Stephen Chapman on the TEA Party

Above mmarsh orginal statement



No, it is not your exact quote. As posted from your original quote, your reason for spending $2Gs was, "2Gs lighter in the wallet thanks to the fact we have 50 drivers licenses instead of 1."

Not that you have lived in France for 12 years!

You totally lack credibility! Do you believe everyone on this forum is as stupid as you think I am. I believe they can read for themselves and determine who is being truthful here.

You can just never admit it can you? Its simply compulsive tick with you never to admit to being wrong no matter what. How pathetic. Seriously, get a life.

People can of course read what we wrote, but they don't actually need to get the truth. Maybe you haven't realized it yet, but your reputation for intellectual dishonesty here proceeds you, and most everyone here knows it. When you stack my rep here vs. yours. I think you'll find that most people here might disagree vehemently with me and that these same people think you're a snake. Nor am I the one with the reputation for being a troll. Thats two strikes against you Junior...

And you wonderfully illustrate just how dishonest you are back to trying to twist around my words in order to avoid admitting you are wrong and keep the argument going. I wont fall for it, we both know what you said and what you meant, and your inability to make the slightest admission, whatsoever, to anyone, makes you the biggest idiot here. And you can take that to the bank!
 
Last edited:
Above mmarsh orginal statement



No, it is not your exact quote. As posted from your original quote, your reason for spending $2Gs was, "2Gs lighter in the wallet thanks to the fact we have 50 drivers licenses instead of 1."

Not that you have lived in France for 12 years!

You totally lack credibility! Do you believe everyone on this forum is as stupid as you think I am. I believe they can read for themselves and determine who is being truthful here.
Chuk... Anything you say can and will be turned into the complete opposite by me and all the other people on this forum who think you're bass-ackwards on just about everything.
 
You can just never admit it can you? Its simply compulsive tick with you never to admit to being wrong no matter what. How pathetic. Seriously, get a life.

Whats to admit? Posted your statements. How does that make me wrong?


People can of course read what we wrote, but they don't actually need to get the truth. Maybe you haven't realized it yet, but your reputation for intellectual dishonesty here proceeds you, and most everyone here knows it. When you stack my rep here vs. yours. I think you'll find that most people here might disagree vehemently with me and that these same people think you're a snake. Nor am I the one with the reputation for being a troll. Thats two strikes against you Junior...

"but they don't actually need to get the truth."mmarsh

Yeah, that is what I expect from you.

People don't need the truth, they just have to accept what you say.:pray: Hallelujah and Amen
And you wonderfully illustrate just how dishonest you are back to trying to twist around my words in order to avoid admitting you are wrong and keep the argument going. I wont fall for it, we both know what you said and what you meant, and your inability to make the slightest admission, whatsoever, to anyone, makes you the biggest idiot here. And you can take that to the bank!

I would be the biggest idiot ever, if I was to accept what you say.

"We both know what you said?"mmarsh
Everyone can read it for themselves. They are not going to be manipulated by either one of us. Although your friend Rob thinks the forum can be manipulated as he says below:

"Anything you say can and will be turned into the complete opposite by me and all the other people."

Chuk... Anything you say can and will be turned into the complete opposite by me and all the other people on this forum who think you're bass-ackwards on just about everything.

Yeah, Rob just make up stuff and try to build a smoke screen, forget about honesty.

Rob what kind of post is this anyway. You are admitting to completely twisting peoples comments?:roll: That is pretty sad and rather small of you.

This is getting off topic, and I noticed you failed to answer my question to you. You seem to like having a strong Federal government so answer the question:
"By your reasoning, you agree with the Federal ban on homosexual marriage and think states that have approved homosexual marriage should have that right revoked?"
 
Yeah, Rob just make up stuff and try to build a smoke screen, forget about honesty.

Rob what kind of post is this anyway. You are admitting to completely twisting peoples comments?:roll: That is pretty sad and rather small of you.

This is getting off topic, and I noticed you failed to answer my question to you. You seem to like having a strong Federal government so answer the question:
"By your reasoning, you agree with the Federal ban on homosexual marriage and think states that have approved homosexual marriage should have that right revoked?"
I admit to twisting comments back to the truth. Chukpike, you cannot sit there and tell me with a clean conscience (if you have one at all) that you do not distort your idea of the "truth" into some sort of alternate reality.


As far as your question goes, I'm just giving you a similar treatment to the way you "answer" my posts... With completely irrelevant ramblings. :)

But, to feed the troll, I believe in more standardized government than less. I believe that there are certain things that should be NOBODY'S business (sexual orientation, et al.), and there are certain things that should be standardized across the entire country. Things like driving requirements, firearm ownership requirements, insurance company requirements, etc. etc. should be regulated by the federal government so that the entire country is on even footing. The main qualm I've seen about health insurance in America is that it in many cases, it doesn't travel across state lines. A federally regulated system would fix that problem. But because the words "federal" and "government" appear anywhere in the sentence, Tea Party activists and conservatives are bound by some sort of unwritten (although, it wouldn't surprise me if it WAS written) law to bleat loudly until it goes away.
 
Chukpike

Whats to admit? Posted your statements. How does that make me wrong?

So your back to running a circular argument. Your attempts to troll are pathetic. Next time, why don't you spend sometime outdoors instead of lecturing people how you think things are, have not once experienced it yourself.

Yeah, that is what I expect from you.

EARTH TO CHUKPIKE. I really don't care what you expect from me. Your reputation for dishonesty is such that your opinion has become practically worthless here, so what do I care what you think? As Rob said the only truth you ever accept is your own truth. You are your own biggest and only fan.

I would be the biggest idiot ever, if I was to accept what you say.

Oh, but its not just me is it? As I said, your reputation proceeds you. You never accept what anybody here says if you happen to disagree with it. It Doesn't matter what references, or proof they have. You will always find excuse to matter how insignificant or lame to avoid admitting being wrong.

Now you know why I don't give you references anymore, I don't deal with dishonest people. So wear that dunce cap well, it suits you.
 
But, to feed the troll, I believe in more standardized government than less. I believe that there are certain things that should be NOBODY'S business (sexual orientation, et al.), and there are certain things that should be standardized across the entire country. Things like driving requirements, firearm ownership requirements, insurance company requirements, etc. etc. should be regulated by the federal government so that the entire country is on even footing. The main qualm I've seen about health insurance in America is that it in many cases, it doesn't travel across state lines. A federally regulated system would fix that problem. But because the words "federal" and "government" appear anywhere in the sentence, Tea Party activists and conservatives are bound by some sort of unwritten (although, it wouldn't surprise me if it WAS written) law to bleat loudly until it goes away.

Careful Rob. I have lived in many states and prefer living in Virginia to say Massachusets or Washington State. NJ is even worse. Did you know that the NJ state requirements on insurance companies REQURIE that in order for an insurance company to stop doing business they have to get approval from the state government. If the approval is not forthcoming, the company has to continue operating even if the company is losing money. While I agree that for certain things standardization is necessary I don't feel that the government should have carte blance. We MUST be wary of the law of unintended consequences.

As to the Tea party. You would rather have the government spend money hand over fist without regard for the debt? When idiots like Pelosi are quoted saying that "We have to pass helthcare so that we can see what's in it", I shudder and wonder what will happen to this country as long as political hacks like her are in charge. Just go ahead and withdraw all your money (wait you are a college student so you don't have any). Just write an IOU to the governement for all of your future earnings. Sorry Rob but until you look at your paycheck and realize just how much of the money you earn goes to the government, you really haven't a clue.
BTW: 13% of my pay goes to taxes and 12.9% goes to health insurance.
We have been told that our health insurance costs are going up in addition to the normal increase (owing to the new legislation).

WE HAVE TO GET GOVERNMENT SPENDING UNDER CONTROL
 
Careful Rob. I have lived in many states and prefer living in Virginia to say Massachusets or Washington State. NJ is even worse. Did you know that the NJ state requirements on insurance companies REQURIE that in order for an insurance company to stop doing business they have to get approval from the state government. If the approval is not forthcoming, the company has to continue operating even if the company is losing money. While I agree that for certain things standardization is necessary I don't feel that the government should have carte blance. We MUST be wary of the law of unintended consequences.

As to the Tea party. You would rather have the government spend money hand over fist without regard for the debt? When idiots like Pelosi are quoted saying that "We have to pass helthcare so that we can see what's in it", I shudder and wonder what will happen to this country as long as political hacks like her are in charge. Just go ahead and withdraw all your money (wait you are a college student so you don't have any). Just write an IOU to the governement for all of your future earnings. Sorry Rob but until you look at your paycheck and realize just how much of the money you earn goes to the government, you really haven't a clue.
BTW: 13% of my pay goes to taxes and 12.9% goes to health insurance.
We have been told that our health insurance costs are going up in addition to the normal increase (owing to the new legislation).

WE HAVE TO GET GOVERNMENT SPENDING UNDER CONTROL

Hokie

The tea-party doesn't give one wit about government spending, what they are is a bunch of sore losers than cannot accept they lost the last election. This is pretty obvious because the very FIRST demonstration/rally that they held was about 3 months AFTER Obama took office. Obama spending is mostly carried over from under Bush (thats simply a fact not partisan). Where where these people back then if they were so worried about spending? These people were the same ones who cheered George Bush when he spent us into bankruptcy. Thats a fair question and exactly why their whole movement is hypocritical.

I don't mind that they dont like Obama, but at least be honest as to why...and its not spending. Can you honestly tell me that the tea party even exsist if Obama where a white conservative: I HIGHLY doubt it.

The fact is the tea-party agenda is anti-Obama, not anti-spending. When its spending done by conservatives or spending on programs they like they have no issues with it. Its only spending done by people they dislike with that they get on their self-righteous podium

And what programs do they propose cutting? "Cut Spending" is merely a talking point, lets get to specifics.

Even though we have both enormous debts and deficits, the Tea Party wants to cut revenues by lowering taxes. Makes no sense, but there it is. So to do this that means we have to cut government.

Heres the break down

43% of the Federal Budget goes to SS, Medicare, Medicaid. Most tea-baggers support these programs, since many teabaggers are 60ish years old many of them actually are recipient of these programs. 63% according to a NYT poll think these programs are worth the cost. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...0414-tea-party-poll-graphic.html?ref=politics

The military is 20%, they don't want cuts their either.

Homeland Security 2%, they don't want cuts their either.

Public Education another 2%. Most people have gone to Public School, not to be touched.

6% goes into paying interest of the Federal Debt. Cant touch this.

Thats 73% of the Federal Budget already spoken for. And it means that the entire rest of the government runs on the remaining 27%.

So where are the cuts going to come from? The Tea party solution is to cut big government without cutting any programs and without raising taxes.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh,
Specifically, my concerns with the amount of government spending are that the politicians (both parties) hope that they can buy votes for their parties in the coming elections.

To answer your question: What you ask is not a likely scenario. I think that were the president a conservative, the bailouts might not have happened. Truth is we will never know. I do not support any party (Tea party included). But I do think that the amount of money the government has been spending for the last 20 years is excessive. All we have to show for it are bloated programs that enourage dependance.

Reagan demonstrated that we can increase revenues by lowering taxes. The problem is that consumer confidence has been affected and this is causing less people to invest their money.

You say that 43% of the federal budget is for SS, medicare and medicaid. Once the new healthcare laws go into effect, shouldn't medicare and medicaid be moot. If the laws require EVERYONE to get insurance what use is there for these programs?

Gates is furiously working to reduce costs in the military, so what are we going to do with the savings there?

Ultimately we should not spend money we don't have. If we cannot afford something then we should not get it. Balanced budget is a great idea. It is too bad that a lot of the politicans were too short sighted to realize it's benefit.
 
I admit to twisting comments back to the truth. Chukpike, you cannot sit there and tell me with a clean conscience (if you have one at all) that you do not distort your idea of the "truth" into some sort of alternate reality.


As far as your question goes, I'm just giving you a similar treatment to the way you "answer" my posts... With completely irrelevant ramblings. :)

But I believe in more standardized government than less. The main qualm I've seen about health insurance in America is that it in many cases, it doesn't travel across state lines.

Hokie

The tea-party doesn't give one wit about government spending, what they are is a bunch of sore losers than cannot accept they lost the last election. This is pretty obvious because the very FIRST demonstration/rally that they held was about 3 months AFTER Obama took office. Obama spending is mostly carried over from under Bush (thats simply a fact not partisan). Where where these people back then if they were so worried about spending? These people were the same ones who cheered George Bush when he spent us into bankruptcy. Thats a fair question and exactly why their whole movement is hypocritical.

I don't mind that they dont like Obama, but at least be honest as to why...and its not spending. Can you honestly tell me that the tea party even exsist if Obama where a white conservative: I HIGHLY doubt it.

The fact is the tea-party agenda is anti-Obama, not anti-spending. When its spending done by conservatives or spending on programs they like they have no issues with it. Its only spending done by people they dislike with that they get on their self-righteous podium

And what programs do they propose cutting? "Cut Spending" is merely a talking point, lets get to specifics.

Even though we have both enormous debts and deficits, the Tea Party wants to cut revenues by lowering taxes. Makes no sense, but there it is. So to do this that means we have to cut government.

Heres the break down

43% of the Federal Budget goes to SS, Medicare, Medicaid. Most tea-baggers support these programs, since many teabaggers are 60ish years old many of them actually are recipient of these programs. 63% according to a NYT poll think these programs are worth the cost. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...0414-tea-party-poll-graphic.html?ref=politics

The military is 20%, they don't want cuts their either.

Homeland Security 2%, they don't want cuts their either.

Public Education another 2%. Most people have gone to Public School, not to be touched.

6% goes into paying interest of the Federal Debt. Cant touch this.

Thats 73% of the Federal Budget already spoken for. And it means that the entire rest of the government runs on the remaining 27%.

So where are the cuts going to come from? The Tea party solution is to cut big government without cutting any programs and without raising taxes.
Rob: normal out look for a young Lib. Cross State line buying of health insurance was proposed by Reps & rejected out of hand by the Dems.
mmarsh: 3 months into the Obama Admin it was obvious what he & the Congressional Dems had in store. Had Obama (& Bush II) been a white Conservative (with Conservatives controlling Congress)there would be no need for the TEA Party, they wouldn't do what Bush/Obama have been dooing. Unfortunatly Bush & the Rep controlled Congress wasn't Conservative, but big Govt republicans, & Obama & Co are way worse. Public schooling has always been a local thing, & eversince federal funds (& rules) have gotten involved it all been down hill. Cutting tax rates increases revenue unless the people are undertaxed, not likely @ this point
 
Chukpike
Whats to admit? Posted your statements. How does that make me wrong?

So your back to running a circular argument. Your attempts to troll are pathetic. Next time, why don't you spend sometime outdoors instead of lecturing people how you think things are, have not once experienced it yourself.

Interesting. You allude to knowing me. Spend time out doors?

Trip I just returned from:
Start 08/16/2010. Left LA and drove through California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, KC Kansas, St Louis Missouri, S Illinois, to Indianapolis, Indiana for the VFW National convention 08/21/10. Convention ended on August 25th. I continued my trip into Ohio, on to Uniontown, Pennsylvania area then down into West Virginia. From West Virginia started back home through Kentucky back through S Indiana, S Illinois, down through Missouri to Joplin area, On into Kansas, Ft Scott, Wichita, and across Kansas and Colorado to Denver. Across the Rockies and through Utah down to Las Vegas Nevada and on back home on 11 September.

You don't know me at all. You just make your judgment based on your own prejudices and preconceived notions, same as your posts. No basis in fact.
Yeah, that is what I expect from you.

EARTH TO CHUKPIKE. I really don't care what you expect from me. Your reputation for dishonesty is such that your opinion has become practically worthless here, so what do I care what you think? As Rob said the only truth you ever accept is your own truth. You are your own biggest and only fan.
And I am somehow supposed to care? This whole post looks like all your others. Not making points or supporting your statements with facts. Just your pompous pronouncements from upon high!:pray:

Mr Ego in person.
I would be the biggest idiot ever, if I was to accept what you say.

Oh, but its not just me is it? As I said, your reputation proceeds you. You never accept what anybody here says if you happen to disagree with it. It Doesn't matter what references, or proof they have. You will always find excuse to matter how insignificant or lame to avoid admitting being wrong.

Now you know why I don't give you references anymore, I don't deal with dishonest people. So wear that dunce cap well, it suits you.

Actually, I have been aware from the first post I ever read of yours, you are not prone to supplying sources for your Self Centered Pronouncements. They can only be called pronouncements sense your posts lack anything other that your rather narrow opinion. No substance!

"You will always find excuse to matter how insignificant or lame to avoid admitting being wrong."mmarsh

You mean, like you are doing here?
 
Interesting. You allude to knowing me. Spend time out doors?

Trip I just returned from:
Start 08/16/2010. Left LA and drove through California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, KC Kansas, St Louis Missouri, S Illinois, to Indianapolis, Indiana for the VFW National convention 08/21/10. Convention ended on August 25th. I continued my trip into Ohio, on to Uniontown, Pennsylvania area then down into West Virginia. From West Virginia started back home through Kentucky back through S Indiana, S Illinois, down through Missouri to Joplin area, On into Kansas, Ft Scott, Wichita, and across Kansas and Colorado to Denver. Across the Rockies and through Utah down to Las Vegas Nevada and on back home on 11 September.

You don't know me at all. You just make your judgment based on your own prejudices and preconceived notions, same as your posts. No basis in fact.

And I am somehow supposed to care? This whole post looks like all your others. Not making points or supporting your statements with facts. Just your pompous pronouncements from upon high!:pray:

Mr Ego in person.


Actually, I have been aware from the first post I ever read of yours, you are not prone to supplying sources for your Self Centered Pronouncements. They can only be called pronouncements sense your posts lack anything other that your rather narrow opinion. No substance!

"You will always find excuse to matter how insignificant or lame to avoid admitting being wrong."mmarsh

You mean, like you are doing here?

You are so wrong, I know you extremely well. Your one of those little spineless little sh*ts who makes nasty personal remarks while hiding behind the anonymity of the internet because he doesn't have the balls to run his mouth in public. You trolls are all the same, brave on the keyboard, but cowards at heart. You see, I told you I knew you!

Hilarious. I was referring to "getting outside" as in living in another country and you respond by giving me by giving me your boring vacation schedule. Remember what I said about you being a ignoramus talking out of your rear-end...Thank you for proving me right. :wink:

I don't provide my sources to you simply because I neither respect nor like you. I would much rather tell you pi** off than have a good conversation with you. There are plenty of other people here I can talk to I hardly need you. make no mistake on this nobody here is craving your company.

So you can cry an moan all you like, I truthfully don't give a damn. You're absolutely nothing to me. You say that makes me arrogant, self-rightuous and narrow? Ok I can accept that, but you are still a pissant.
 
mmarsh,
Specifically, my concerns with the amount of government spending are that the politicians (both parties) hope that they can buy votes for their parties in the coming elections.

To answer your question: What you ask is not a likely scenario. I think that were the president a conservative, the bailouts might not have happened. Truth is we will never know. I do not support any party (Tea party included). But I do think that the amount of money the government has been spending for the last 20 years is excessive. All we have to show for it are bloated programs that enourage dependance.

Reagan demonstrated that we can increase revenues by lowering taxes. The problem is that consumer confidence has been affected and this is causing less people to invest their money.

You say that 43% of the federal budget is for SS, medicare and medicaid. Once the new healthcare laws go into effect, shouldn't medicare and medicaid be moot. If the laws require EVERYONE to get insurance what use is there for these programs?

Gates is furiously working to reduce costs in the military, so what are we going to do with the savings there?

Ultimately we should not spend money we don't have. If we cannot afford something then we should not get it. Balanced budget is a great idea. It is too bad that a lot of the politicans were too short sighted to realize it's benefit.

1. Bailouts by conservatives has already happened, they were the ones who got the bailouts started. Obama bailed out the automotive industry, but both TARP (banking and financial services) and AIG (insurance giant) bailouts were signed by a conservative President, George W. Bush. I disagreed with how TARP was structured, I thought the government should have either gotten control or equity from the bailout, the result of which was Wall Street cheats using TARP for Executive bonuses and not company restructuring. But ultimately I agreed with the Bush position to bail the banks out.

2. Ronald Reagan did cut taxes, but he also had an enormous deficit every single year he was in office. I feel this was the start of the GOP disastrous economic policies, the idea that we can spend willy-nilly and let our children pick up the tab. Its why I am such a strong supporter of paygo.

3. I said that 20% of the budget is spent on defense. Unfortunately the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not part of the defense budget, they are budget supplements (every 6 months I think), and they are huge. This is what is killing the economy right here, our neverending military adventure, not the defense budget.

4. I dont remember the details, but the Obamacare plan is actually supposed to increase the rolls in medicare+medicaid by increasing eligbility, BUT there are mechanisms in place that are supposed to lower the actual overall costs of these programs despite the increase of patients. Its rather technical and to be honest i dont completely understand it myself. Obamacare just went into affect today so we will see if hes right to not within a year or two. If he can really pull it off it will restore a lot of peoples faith in him.

5. I am going to say something thats going to make people unhappy. We are going to have to raise taxes. The country doesn't need smaller government (not in the short term at least) what the government needs is greater revenue. Doing some budget trimming will help, but ultimately we really need the extra revenue. Its not a pleasant reality but it is a real one. I dont really see anyway without it. I would keep the Bush taxcuts for the middleclass and let the ones on the wealthly expire. Why? Increasing taxes on the middle class in a bad economy stunts US economic growth, Increasing taxes on the wealthly stunts economic growth in China and India because that wealthest 1% doesnt contribute anything to the US economy, they simply take their money from their taxcuts and invest it in emerging markets, which is great for the Indians and Chinese but doesn't do a thing for us.

So in summery, I would restore paygo, let the taxcuts expire (except for the middle class) and end the biggest drain on our economy (that we can control) which are the wars. I'd also put a real attack-dog on Wall Street like Elliot Spitzer. You mention that name and Wall Street sh**s itself. It wont do a thing to fix the economy, but it will put a watchful eye on one of the biggest threats to our economy.
 
Last edited:
1. Bailouts by conservatives has already happened, they were the ones who got the bailouts started. Obama bailed out the automotive industry, but both TARP (banking and financial services) and AIG (insurance giant) bailouts were signed by a conservative President, George W. Bush. I disagreed with how TARP was structured, I thought the government should have either gotten control or equity from the bailout, the result of which was Wall Street cheats using TARP for Executive bonuses and not company restructuring. But ultimately I agreed with the Bush position to bail the banks out.

2. Ronald Reagan did cut taxes, but he also had an enormous deficit every single year he was in office. I feel this was the start of the GOP disastrous economic policies, the idea that we can spend willy-nilly and let our children pick up the tab. Its why I am such a strong supporter of paygo.

3. I said that 20% of the budget is spent on defense. Unfortunately the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not part of the defense budget, they are budget supplements (every 6 months I think), and they are huge. This is what is killing the economy right here, our neverending military adventure, not the defense budget.

4. I dont remember the details, but the Obamacare plan is actually supposed to increase the rolls in medicare+medicaid by increasing eligbility, BUT there are mechanisms in place that are supposed to lower the actual overall costs of these programs despite the increase of patients. Its rather technical and to be honest i dont completely understand it myself. Obamacare just went into affect today so we will see if hes right to not within a year or two. If he can really pull it off it will restore a lot of peoples faith in him.

5. I am going to say something thats going to make people unhappy. We are going to have to raise taxes. The country doesn't need smaller government (not in the short term at least) what the government needs is greater revenue. Doing some budget trimming will help, but ultimately we really need the extra revenue. Its not a pleasant reality but it is a real one. I dont really see anyway without it. I would keep the Bush taxcuts for the middleclass and let the ones on the wealthly expire. Why? Increasing taxes on the middle class in a bad economy stunts US economic growth, Increasing taxes on the wealthly stunts economic growth in China and India because that wealthest 1% doesnt contribute anything to the US economy, they simply take their money from their taxcuts and invest it in emerging markets, which is great for the Indians and Chinese but doesn't do a thing for us.

So in summery, I would restore paygo, let the taxcuts expire (except for the middle class) and end the biggest drain on our economy (that we can control) which are the wars. I'd also put a real attack-dog on Wall Street like Elliot Spitzer. You mention that name and Wall Street sh**s itself. It wont do a thing to fix the economy, but it will put a watchful eye on one of the biggest threats to our economy.
1. I think that the Govt should have recieved warrants with a favorable conversion price level that could have been sold for a good profit if the firms pulled through. The bailout Bills were written by Democrats who were in Controll of Congress. It is thier failure to write restrictions on use of the funds, bonus payments wise.
2. Deficits are a result of 2 things. Tax policy & spending policy. Fact is tax revenue went way up in the Reagan years. Unfortunatly spending, by Democrats who controlled Congress thoughout the Reagan Admin, went up even faster. At one point dems promised that if reagan raised taxes they would cut spending to match the projected increase in revenue. He did, but the Dems failed to cut spending. They raised spending by twice the amount they projected the increase to bring in.
3. I suspect the housing collapse had a big role.
4. Dems are now begining to admit ObamaCare will increase costs
5. raising taxes in a recession is nuts. Your discription of the wealthy's investments sounds a bit simplistic too. Most small business owners have to report thier business income on thier personal taxes, easily putting them in the over 250K income bracket that Obama is targeting with a hammer. I can't see any real incentive for small business owners to risk maki8ng investments needed to get things rolling again.
 
Careful Rob. I have lived in many states and prefer living in Virginia to say Massachusets or Washington State. NJ is even worse. Did you know that the NJ state requirements on insurance companies REQURIE that in order for an insurance company to stop doing business they have to get approval from the state government. If the approval is not forthcoming, the company has to continue operating even if the company is losing money. While I agree that for certain things standardization is necessary I don't feel that the government should have carte blance. We MUST be wary of the law of unintended consequences.
Insurance companies and health care reform is an entirely different debate in itself (which we have exhausted many a time on this forum). But to your point, insurance companies should be subjected to government regulation. If they are losing money, they should change their policies. Makes sense to me. . . .
As to the Tea party. You would rather have the government spend money hand over fist without regard for the debt? When idiots like Pelosi are quoted saying that "We have to pass helthcare so that we can see what's in it", I shudder and wonder what will happen to this country as long as political hacks like her are in charge. Just go ahead and withdraw all your money (wait you are a college student so you don't have any). Just write an IOU to the governement for all of your future earnings. Sorry Rob but until you look at your paycheck and realize just how much of the money you earn goes to the government, you really haven't a clue.
BTW: 13% of my pay goes to taxes and 12.9% goes to health insurance.
We have been told that our health insurance costs are going up in addition to the normal increase (owing to the new legislation).

WE HAVE TO GET GOVERNMENT SPENDING UNDER CONTROL
To this particular section.... You get out of your government what you put into it. If you despise the federal government and want to give absolutely nothing back to it, then you will get nothing FROM it. The government is not a non-profit organization made up of volunteers who just ENJOY auditing people, etc. It is a company just like any other, except it has a few more employees than most private companies. It needs to make money in order to put out a quality product. The phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" can be applied even in a non-Communist society.

You might as well stop the whole "you're young, so you don't know" bullsh*t right now. I get that all the time on this place, and I don't put up with it. Just because I'm younger than you doesn't mean I don't have a right to my opinions or my views on anything. You don't need experience to know how to think.


Rob: normal out look for a young Lib. Cross State line buying of health insurance was proposed by Reps & rejected out of hand by the Dems.
Why thank you. I pride myself on being logical and compassionate instead of unrealistic and closed-minded. :)

By the way, no where in any of my posts as a 5 year member of this forum have I EVER aligned myself with EITHER party. I am a liberal, but I am NOT a Democrat. While I am for the government being a part of people's lives, I am NOT for the government overspending and overextending themselves in terms of social programs. I believe our government needs to be streamlined. Cut all wasteful spending, and really put good effort into the fewer programs we are left with. Much more money needs to be put into education than to defense (something that Republicans would NEVER see happen). More money needs to be put towards science and medicine than to military base golf-courses. More money needs to be put towards helping those in genuine need than towards big business executive, all expenses paid vacations.

I simply believe that the government (on all levels, state and local as well as federal) has its priorities wrong.

mmarsh: 3 months into the Obama Admin it was obvious what he & the Congressional Dems had in store. Had Obama (& Bush II) been a white Conservative (with Conservatives controlling Congress)there would be no need for the TEA Party, they wouldn't do what Bush/Obama have been dooing. Unfortunatly Bush & the Rep controlled Congress wasn't Conservative, but big Govt republicans, & Obama & Co are way worse. Public schooling has always been a local thing, & eversince federal funds (& rules) have gotten involved it all been down hill. Cutting tax rates increases revenue unless the people are undertaxed, not likely @ this point
Are you fu*king kidding me?!?! You do realize we're the LEAST TAXED NATION IN THE MODERN WORLD right?!?!?!
 
It just makes me want to weep when I see Americans argue over basic things like universal health care and proper welfare for the poor. These are issues that have been settled decades ago by nearly all other advanced economies. They are not even considered left issues but centre issues. With the top 2 percent vacuuming money by the truckload and the rest going backwards I cannot believe it is the right who are going beserk. The poor should be marching in the streets but the Main Stream Media wouldn't report it.
 
What the hell do you know, you're not even American!

/extreme sarcasm


By the way, I'd also like to point out that Chukpike not only ignored my on-topic comments, he ignored the entire BLOODY POST!
 
You are so wrong, I know you extremely well. Your one of those little spineless little sh*ts who makes nasty personal remarks while hiding behind the anonymity of the INTERNET because he doesn't have the balls to run his mouth in public. You trolls are all the same, brave on the keyboard, but cowards at heart. You see, I told you I knew you!

Looks like a fine self description, and an accurate one at that. You seem to know all the little keyboard games. Who is the one the has been doing nothing but name calling since I pointed out your totally false information on licenses.

Just another one of your Pompous Pronouncements.

I have been around long before the Internet. Back when you did have to back up what you say, and I am still standing. You are the one hiding behind a key board sweetie.


Hilarious. I was referring to "getting outside" as in living in another country and you respond by giving me by giving me your boring vacation schedule. Remember what I said about you being a ignoramus talking out of your rear-end...Thank you for proving me right. :wink:
Whine, whine, whine, you are worse than a stuck pig.

I will give you a partial list of countries I have been to for work: Germany, France, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and Mexico to name a few. I expect I have worked and traveled to more countries than you.

And you don't have to live in a country for twelve years to learn about it, unless you are slow and it takes you twelve years to get a drivers license.:lol:

I don't provide my sources to you simply because I neither respect nor like you. I would much rather tell you pi** off than have a good conversation with you. There are plenty of other people here I can talk to I hardly need you. make no mistake on this nobody here is craving your company.

So you can cry an moan all you like, I truthfully don't give a damn. You're absolutely nothing to me. You say that makes me arrogant, self-rightuous and narrow? Ok I can accept that, but you are still a pissant.

Yes you don't provide sources because it is much easier to make things up to fit your narrow view.

Couldn't provide sources about licenses because that would have put the lie to your statement:
Here is a fun fact for everyone:
mmarsh statement verbatim:
I just shelled out close to $2000 (its its not over yet I am still paying)) to get a French Drivers license because France (and many other countries) wont recognize US STATE drivers licenses of American residents due to the fact that states laws on driving are different from one another, quote mmarsh

Here is a list of states that have reciprocal license agreements with France. Meaning if you move to France as a resident all you have to do is turn in your state license and you will be given a French drivers license.(This has to be done within the first year of residence)

US driving license can be exchanged from the 15 states below during the first year of legal residence in France: Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.[21]
(The reason it isn't more is because the individual states have not made an agreement with France, not because of a French restriction).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver's_license#France

It is even easier in Germany.(Use the link above to view).

So you see mmarsh could not be honest and make his point or supply a source to back up his statement. The bad part is that he thought we were all to stupid to see through his lie.

And mmarsh it is not necessary to go to the embassy to find this out just use the search function on your computer.
 
Whats the matter PISSANT? Your starting to sound defensive. Its telling when you take the 7 year old "I know you are but what am I?" defense. Obviously your so thin-skinned you can't take the same abuse you dish out to others. Not that its a surprise, Its exactly what I suspected: Coward at heart.

And as for who started name-calling, Does the below remind you of anybody?

"So how is your college education working out for you? Or, are you going to classes". Remembering your own posts sure is a pain isn't it?

The difference between you and I, is that I only troll you, I have no problems with anyone else here, including those I disagree with. You have trolled practically everyone here at one time or another including recently a moderator...which I gotta tell you was a incredibly STUPID thing to do, and proving once again that your ego can't keep that big mouth of yours in check.

But I tell you what. Lets do it fair. I will make a poll about you or me, as to which one of us is a spineless little b***h who spends all his time trolling here. We will let the community judge, you cant say thats not fair. Oh wait...the community hates you. Gee, thats a surprise, I wonder why?

Oh and your "fun fact", You really don't think I didn't know that? right? You honestly think I would have simply forked over 2Gs without checking things out first? You so incredibly arrogant you think you actually know more about things than people who have actually experienced it. So why didn't I mention it? Because you dumb sh*t, New York and the other 34 states isn't on that list, therefore I don't qualify for the swap. Didn't think on that did you, congratulations your're a certified idiot. And once again you talk COMPLETELY out of your a**.

I love the subtle language you use. Pathetic Word games to avoid admitting your out of your depth. "Been in to work" (meaning a few days at the most), not LIVED in to work. Your problem is that you are much more arrogant than you are smart. And you are wrong, as I am part of a IT international support team of a huge corporation I would wager I have been to far more countries in the past 6 months than you have been in your entire pathetic life. You are nothing a goddamn tourist who thinks he an local expert because hes gone to Club Med. I can tell you have never actually lived in a foreign country because you are simply too ignorant. You honestly think people with a TRUE foreign experience can't smell your BS. Your ignorance in your posts about other countries has betrayed you more than once, Get this through that thick skull: YOUR NOT FOOLING ANYONE EXCEPT YOURSELF.
 
Last edited:
And Chukpike STILL ignores my on topic posts to play with mmarsh. Interesting how as soon as something comes up that's not on topic, he LEAPS on it and ignores all else.
 
And Chukpike STILL ignores my on topic posts to play with mmarsh. Interesting how as soon as something comes up that's not on topic, he LEAPS on it and ignores all else.

In other words...hes being a troll. But its my fault Rob, I shouldn't be feeding him. Derailing topics is precisely what he wants.

Lets see if hes got the balls to get back on topic with you and Ill go talk to HokieMSG and George who opinion is a lot more interesting anyway...
 
Back
Top