Watching the Democrats - it's Fun and Macabre!

[regular.joe]

Spending is being cut. The war in Iraq has drawn down and is ending, the war in Afganistan will come to an end. We, as a nation, did not re-elect the people with the political will to send our nation to war with another nation who did not attack us (Iraq), while ignoring the war in the country that mattered (Afganistan), all while CUTTING taxes and revenues to pay for these wars. We can now stop spending the billions of dollars a year funding our enemies. I applaud these spending cuts. I can stop doing armed social work and capacity building over seas, and we can maybe..just maybe...provide some social work and capacity building in our own country. I understand that men and women like Adak does not want to give his tax dollars to the United States and it's people. Perhaps he should move to Iraq or Afganistan.

[Ibby]

When Ann mother fucking Coulter is making more sense than Adak and, indeed, almost all of fox news, the world REALLY IS UPSIDE DOWN.

After Coulter started to say that Republicans should concede on taxes on the very rich, Hannity wondered why the House didn't just pass a bill extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone.

"OK fine, let's do that, but in the end, at some point, if the Bush tax cuts are repealed and everyone's taxes go up, I promise you Republicans will get blamed for it," she said. "It doesn't mean you cave on everything, but there are some things Republicans do that feed into what the media is telling America about Republicans."

"So are you saying that, for PR purposes, that they should give in to Obama on the tax rate?" Hannity asked.

"Not exactly, I--" Coulter said, before stopping herself and saying, "Well, yeah, I guess I am."

"You're saying capitulate to Obama?" Hannity stammered. "We don't have a revenue problem, Ann."

"We lost the election, Sean!" Coulter replied.

[BigV]

glatt, thank you for that succinct reply.

Adak, in response to your question to me, I await your response to glatt's clear statement refuting your claim that there've been no spending cuts.

[infinite monkey]

Like Bugs Bunny, you will see Donald Duck and his friend Little Lulu walking down an ordinary street. Then Yosemite Sam takes 50 bucks away from Wile E Coyote and THEN how will he buy ACME products, inevitably causing 3000 employees to lose their jobs, resulting in a collapse in The Hundred Acres Wood.

AND DO YOU KNOW WHY? DO YOU? DO YOU?

Freaking DEMOCRATS, that's why, you fool.

[BigV]

We've secretly replaced Adak's copyist with infinite monkey. Let's see if he notices.

[DanaC]

If the Democrats bent any further in their negotiations they'd be hairpin shaped.

The tea-party influence in the republican negotiations has meant absolute heel digging and a refusal to consider any compromises.

[infinite monkey]

Dear Adak,

Please learn to spell 'penny.'

Sincerely,

Mrs McGillicuddy's 2nd grade class

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

If the Democrats bent any further in their negotiations they'd be hairpin shaped.

The tea-party influence in the republican negotiations has meant absolute heel digging and a refusal to consider any compromises.

You must be avoiding even the ObamaNews corps releases.

News flash:
============
Speaker of the House (John Boehner), has put forward compromises to Obama's team (Tim Geitner, etc.), last week.

Still, no response of any kind, from the President's team.

As Speaker of the House (Republican) said, there is no progress in the negotiations yet, because the President has not put forward anything that he will negotiate.

It's obvious that Obama is just letting us sweat to put pressure on the Republicans.

Naturally, the Speaker of the House, will cave in a bit, if he's doing the normal thing. He's not a real fighter, AND he does not want to see us go over the fiscal "cliff". Obama knows this, and is using it to get what he wants with no compromising on his part, if possible.

So hold onto your wallets, folks. More fun taxes (they call them "revenues" instead), will be taken from you, to support our fat piggy gov't.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by thinkprogress

Corporate profits are currently at an all-time high (while worker wages as a percentage of the economy have plummeted to record lows). But despite those sky-high profits, corporate income tax revenue is projected to be just 1.5 percent of GDP this year, below the recent average and far below the amount raised by the tax just a few decades ago.
As the Century Foundation noted in this chart, the corporate income tax, as a share of total government revenue, used to track reasonably well with corporate profits. But in the last decade, the two have become decoupled:


As the Century Foundation’s Benjamin Landy explained, “In 1952, the corporate income tax accounted for about one third of of all federal tax revenue. But, over the years, U.S. multinationals have devised increasingly complex tax avoidance schemes, far beyond the ability of the IRS to credibly monitor or enforce. Although the corporate tax rate was also lowered significantly in 1986, tax avoidance is one of primary reasons why corporate taxes supply less than 9 percent of federal revenues today.”
Between 2008 and 2011, dozens of multinational corporations paid no corporate income tax at all, despite making billions in profits. In 2011, the effective tax rate paid by American corporations fell to 12.1 percent, a forty-year low.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...taxes-plummet/

This sure looks like a broken economy/taxation system to me.

[Adak]

@Ibby: There's no doubt the tax system is broken. Small businesses are paying way too much in taxes, while the big corporations have tax attorneys and C.P.A's to advise them of every latest tax avoiding statute, and how to maximize their deductions in every way.

So a company like G.E. for instance, pays nothing, despite millions in what would be taxable income, for less astute tax advisers and planners.

The problem is, the politicians need $$$ for their campaigns, so they pay close attention to pander to those lobbyists that are well funded - and then consistently promote and vote for, tax bills that favor those lobbyists - and those bills don't usually "sunset" - they go on and on, year after year.

[Adak]

Obama Finds Legal Way Around The 2nd. Amendment and Uses It. The Full Article Here http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...59E0Q920091015

Subject: Obama Takes First Step in Banning All Firearms On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States.

This was reported in Reuters, and immediately caused all kinds of rumors to circulate like wildfire. In retrospect, it was apparently a bit of an overstatement by Reuters, and the comment by ex-UN Ambassador Bolton, was also too strong.
, but it roused the 2nd amendment defenders, all across the country. Rumors ran on fleet feet, with just enough truth behind them to give them credence.

1) Obama was going to increase the existing 11% excise tax on all ammunition. Ammo would still be legal, but you'd pay dearly to own it. Caused a HUGE run on ammo, and prices soared.

2) Since the WSJ (Wall St. Journal) broke the story in 2009 about the majority of weapons in Mexico, believed to have come from the Southwest States, this rumor stated that Obama was looking to use that as an excuse to restrict right to carry laws, on the Federal level.

This was hugely blunted when then news broke that it was Obama's guy Eric Holder over in the Justice Dept., who had initiated all these guns going into Mexico, in a fiasco called "Gun Runner" and also "Fast and Furious". Since it was a line item in the expense report, Obama had to know about it - it was believed.

Everything most damning has been stonewalled by Holder, and when demanded by a court to turn them over, Obama stepped in and claimed Executive Privilege, to stop it. It's been on-going for 2 and 1/2 years or so, with Darryl Issa's committee. It seems likely the full truth will never be known.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

Obama Finds Legal Way Around The 2nd. Amendment and Uses It. The Full Article Here http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...59E0Q920091015

Subject: Obama Takes First Step in Banning All Firearms On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States.

<snip>

Adek, if you are going to present a link, don't you think it would be proper to avoid your own inflammatory editing.

Compare your post with the actual link... published back on October 14, 2009

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
(Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday
and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales
as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
<snip>

The word "amendment" does not even appear in the article.
It is reporting on a treaty dealing with illicit international arms trade.

... just one more adekian post.

[piercehawkeye45]

Obama is not going to ban all guns in the US...

[Adak]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Obama is not going to ban all guns in the US...

No, he's not.

That has already been decided by the Supreme Court. He can't.

What the FEAR was, that he would work with the Senate and approve a treaty that would make it much more difficult (not impossible), to own a gun

OR

increase the federal excise tax now on ammo, until it just became too expensive for most of us to use our guns.

These were two FEARS, that had everyone upset when Obama was first elected. <Thus the 2009 date to the article>. Again, one more time for those burdened by a ho-hum public school education - this was the FEAR, not the fact, that had thousands of NRA members and gun owners, calling the switchboard for their federal politicians.

This was in response to Ibby calling "Bullshit".

@Lamplighter: The inflammatory editing "Subject: ..."etc., you're referring to was from the article that I was reading - I didn't write it.

Yes, it is VERY inflammatory, and that's why it was so alarming, and got such a strong response.

I know Ibby, you never noticed it before! Liberals!

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

<snip>
@Lamplighter: The inflammatory editing "Subject: ..."etc., you're referring to was from the article that I was reading - I didn't write it.

Yes, it is VERY inflammatory, and that's why it was so alarming, and got such a strong response.
<snip>

You authored the introduction of the post, and stated "The Full Article Here(link)".
You then went on with an inflammatory header in bold print,
and stated "This was reported in Reuters..."

The original article is about an un-inflammatory as dust bunnies.

That was an attempt to misconstrue an article from 2009,
and now give an "I didn't write it" adekian excuse.







I know... "adekian" and the latter smilie used here are redundant,
but I do apologize to the creator of the smilie.