

        The best way to get the most possible healthcare is to
        1. Stop pretending there is any such things as “universal” healthcare. Healthcare is a resource, and therefore must obey the laws of scarcity, which means some form of rationing.
        2. Allow market pressures to work to lower prices so that the most people can afford it. And there’s a GREAT example of this actually WORKING in healthcare to: corrective eye surgery. Prices have dropped while quality has done up. There is no reason this can’t work for the entire system.

      • Leftcoastrocky

        corrective eye surgery is a voluntary procedure (as are breast implants)

        as the medics are tending to you because you just had a heart attack are you going to be shopping for the best/most economical medical facility and doctor

      • hothsolo

        Except in emergency or *extremely* urgent situations, yes, there’s no reason at all you can’t shop around. I would argue that the emergency situations are EXACTLY what health insurance should be for. That and long-term chronic diseases where risk pools can be successfully established.

        But most healthcare expenses can certainly be researched and a good doctor and price combination chosen by the patient. Most healthcare is not so urgent that you HAVE to have it now. Nearly everything can wait at least a few days or a week or two (which you’re going to have more of with socialized medicine anyway due to the over-consumption problem).

        For example, my wife has had several ACL surgeries. You can live with that for awhile. She couldn’t even get in to the surgery for two weeks anyway. There is no reason, that market forces would not significantly reduce the price of this kind of procedure.

        As another example, my brother-in-law’s wife recently had a baby. He paid MORE for their birth WITH insurance than a couple friend of theirs did with no insurance. Let me make that clear. His OUT OF POCKET costs with insurance were more than his friends TOTAL bill.

        Why? Because his friend had no insurance and negotiated with the doctor and hospital and probably chose to forgo some things to make the bill cheaper (like epidural, for example).

    • Leftcoastrocky

      ” It MUST be voluntary or it is immoral.” You mean governments helping people during disasters, for example, is immoral.

      • hothsolo

        Of course, because the money that the government uses to help those people is forcibly taken from someone. The act of helping isn’t, in and of itself, immoral. But that act of gathering the resources so that they have the means to help, is.

        We should help each other in these situations – voluntarily. That is morality.

      • Leftcoastrocky

        so essentially all taxes are immoral (in your Libertarian view)

      • hothsolo

        No. I never said that. Taxes tied to services I’m fine with. For example, gasoline taxes to pay for roads. You want to use roads, you pay the tax.

        Generally taxes that are “escapable”, I’m ok with. Local taxes are escapable. You can move. Gasoline taxes are escapable, you can ride a bike or take the bus. (I use this very broadly and I’m sure there are specific examples, I would not agree with).

        But many of the taxes we have, I do think are immoral. SS is a great example. I should not be forced against my will to have the government take my money and “invest” it for me only to give it back when I’m old. I’ll keep it and invest it myself, thank you.

        And if I were to choose to do that (say by being self employed and not paying that tax), what would happen? First, I’d have IRS agents knocking on my door. If I ignored them, I’d have court orders. If I ignore that, I would have police at my door. Eventually, some government agency breaks into my house, throws me to the ground (especially if I try to defend myself), puts me in handcuffs and takes me away. If I resist, I get beaten.

        What is the end result of my non-compliance to forced government retirement benefits? Violence.

        I do not support any system based on use or threat of violence.

      • Leftcoastrocky

        You and your fellow libertarians are going to have to move and start your own country because obviously you do not fit into our democracy. And with maybe only 15% of the population you will not be able to gain control of the government. I wish you the best.

      • hothsolo

        We’re not a democracy, we’re a republic. The key difference is that a republic *should* grant protections for the minority. Pure democracy is tyranny. 51% can vote to do whatever they want to the 49%. Unfortunately, we’re veering further and further from republican (small r) protections for the minorities.

        That’s all well and good so long as you’re on the side of the 51%. But beware that when you’re in the 51%, you set up power structures that will certainly be used against you when you suddenly find yourself in the 49%.

        And I disagree that we will have to move. The libertarian movement is growing. Maybe it will continue to grow. Political parties have come and gone in our history many times. No reason to believe it can’t happen again. And some things in this country ARE moving in libertarian directions. Marijuana legalization, as one example.

    • Leftcoastrocky

      The University of Iowa study is based on old data — gun violence and automobile deaths have decreased significantly.

      • hothsolo

        So post some new data that shows U.S. mortality that only includes things healthcare can reasonably fix like disease and not things it can’t like accident trauma. I would like to see the data.

      • Leftcoastrocky

        health care cannot treat people suffering from accident trauma?

      • hothsolo

        It can, but it is not a good measure of healthcare outcomes because, often, no matter how great the healthcare might be, it’s not going to save the person. So it skews the data. When you’re comparing countries, you have to at least try to get apples to apples. If you could find a country with similar trauma rates as the U.S., keeping it in the data is reasonable.

    • Leftcoastrocky

      Only about 15% of Americans are libertarians, like you.

  • leif parsons

    That is my illustration used without permission -please remove it, thank you

  • John

    Kevin doesn’t seem to understand the process of passing a budget, based on his comments about Newt Gingrich & Clinton. Presidents absolutely do ‘write budgets’. You do realize that the President submits his ‘budget request’ to Congress, right? Sounds like you think it’s the reverse. Kevin, are you thinking about appropriations (spending) bills? Clinton absolutely should take the credit for his budget. Also, do you understand that Ronald Reagan, by the end of his first four years, had turned the US from a lender nation to a debtor nation? That’s not hyperbole, it’s fact.

  • DamOTclese2

    Ha! You can not reason why Republicans, you can’t get the insane clowns to admit that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, the insane Christian clowns think it’s around 6,000 only.

    Sarah Palin really is the intellectual height of these inbred morons who vote against our nation’s best interests and vote against their own interests, all on the idiot right wing lunatic belief that some day some how they, too, would be rich if only the black and gay got out of the way.

  • Marsha Rupe

    Wrong, Kevin. Every single Republicans, including Gingrich, voted against the tax increases pushed through by Democrats that helped balance the budget under Clinton.

  • Bruce L Arvidson II

    My question, for those that keep posting those military, “American Freedom fought for by Your military” nutjobs. I just ask them, “Did they fight for the freedom of ALL Americans?” I love seeing their head explode trying to keep with their beliefs and still rule out gays and non christians. It is so funny watching them.

  • Peter Walsh

    Let me correct a few errors from both Mr. Clifton and Mr. Williamson about Jesus. Jesus did not spend his career helping the poor. the poor and needy. He spent his career healing the sick and warning people to prepare for the end of the world, which he expected to happen within a generation. Jesus did, however, very explicitly tell anyone who wanted to be his follower to leave up his or her family behind and to give all he or she had to the poor (no exceptions). Over the years, some Christians, such as St. Francis, actually did this. Jesus also famously said it was easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I guess that leaves the 2% headed somewhere else.Jesus said nothing about gays. That was Paul, who never met Jesus. Paul was not particularly in favor of any kind of sex or marriage for that matter. He said only it was “better to marry than to burn” and that you would be better off with no sex and no marriage. If anyone doubts this analysis, I will be happy to post chapter and verse.

  • Peter Walsh

    Also, Mr. Williamson is wrong about how the U.S. budget process works. The President drafts the budget and the House drafts the appropriation bills. Thus the president is responsible for budget deficits and, if you don’t like taxes, blame Congress.

  • me2

    sometimes stupidity is a choice

  • Frank Lockwood

    Facts are facts, verifiable from either side of the aisle, and must be understood as entirely different than the last two, “reality” and “history.” Those two, reality and history, have always been and always will be subjective. Subjectivity is built into the nature of them. What is history but the institutional selection and interpretation of events, culled and cleaned up to pass on to the next generation? As to reality, what is reality but an interpretation of phenomena?

  • BDK

    Stupid X 10. But typical liberal B.S.

    • tomgnh

      I don’t see you trying to answer any.

      Point made.

  • db49

    I saw an interview with Obama around the time he was first elected. The interviewer asked him point blank about lower taxes increasing government revenue. Obama said that he knows that lower taxes results in more revenue for government and more job growth for the people. But he is still in favor of raising taxes out of fairness. Now how psychotic is that? Fairness to who?

  • David Steffen

    So no president balances budgets well wtf? Or we haven’t been under the Newt Boehner budget of trickle down and shut down the government budget for the past what 10-15 years ?

  • Chumming for Statists

    Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by Forward Progressives.

    Wait a minute. When I signed on I was assured there would be no censorship. Why does the misguided, misinformed opposition get to approve or disapprove of my post?!!?

  • Grand1

    Kevin clearly does not understand how government works and has had way too much Right Wing Kool-Aid to think rationally. True believers are nice in religion, they don’t affect me. But when true believers start messing with my country, they had better be careful because I pay for their erroneous beliefs, $24 billion wasted money when they shut down the government, millions when they voted 50 times to repeal a bill they knew would go nowhere, putting armed idiots on the streets, cutting services so my road cannot be repaired, sequestering funds by being stubborn in order to get their way, which resulted in thousands of lost jobs. I could go on but I think even Kevin might get my point. By the way Kevin, Presidents sign budgets into law…not House speakers. (Thank God).

  • Christopher Hart


  • Mavs22690

    Most of these questions are based on false premises.

  • You got some pretty slick willies commenting 2 years ago. Wonder what they think now?