Glenn Beck

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

I agree %1000 with you.

And then we can cut veteran's benefits and health care because I mean, really, they were getting paid while they were serving, I don't see why they keep getting freebies after they're done serving. It's not like taking care of them is doing me any good. They can just go out and get employer-provided health care at private jobs like the rest of us. And if they can't, well, that's not my problem if they were too dumb to avoid getting shot or bombed or did something stupid like lose limbs because they picked up a live grenade (That's what people like Rush said about Max Cleland, after all, and he would know.) Life's tough. They were getting paid while they were serving; that should be enough for them, like it is for the rest of us.

See? Medicare and veteran's benefits. Man, this budget cutting stuff is easy!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

What make you think that those of us on Medicare don't pay for it? A retired couple on Medicare with a supplement plan pays anywhere from $600 - $800 a month.

And, I don't have blue hair. I may be old, but if you have the good fortune to get to be my age, you'll wonder how the hell you got to be "old" so swiftly and wonder why the younger generation is so rude and dismissive of those who came before them. So save the slams at the elderly. It only makes you look more the fool than you already are. Age discrimmination is as bad as racial discrimmination.

But, yes, by all means - stop Medicare cold. Pay out benefits to those who are already retired and about to be retired in the next 5 years, and give back the money paid into the plan by all others. Let them decide how best they want to plan for their medical requirements in retirement.

My point. I think you're missing it.

[Riot]

Racism:
1.belief in or doctrine asserting racial differences in character, intelligence, etc. and the superiority of one race over another or others: racist doctrine also, typically, seeks to maintain the supposed purity of a race or the races
2.any program or practice of racial discrimination, segregation, etc., specif., such a program or practice that upholds the political or economic domination of one race over another or others
3.feelings or actions of hatred and bigotry toward a person or persons because of their race

Yup. The above fits Rush Limbaugh to a tee - judging by his own public words.

Which is precisely why I described Rushbo by the word racist. Because he is.

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

My point. I think you're missing it.

I'm happy to hear that, but you sure sounded serious and not far removed from what Obama has intimated.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So you are saying that this was the only/main issue that he ran on? .

LOL - no, most obviously not!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

LOL

Oh the nerve of those people! Treating Mr Obama rudely! Surely George Bush never was treated in such a manner.

You are so completely brainwashed that it is comical.

S - a - r - c - a - s - m

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

I have voted for a Democrat numerous times. He has been in office since Jan 2009 and our economy is still in shambles. One year and three months in office should be enough time to try to make some fixes to our struggling economy. I am fully aware that he inherited a mess from Bush. I wanted him to succeed, but he hasn't shown me anything that makes me think he wants to be a successful President. Which do you think should be of a higher priority: Health care reform or fixing the economy. He has gone against the majority of Americans who didn't want the health care bill passed. Instead of thinking about his fellow Americans he thinks about himself. He has put his own political party under the table with this health care reform bill and could care less about it. What has he done about securing our borders from these thug drug cartels? Governor Perry has taken the initiative to try to protect the borders of Texas. Would I consider voting for someone other than a Republican? Absolutely I would. I want to vote for the candidate who is going to do the best for the people and not go against thier will.

Fixing the economy would be job #1. The President, however, has little impact on what the economy does despite the beliefs of most. He can't make snap-your-fingers changes that instantly change the course of the general economy- in fact the vast majority of fiscal policy is set by the Federal Reserve (central bank lending rates, money flow, etc.) Rates too low for too long, overexpansion and inflation; rates too high for too long, curtailed investment and recession. That being said, I think we are making positive strides based on indicators, despite my personal wealth saying different.

Economic indicators:
Jan '09 -> Apr '10
Dow Jones Average: 8738 -> 11005
Change in Nonfarm Payrolls: Down 750k -> Up 160k (a strong leading indicator)
Unemployment Rate: 8.3% -> 9.6% (a lagging indicator)
Retail Sales: -3% -> +1.5%
CPI: +0.1% -> +0.1% (measure of inflation)
Housing Starts: 450k -> 600k (Jan '09 was a historical low)
Existing Home Sales: 4.5MM -> 5.0MM

Originally Posted by Danzig

this and your previous post were right on. well done.

Thank you, 'Zig.

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by philcski

That's an extreme, and rather silly view of what I'm suggesting.

We spent much of the 1800's in a moderate isolationist period (re: the Monroe Doctrine.) The USA established itself as the premier country in the world during this period and maintained that without a lot of work or money; it allowed the country to grow organically from basically the 13 original states to almost where it is now stretching from coast to coast (before the advent of easy travel!)

Let's be realistic here. No country we couldn't squash like a bug has looked at us crosseyed since Japan/Germany in 1941. The wars we have fought since then in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have been on foreign soil to protect political interests, not in any way self defense (even though the last two have been masked as anti-terrorist, they haven't exactly succeeded at that), against opponents that if we did want to pull the nuclear trigger they would be eradicated like fruit flies. Our military/defense budget at over $1.1 trillion, or almost $4,000 per person, has spiraled out of control. You could send EVERY college student to school for free for HALF that amount. We spend 7.5X the amount of the next country in gross dollars, and as a percent of GDP there's only one developed nation that spends more (Greece at 4.5% versus the USA's 4.06%- I have no good explanation for Greece's military budget other than their GDP is minuscule.)

Providing help to our neighbors such as Haiti or Chile in times of need is obviously goodwill we can continue- but you overestimate the actual cost of this. The federal government spent $170 million on relief efforts in Haiti, a far cry from what private sources such as the Red Cross contributed. I'd love to think they appreciate our help... sometimes I'm not so sure, but I'll err on the side of humanism and say they do.

Our borders are now, for all intensive purposes, closed. A passport is required to get to Canada. CANADA, our best friends and one of the few countries that matches America's quality! I grew up on the border. We could enter and exit with a simple "what's up, eh?" and an "yo man, I'm back". That freedom will never return, ever.

Of course it's a silly view - I meant it to be silly in response to your saying you want to keep the money spent on Israel at home.

And the isolation practice of the 1800's worked then, but it's not going to work now. To compare the two times is history is ludicrous.

No one is afraid of America anymore because we've lost our desire to actually dig in and fight a war. Why the heck fight a war if we're not in it to win it. Stay the heck home, save money, and save lives.

Borders should be secured north and south - not as an affront to either nation but as a means of keeping America safe. We're not back in the days when crossing borders was no big thing. But we have terrorists, drug runners, and convicted criminals escaping justice who need to be stopped cold in their tracks. It just isn't the same USA prior to 1979 when all hell broke loose and the USA humiliating itself by not taking a firm stance from day one of the Iran Embassy takeover. We've been treated as weak and pushovers ever since, and we haven't done much to prove that we're not.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

Typical responses from hateful left wing Obama apologists - when they can't dazzle with brilliance, they baffle with BS.

Prejudice is an opinion without any means of support.

Discrimination is treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

What make you think that those of us on Medicare don't pay for it? A retired couple on Medicare with a supplement plan pays anywhere from $600 - $800 a month.

And, I don't have blue hair. I may be old, but if you have the good fortune to get to be my age, you'll wonder how the hell you got to be "old" so swiftly and wonder why the younger generation is so rude and dismissive of those who came before them. So save the slams at the elderly. It only makes you look more the fool than you already are. Age discrimmination is as bad as racial discrimmination.

But, yes, by all means - stop Medicare cold. Pay out benefits to those who are already retired and about to be retired in the next 5 years, and give back the money paid into the plan by all others. Let them decide how best they want to plan for their medical requirements in retirement.

I can't believe I'm actually trying to explain this, since it's clear that you are that thing that makes me fear most for the future of this great nation, a willfully low-information voter, but I am a sucker for lost causes (Odysseus having been one of my fantasy stable choices):

First of all, there is no "Medicare savings bank" to pay anyone back out of. That money is not put in a savings account; it is contributed by hard-working slobs such as myself EVERY YEAR so that old folk like you can afford to go to the doctor. If they were to end the program there would be no one to pay back and it would end right away, not in some mythical manner where there is magically money for all of you retired folk to continue to get yours for free. The money you may or may not have contributed yourself (since you just have to be old to qualify, not old and a life-long wage earner, as you do with Social Security) has long since been spent on people who are now dead. There. Is. No. Savings. Account. For. Medicare.

Second of all, regarding your "Flat Tax Good! VAT Bad!" statements from earlier- they are very similar so make up your mind, good? Or bad? Because they're essentially the same damn thing. They are both consumption taxes. And you know who bears the brunt of consumption taxes? Why, the poor and middle class, who spend far more of their income on consumption than the wealthy, who generally have enough money to buy food and necessities and still have money left over. What both of those taxes do is shift the tax burden even farther from the wealthy than it is being shifted already. As it is, the wealthy pay a lower percentage of their income in tax than the middle class, and it's because of the idiotic belief that capital gains should be taxed at 15 percent, not at the same level as wages. But hey, the rich might, just might start a business! Which they don't; they look for more investment opportunities with quick turnarounds and then you get credit default swaps. And those have worked out really well for us, haven't they? What's your home worth lately?

Third, this will break your Reagan Was the Best Thing Since Jesus heart, but the truth about the Soviet Union is that as early as the 1970's it was known the nation wasn't going to last. We knew, long before Reagan blew up our budget with his military fetish, that they were going to collapse economically. Did building the miliary speed it up? Maybe, but what did we get from that? The Soviets, for all that Ohmigawd, Communism is the Worstest Thing Ever, were a nation with essentially the same goals at the US- we weren't going to war with them in the 1980's because neither side wanted to die. Mutually Assured Destruction, remember it? Negative sounding, but remarkably effective in maintaining detente. What Reagan did was blow up an economy that, through bi-partisan work, had been fairly well built up over the previous 40 years, and now, 30 years later, we're seeing it all come to a head. And it's not good.

(Side note to Nascar- one year and 3 months is enough time to undo how many years of economic malfeasance? Seriously, dude? Seriously? You know, I read comments on blogs about how right-wingers will get all pissy and say, "But, but, but Obama's had a year and things aren't better yet!" and I think, "Oh come on. No one is that ridiculous and would really think anything that asinine." Sir, I stand corrected.)

Fourth, the health care reform that you're yelling about IS NOT A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM. Why you right-wingers can't get that through your heads is beyond me. Oh, right, because you don't actually bother to do any research, you just gobble up whatever Rushbo tells you because he's more entertaining than reading what's actually in any of these things Congress writes. (And yes, Congress wrote the bill, not Obama. Congress creates law; the Court interprets it; the Pres enforces it. How hard is this to understand?) In fact, a lot of this bill is exactly what the Republicans wanted in 1993, and some of it is stuff McCain campaigned on in 2008. And this is not secret knowledge; it's all been right out there for ages.

Doreen, I'm a screaming liberal. I believe in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, veteran's benefits and while we're on the subject, gay marriage, anti discrimination laws (including ones to protect the elderly, who I think are incredibly discriminated against, especially when they have to go back to work) and anything else that helps to give everyone the best possible chance to be productive. And I don't benefit from a single one of these government programs- I'm working, have employer-provided health insurance and have been blessed with a pretty good constitution so that I've never had a chronic debilitating illness; mine have been temporary (Timm, thanks again for the advice on my shoulder, by the way; it's doing great now). Hell, I'm almost six months pregnant and I still go running 3 times a week. But I know that life can be crummy and dark and unexpected and I believe in safety nets to catch those who might being having it tougher than I am. Whether it's their own fault or not, I don't care. It's not my business to judge; it's my business to see that they don't starve and can take their kids to the doctor.

And I don't understand the right-wing, "I got mine, f*ck the rest of you all." And I don't understand the right-wing "If the other side wants it, I'm against it!" Because I really do think right-wingers confuse politics with sports and their party with their favorite sports team. If the Dems do something good for the country (and this health care reform, flawed as it is, is MUCH better than the status quo), it's not a blow against right-wingers; it's a victory for all of us. Likewise the Republicans, when they... if they... okay, I'm sure they've done some good stuff for the middle class; I'm just having trouble thinking of an example. But anyway, if, when, they do something positive, it's good for all of us. And when each side does something bad (invading Iraq, for which there's plenty of blame on both sides), it's not an occasion for the other side to celebrate; it's bad for all of us. Because believe me, we liberals were not celebrating when it became clear our gov't lied us into war. We were upset and angry and despairing because it's not about seizing political advantage; it's about a bunch of young men and women, woefully underpaid, dying or being maimed overseas for no goddamn good reason. Just like healthcare is not about Dems winning; it's about getting people who can't get healthcare coverage covered so they can get and stay healthier. And the Republicans could have been part of that and they chose not to because they want to keep you all screaming and waving your foam "We're # 1" fingers, rather than actually taking the time to really look at what's being proposed.

And, if you've even gotten this far, you're not going to take in a word of it, because it's so much easier and more satisfying to just pick a team and root for that team and not bother to take the time (and it takes time) to actually get to the bottom of what's being said and proposed and come to a conclusion about it. It's much easier to listen to entertainers tell you what to think and you get the emotional high of getting angry, too. And that makes me feel bad for you, and annoyed at myself for wasting my time trying to explain this, but I can't help it. We all have our windmills, and I guess low-information voters are mine. Well, better that than shooting up, I guess.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Contrary to popular (and Riots) belief the GOP doesnt run Fox News..

I know it seems you can't go a page without poking at me, but to repeat, I'm not taking credit for the fantasy crap you continually make up out of thin air about "what I believe" or "think"

[Riot]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

http://www.crashtheteaparty.org/

There you go GBBob,Riot! unless you're already members.

LOL - I don't see the point. I think "implosion" will be a self-fulfilling prophesy with much of this bunch, needing no help from any outside their group. If not, more power to 'em. See ya in line at the voting booth.

Met Jack Conway's uncle today, seems they are really hoping Rand Paul wins the GOP nomination for Senator here in KY, and the most extreme candidate is the opposition.

And Stately Victor is gonna win the Derby

[ArlJim78]

wow, that was condescending, but a fantasy for sure (NOT A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER and MUCH beter than the status quo. That's a scream).

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

Of course it's a silly view - I meant it to be silly in response to your saying you want to keep the money spent on Israel at home.

And the isolation practice of the 1800's worked then, but it's not going to work now. To compare the two times is history is ludicrous.

No one is afraid of America anymore because we've lost our desire to actually dig in and fight a war. Why the heck fight a war if we're not in it to win it. Stay the heck home, save money, and save lives.

Borders should be secured north and south - not as an affront to either nation but as a means of keeping America safe. We're not back in the days when crossing borders was no big thing. But we have terrorists, drug runners, and convicted criminals escaping justice who need to be stopped cold in their tracks. It just isn't the same USA prior to 1979 when all hell broke loose and the USA humiliating itself by not taking a firm stance from day one of the Iran Embassy takeover. We've been treated as weak and pushovers ever since, and we haven't done much to prove that we're not.

So we should act tough with a strong military, but be a big softie when people come calling for money? What exactly does that do for average Americans other than cost a lot of money?

We don't need to act tough anymore. The age of imperialism is long but over. The country should worry about what goes on inside our borders and forget about what the kooks in desert lands on the other side of the globe think of us. There is a select culture that will always hate us for being America and there's absolutely no chance that will ever change.

[Princess Doreen]

My God in heaven, GR, I don't think the Epistle to the Romans was as lengthy.

But I shall try and respond with a bit more brevity to some of your more outrageous comments.

The Federal Government should pay back to SS and Medicare all the money it "borrowed" from those programs. Those funds should have gone into a special account instead of a general fund where they were just frittered away on programs other than what hard workers were forced to pay into. Have you ever taken into consideration the number of people who paid into these program but died before they had time to collect and no one benefits from that money?!~

You call me an uninformed voter? Why? Because I don't agree with liberal claptrap? I pride myself with being very well informed from local politics right on up to voting for the POTUS. So, if you want to convince me of the error of my ways or a way of looking at your point of view, don't insult me. If I'm as stupid or ignorant as you make me out to be, why the heck are you spending time arguing with me.

The VAT will be in addition to all the other taxes we already pay. The Flat Tax (edit - not Flat Tax; I mean the Fair Tax) would be the only tax. Got it?!~

Reagan spent wisely. We would be long recovered from that spending if Clinton hadn't tore down the military to balance his budget, and then Bush had to respend in inflated year 2000 - 2008 $$$'s to rebuild.

The Healthcare Plan is not a government program?????

Let me see if I've got this straight. We're being gifted with a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a President who also hasn't read it, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, to be overseen by a surgeon general who has weight problems, and financed by a country that's broke. Those of us with healthcare are going to get less healthcare but pay more, and those who have no health care will wait years before they do get it, but they'll be paying for it in the meantime. IRS will increase in size, as to the number of employes, to monitor everyone.

I'm sure I left a LOT out.

What the hell could possibly go wrong?

"I got mine, f*ck the rest of you all." What the ....?

Just to inform you about something that you are tragically unaware, conservatives are the biggest supporters and contributors to charities - something that Obama doesn't want to see happen anymore. No - he wants to take more of our paychecks and retirement checks and decide where the money will be donated. So spare me the false accusations of miserly, stingy, and uncaring conservatives. Truly just about the most classless, callous, untrue accusation I've seen in print in this entire debate about left vs. right. Nobody handed me what I have. My husband and I worked long and hard so we're not on the dole in our retirement. You'll pardon me if I just don't want to hand off what I have to some people who just want it because they think they are due and the government owe them.

GR - if you're going to come at me with your holier than thou, know more than me attitude, you better have better ammunition because, for the most part, you're shooting blanks.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Riot

LOL - I don't see the point. I think "implosion" will be a self-fulfilling prophesy with much of this bunch, needing no help from any outside their group. If not, more power to 'em. See ya in line at the voting booth.

Met Jack Conway's uncle today, seems they are really hoping Rand Paul wins the GOP nomination for Senator here in KY, and the most extreme candidate is the opposition.

And Stately Victor is gonna win the Derby

Rand Paul good.
Trey Grayson very, very, very bad.

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by philcski

So we should act tough with a strong military, but be a big softie when people come calling for money? What exactly does that do for average Americans other than cost a lot of money?

We don't need to act tough anymore. The age of imperialism is long but over. The country should worry about what goes on inside our borders and forget about what the kooks in desert lands on the other side of the globe think of us. There is a select culture that will always hate us for being America and there's absolutely no chance that will ever change.

You're putting words in my mouth that I never said. We can be tough and still have a heart. And, I'm not as afraid about "kooks in other lands" as I've become of the "kooks in D.C.", and not all of them are Democrats.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

I have voted for a Democrat numerous times. He has been in office since Jan 2009 and our economy is still in shambles. One year and three months in office should be enough time to try to make some fixes to our struggling economy. I am fully aware that he inherited a mess from Bush. I wanted him to succeed, but he hasn't shown me anything that makes me think he wants to be a successful President. Which do you think should be of a higher priority: Health care reform or fixing the economy. He has gone against the majority of Americans who didn't want the health care bill passed. Instead of thinking about his fellow Americans he thinks about himself. He has put his own political party under the table with this health care reform bill and could care less about it. What has he done about securing our borders from these thug drug cartels? Governor Perry has taken the initiative to try to protect the borders of Texas. Would I consider voting for someone other than a Republican? Absolutely I would. I want to vote for the candidate who is going to do the best for the people and not go against thier will.

When are people like you going to get it through your heads that these two things are not mutually exclusive? The former is an avenue to achieve the latter.

And you can't possibly be that simple to think that any president who does something unpopular is automatically acting only out of self-interest. That presupposes that the majority of Americans know exactly what's best for the country despite the complexity of the issues.

Hell, Obama said on the campaign trail that he wouldn't always do what's popular. You'd prefer a president that always does what the polls say most people want, despite an often misinformed public? Seriously? What if the majority of the public isn't on your side? Would you still be down for that?

Even though I hated most of Bush's decisions, I'm not foolish enough to criticize him simply for not adhering to what polls say people want. I also had to laugh at you talking about how everything should be about the economy, then two sentences later, whining about how Obama's not doing enough to stop Mexican drug dealers? Way to stay on base.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by philcski

Rand Paul good.
Trey Grayson very, very, very bad.

Yeah, this is one interesting race!

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Princess Doreen

You're putting words in my mouth that I never said. We can be tough and still have a heart. And, I'm not as afraid about "kooks in other lands" as I've become of the "kooks in D.C.", and not all of them are Democrats.

Sure we can! Say... got another dollar I can tax you on so I can spend it on a bigger military or send it to Israel?


So your choice... less tough and less heart, but less money out of your pocket, or more tough and more heart, and more money out of your pocket. What you say?

Originally Posted by Riot

Yeah, this is one interesting race!

I hate these attacking commercials. Followed by a group orgy "supporting" the guy from their party they just trashed in the primaries. Rand Paul is the son of the most conservative guy in Congress but he's far more progressive than his father and far, far, far more progressive than that kook Trey Grayson, whom I half expect to move his campaign office to the Creation Museum...