Lucky...

Ride bike to work today and save 3 billion HLB's won't SOMEONE please THINK about the HLB's? HLB's are like seals...if they weren't meant to be exploited by man, God would have given them shotguns to defend themselves. That's humane, I wonder if chomo's have a similar saying in regard to their victims.

Your score is 10 on a scale of 1 to 10. You are a pure, unabashed, die-hard Democratic loyalist. You are appalled by the way Republicans are turning America into a theocratic, corpo-fascist police state, and you'd gladly walk through a furnace in a gasoline suit to elect a Democratic president. In your view, there is no higher form of patriotism than defending America against the Republican Party and every intolerant, puritanical, imperialistic, greed-mongering, Constitution-shredding ideal for which it stands. Yep, pretty much it, Repugninazis going pure corporate in leiu of politicians.

TRanslation: One black president = another black president.

Your post is typical nonsense from the right. Emoticons and no letters? WHy bother? Really, just skim on by. because the post speaks to the irony and the humor of the exchange - without any diarherria posting or volumes of attachments from moveon, or foxnews or anything else you start your own site and you can personally decide who posts what I know pithy isn't in your vocab... I've seen you post substance on rare occassion; why not be that guy instead of this one babbling nothingness rhetoric? There is a bunch of data to respond to - I get it tho, how can you refute the obvious?

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetChartbook/Federal-spending-growing-faster-than-federal-revenue.aspx Here's a graph from your rag, The Heritage Foundation. It shows tax receipts turn around in 1991 as GHWB raised taxes, then huge in 1993 with Clinton's huge tax increase. In 1998, with the small tax cuts, look at how the great momentum hit a plateau for a little over a year. Makes sense to me, increase taxes, receipts grow, cut taxes, receipts shrink. And then according to your rag, federal spending started to take off in 1974, but it wasn't noticed in the debt/deficit until fascist pig Ronny's massive tax cuts; the graph shows this: http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/Federal-Spending-Grew-Seven-Times-Faster-Than-Median-Income.aspx Do keep in mind federal spending will increase with inflation and with population growth, that is normal. This chart is supposedly adjusted for inflation, a raw chart would look more gross under Reagan and GWB. Notice the flatter spending under Clinton, much higher under Reagan and GWB? Yea, slightly diff subject but still relevant. Now for the 1981 cuts with revenue/receipts considered: http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetChartbook/Federal-spending-growing-faster-than-federal-revenue.aspx A chart from your rag states that tax revenues dropped from 1981 to 1983; so much for your theory. No wonder the debt took off then; fascist pig Ronnie cut taxes and kept on a spending: http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html Chart #3 shows the big upsurge in debt as FR cut taxes and spent more. Good thing for him he became senile before he could see the damage he did. No, Mike, it is you who just got yoru ass handed to you. Of course you post no data, that would be foreign. Here's a factcheck to bring you around to normal logic: Here's a Factcheck.org article on GWB's tax cuts: http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html Yea, cut taxes and cut revenues, run up deficits and then debts. Not a real difficult concept. Sounds like Microcosm Mike at it again; why not be unlike yourself and post data to clarify what you mean. Again, I don't deal in tiny tax adjustments, I deal in major tax code shifts, it would be dishonest to draw conclusions from small changes. I don' t expect honesty from, you, Mike.

Your post is typical nonsense from the right. Emoticons and no letters? WHy bother? Really, just skim on by.

Don't misunderestimate him.

The 1981 and 1997 capital gains tax cuts. I wouldn't call them exactly major cuts for one, I'm talking cuts or increases that are massive so so we can see the effect. The 1981, well, we see what your fascist leader did for the debt starting with his entire tax ciuts from 1981 where he lowered the top brkt from 70% to 50% and hammered spending. Look at the debt climb astronomically. The 1997 CG cuts were a deal Clinton made to get the min wage increased and other [iggybacked deals. Not onlhy that but the 1993 substantial tax increases had been in play for years and the debt/deficit were already getting under control by then. Again, not a major tax cut. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_1997 ---- Subject to certain phase-in rules, the top capital gains rate fell from 28% to 20%. The 15% bracket was lowered to 10%. ---- Starting in 1998, a $400 tax credit for each child under age 17 was introduced, which was increased to $500 in 1999. This credit was phased out for high income families. So it was a welfare tax giveaway too. --- The act exempted from taxation profits on the sale of a personal residence of up to $500,000 for married couples filing jointly and $250,000 for singles. Again, an obsure tax cut for MC ---- The act also provided tax relief for retirement accounts as well as education savings in the Hope Scholarship Credit and Lifetime Learning Credits. Some expiring business tax provisions were extended. Another cut for MC, but obscure as not everyone can use it. --- It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on August 5, 1997. Applied in 1998, the economy was already under great recovery by then. I'm talking major increases like the the Revenue Act of 1932, Reagan's massive tax cuts, etc. Hell, the tax cuts in 1925; pick your own, but keep them major so we can see things in large scale, not obscure.

One last thing, don't you think the FF primarily warned future gens about tyranny? Don't you see the major corporations as the purveyors of this tyranny? They demand a 700B bailout for their lending failures/corruption and when Obama demands they start lending money again or else, they suck the market out 500 pts as a warning shot. Of course corporations are our friend, right? The party you align with, the Republican Party, used to be about corporate control as with Teddy Roosevelt, now they've just become the Whig Party decades after that party's death. Show me a major fed tax cut that has worked well.

Oh, gosh, golly, I get now, thx for straightening that out. Please, tell me of all your left ideologies. Then tell me of all your right ideologies. Wait, they're purely indep, that's right. Well tell me of your stance on taxes esp for teh rich. Oh, you say cut em as the alleged indep that you are. I see, then guns, abortion, bla, bla, bla.... You're a disgruntled Republican like Ron Paul the Republican president candidate. Libertarian ideals like you have are like 2 degrees off Repuiblican ones and the ideals that might be the furthest are the least impressive by Libertarians. Libertarians and Republicans are basically interchangeable, of course you won't agree but won't specify your ideals either AHHHHHHH, I see. Certainly the Dems have some blame, mostly in that they are too scared to tell the Repugnifucks to fuck off. Apathy is the fault of the Dem politicians. But all they do is unfuck teh messes of the right; I don't care what fantasy you live in, this isn't about you or me. And that's why Obama does very little of that, he's too GD nice to be pres, I wish we had a tough bastard like FDR that would tell the other side to FO. But division or not, that's rhetoric, it's about policy that makes it work or not. Republican policies are failures; care to question that? The US COnst was written by a bunch of lawyers who were rapists, murderers and slave owners talking about freedom and liberty; don't get too excited by it. It illustrates a good example of a bad example so maybe some of the electorate who actually have just a few brain cells might figure it out and not repeat. Both side may be to blame, but EXTREMELY DISPROPORTIONATELY. You want to call 80-20 the same as 50-50; have a nice day. I think people should look at policies, see which work, which are destructive, and then see which party applies which policies. You want to build a large scale ad hominem, I want workable policies. Oh, tell me of that what he said that was so invaluable. See, getting blushed cheeks over a guy who's been dead 200 years might be so irrelevant today that the grain of salt cliche should be applied. Again, it's real easy, LOOK AT WHAT POLICIES HAVE CONTEMPORARILY WORKED AND APPLY THEM.

Now it's highly likely that the first Obama Adminstration term will also end with 5T in debt. Now surely you'll attribute some of this to the GOP and Bush, but it's 1 term versus 2. The question of the day - how much of this debt will you blame the Dems/Obama for? 50%? 0%? Sliding scale depending on the slope? That's such a fucking joke. You want to pretend that the 2nd worst mess in history Obama inherited is the same as what GWB inherited? Neo-con, connies might by that, but most won't. I guess Clin ton, who inherited a small mess in recovery, inherited just 7% unemployment that was stable, a descent stock market and GDP, he turned it into gold. Obama inherited >8% unemp in freefall, a GDP that was 4 of 5 Q's negaitve - current Q very negative, market in freefall, banks about literally done and many other indicators in the toilet. The true character/honesty of anyone who thinks what Obama inherited is his doing / his fault shows when they want to blame him. Hell, garbage like Hannity and the likes were saying it was his economy weeks after he took office. Dude, that's a fucking joke. It took Clinton his whole 1st term to unfuck fascist pig Ronnies mess and he had help from GHWB in raising taxes and cutting spending; Obama took the mess at it's epicenter and had to deal with it. As for attribute some of it, I attribute ALL of the debt gain under Clinton to that garbage you love so much; fascist Ronnie. Considering the debt increase fell every year and the deficit shrunk every year Clinton was in office for a net improvement. When Clinton left, a 290B deficit turned to a 236B surplus, a 12-year 250 debt increase turned to 33B and shrinking. I realize numbers and actual concepts such as this are foreign to you so you won't agree. Oh, BTW, it took Clinton his whole 1st term to get the economy really under control, it wasn't nearly as bad as Obama's inherited mess. As for your ? of the day, I will assess Obama's work after the term(s) is/are done. I will praise and criticize as needed, unlike the connies who just praise their leaders. I hear brilliant turds from the right say, "I don't agree with Bush on everything," but they never break into details; I do with my leaders from my party. It will be great, there is this cycle of teh criminals on the right blowing up the debt and starving teh poor, the left comming in and fixing it, tehj right fucking it up, etc. I have no reason to believe it will be diff this time.

Here's a great representation of the morons in your movement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y

First, what is Ellie Light? Google it So it's an anonymous author to letters. Apparently you have no response to the substance I posted so you attack or mischaracterize the author, me. WOW, color me surprized.

Your post is typical nonsense from the right. To avoid getting you lost in all kinds of reasoning, can you show me where the tea baggers were when their hero andd leader, GWB was trashing the debt by 5 trillion dollars? Or perhaps were they around, possibly under a different name when fascist garbage pig-fuck Ronnie started this mess in 1981? Before you waste keystrokes with your 'for the people' garbage, feel-good rhetoric, show me a major federal tax cut that led to overall betterment in the economic picture...... I DIDN'T THINK YOU COULD. Now go pretend you're not a disgruntled Republican and claim to be independent and then vote partyline R while carrying your guns to political rallies.

Effective politician? Uh, that sounds uber-political in itself. Oxymoronic? Not a clear term that is EXTREMELY subjective. That exemplified what I just wrote about subjectivity. I see your party's war-mongering as highly wasteful; now come the denials that you don't want the war. As for higly unwanted, polls showed it was very wanted, just that no one could agree upon how to do it. Also, I wonder if slavery abolition was unwanted? Yea, so representing the weak and poor USED TO BE what we were about, now it's about representing the corporations and calling it justice. I do, however, understand that you and yours don't give a fucking rat's ass about other than people in your class and above. "Taking care of the people." In normal terms, that's akin to HC reform, in Nazimerican terms, that's more corporate welfare please. Yes, making banks walk teh line or actually return teh recent favor of Bish's 700B bailout asking too much as far as Republicans are concerned. That's right, in your fascist government, the one we now have, if you dare mandate corporate rule-following and general fairplay, the consequences will be consumer cost. In Nazimerica the rich eat first, if the rich don't eat, the poor don't eat. What a wondeful system that is failing due to that thinking. In horrible socialized countries they look at that system as attrocious. What you call getting back, objective people call mandating rule following. How dare we hold accountable sleezy corporations. Less effective = a typical Republican mess, unless we measure effectiveness as corruption. But then the typical stupid American voter will get the corrupt gov they deserve, once again.

First, what is Ellie Light?

Oh please, the Dems showing up are Republicans posing as Dems. No, they are Dems that are not lefty progressive political extremeists. They love this country and do not want to see those with views such as yours destroy it Rush's love for this country defined by: - 5 T debt increases - Total corporate takeover of gov - Darwinian-type HC where if ya don't have it; tough shit - Militarizing the world via US imperialistic takeover or threat thereof - Classist separation of society where class mobility is unavailable Nice, you guys love the country alright, considering 70-80% of the total debt occurred under your party and much of the 20-30% can be atributed to debt gains under Dems incurred as they fixed yoru mess - of course you won't touch that.

Why, that would be the FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005, Lucky. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190 You can read up on how the Democrats killed the reform when Sen McCain saw the impending doom coming. I guess if they had allowed it to pass, then they would have less to blame on Bush. So, Scott Brown's one vote is meaningless? In your love of Bush bashing it seems that you have completely forgotten the impact that the house and senate have on US politics. Even Obama can't get them to open up on C-Span. So no response to the ultra-low int rates causing the mess? I guess that's acquiescence. --> FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005: From your site: Amends the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to establish the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation. Transfers the functions of the Office of Finance of the Federal Home Loan Banks to such Corporation. Excludes the Federal Home Loan Banks from certain securities reporting requirements. Abolishes the Federal Housing Finance Board. Sounds like it kilsl governmetn offices and transfers complete authority to private corporate offices. Yea, that's a fix; more corporate greed and less government oversight. Yea, now that's reform we can all sink our teeth into. You're right the Dems really killed a zinger there . --> You can read up on how the Democrats killed the reform when Sen McCain saw the impending doom coming. By 2005 the impnding doom was already laid, it was inevitable at that point, McSame was just covering his tracks. In case you weren't watching, the loans started in 2003 and 4, the inflation frenzy was going in 5 and until the end of 6. Trying to shift more power to corporations after the damage was done by low int rates in 2005 was meaningless if not more damaging. ---> So, Scott Brown's one vote is meaningless? In your love of Bush bashing it seems that you have completely forgotten the impact that the house and senate have on US politics. 1 vote in a sea of 535 is irrelevant after losing 3 straight elections, celebrating over 3 governor seats last November exemplifies your party's desperation.

Can it get a better name for itself? I've already heard enough tea bag remarks to think that it can't grow much further without a name change. Which defines Republcian static; more about rheoric than substance.

Translation: You have no response. What has changed in a year other than the freefall of the market, GDP and unemployment? Really, has HC been enacted? Has the war ended? Nothing has changed but the financial crisis has been curbed and now needs to be recovered. You act as tho anything other than the financial crisis has changed. And now it will change back; recheck your current events. Just because change has been proposed and struck down doesn't define change. Again, the only change is the economy and struck-down proposed change.

Hope you're not standing too close, Mike.

But *BUSH* Derangement Syndrome is evidently A-OK. The B.D.S. is supported by 8 years of performance, rendering it to be a reality rather than a paranoia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome Krauthammer defined Bush Derangement Syndrome as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush".[

Oh please, the Dems showing up are Republicans posing as Dems.

Unemployemnt on the rise? It was in freefall as Obama took office, just as the market and GDP were too. Sorry for no 2-week turnaround from your guy's and your party's mess. JUst as Clinton unfucked your partty's mess, so will Obama.

Right, trying to look objective to slam Obama. To say it's 100% to 0% is ridiculous. Trying to say this mess isn't predominantly the fault of a known incompetent in GWB who was fully in power with a republican congress running the country for 6 years is as ridiculous. List reasons this mess is the fault of the Dems, what they did and how they could have prevented it since 2001. I won't expect an answer. Which bill and what was piggybacked. Name the bill. Define, "clamped down." Care to talk about one of tHE biggest issues/catalysts of the mess; UTLRA-LOW INTEREST RATES CAUSING INFLATED HOME PRICES AND ENABLING SUB-PRIME MORTGAGES? But movements like the Cindy Sheehan one is bad I'm sure. Yea, real independent. Don't insult our intelligence as a way to gain objective credibility. You sound like a typical Limbaugh listener pretending to be objective. Altjho dissent is great, I' sure you disagree with dissent that is contrary to your opinions tho, dissent while carrying guns is assinine. Someone has no clue that 1 seat of 535 in congress is virtually meaningless. Owww, tell us about the 2 or wasit 3 governor seats won last November. It would be virtually unprecedented if the Dems, who own a massive lead in the House and the Senate to not lose seats now in the pendulum effect. Win in 2012 and then wave your flag, until then it's just comedy. Also. who made it easier for low income families to buy houses? http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/home/addi/ Didn't that enable sub-primers to buy houses too? Coupled with low interest rates and there you go. Keep indicting the party w/o power for 6 of the 8 years of your guy's term for a mess that occcurred under your guy's watch.