10 really STUPID things I wish people would STOP POSTING!

One more I wish people would stop posting:

1) Social Security and Medicare are solvent!--it's pure, utter BS, the only people who are going to get a benefit out of SS/Medicare are those getting it now. Otherwise? Please, I know I won't see a dime of what I've already pay, so how about giving me the option to opt-out of these failures and let me invest my own money and be responsible for my own destiny?

Oh crap, kj--girl, would ya mind deleting that double post? Thanks! Gosh, some days, I really hate NV and it's "bubblegum" code--what is that code for? NV blew up? *good grief!*

I love you kjmgirl LOL

While I hate politics, I would add that the debt/deficit/financial mess did NOT start under Bush Jr, as people love to say it did.

I am also SO SICK of the bloody red herrings.

The whole you're a racist, you're a xenophobe garbage is so freaking old and beyond annoying.

And of course the "A" word. Anarchy :) Although 4 and 5 cover that. Also I have heard a lot of "hermit", "dog eat dog", "robber barons", "survivalist" etc...

Another classic : "Just Republicans that want to buy drugs and prostitutes ". Pretty good list you have.

Yeah, Ayn Rand is a common one for sure. To hear some of them they must think we have an alter of her that we light candles around ;) Also been called one of Paul's ilk or a minion. What is ironic is how a lot of lefties actually reserve the status of demi-god for "The One"; his highness himself.

If only people would better understand the concept of individual freedom and its postive influence on a productive and free society then they would understand libertarian-minded folk better. They would realise the least likely folks to elevate someone to such a lofty status would be an individualist.

They are fixing it it seems. Down to doubling instead of tripling comments :) If you are fast enough you can get in and edit the duplicate and say something different like this post.

kjmgirl, I like the way you think!

I for one would be overjoyed if I never read the words "Hitler" or "Nazi" on Newsvine again.

@Tina-293371:

Agreed!

self written article like this ... BEGS... links to your facts.

really. or, at least what you state as fact, allude to as fact.

you do exactly what you say you hate.. otherwise.

This piece by this individual, "kjmgirl" reads simply like much of the Republican mantra and ends up leaving a lot out. In that sense it's unfortunate. But we're all given a chance to express our feelings on Newsvine, so in the end as Americans I'm glad we're given a chance to post things on here.

agreed Rupert... however, don't sell it like it's a fact and you speak for the entire Libertarian population. Hell, that is what republicans, democrats... etc, do.

so, contradictions anyone?

Most people are in the middle, mountain. Both those on the right and left have great strengths and weaknesses. I'm wary of anyone who won't admit that. This piece bends heavily to the right, and is hollow because of it. Other than that, I'm glad you agree with what I said.

You bend heavily to the right, "kjmgirl." Because of it you miss a lot. This piece reflects that. Concerning your statement to me, you're also failing to list "truths" you yourself prefer to ignore.

"kjmgirl" your statement that some of your leanings would make me look like Sarah Palin is nonsensical since you don't know the nuance of my leanings. If you're willing to list your leanings and compare them with mine then we can see if you've gotten lucky with your statement.

Secondly, your comment that your bent is common sense - that's what everyone believes, "kjmgirl." Thirdly, it's spelled "dearth." Lastly, your inability to address the right's weaknesses is what makes your piece hard to take seriously.

Ooh...let me try:

The government needs to be in the bedroom more often...cause they ALL need to get laid!! (although some may have to pay people to have sex with them, they're that oogly!!)

Mike - then don't TAKE it seriously. It's an opinion piece.

What kind of response is that? We always take seriously other's opinions. It's why we come here, and it's exactly why Americans debate: because we have our opinions, and we always miss things - despite what we believe about ourselves - and it's how we grow and learn.

I don't believe, "kjmgirl", that you're open-minded enough to admit that you could be wrong about things in general. I honestly don't. I'll skip the debate.

Mike Rupert--

I don't even know what on earth you were reading. Please do show me us all exactly where kjmgirl was leaning right in her piece. Please point it out. As far as I can tell kjmgirl, the individual, was point out the BS nonsense that is so full of garbage on NV and bleeding into society as people are believing lies more than truths.

The fact you even have to disagree with anything kjmgirl, the individual, posted as all she did was say enough is enough with the partisan junk, the lies means you thrive on the partisan junk and the lies. You are part of the symptom that is a problem. Tis time to find a cure. You are the one truly exhibiting the utmost closed mind in all of this.

Yes please do skip the debate, Mike Rupert, as you lost it a long time ago anyway.

Please go stick to the liberal, nonsensical bias BS that you favor, obviously.

mountainfirefall--

I can find links to the facts you beg for if you really want me to.

Google, it is a beautiful thing.

enough is enough with the partisan junk, the lies means you thrive on the partisan junk and the lies. You are part of the symptom that is a problem. Tis time to find a cure. You are the one truly exhibiting the utmost closed mind in all of this.

Yes please do skip the debate, Mike Rupert, as you lost it a long time ago anyway.

LMFAO

Kshark, you redefine what it is to be partisan. Kettle meet DARRKK lmao

You finally did it, Kskark. You finally described perfectly your entire and unremitting participation on Newsvine.

Once again the left shows how they love to criticize someone who does not believe in what they do. No wonder why so many on the left are so unhappy.

KJMGirl writes an opinion piece, and a good one at that, and the same viners that love to troll the vine spewing false information to prove a point and then try to bash someone for giving their opinion. I don't think much else really needs to be said.

This is just Reps talking points. If you don't want to see headlines, then kick rocks. Go to a Rep and right-wing leaning site and I'm pretty sure that you can bash Pres Obama for 24 hrs a day.

So right-wing talking points and people like me should stop posting the 10 things.

Give me a freaking break and oh by the way, IT AIN'T GONNA STOP

Once again the left shows how they love to criticize someone who does not believe in what they do. No wonder why so many on the left are so unhappy.

KJMGirl writes an opinion piece, and a good one at that, and the same viners that love to troll the vine spewing false information to prove a point and then try to bash someone for giving their opinion. I don't think much else really needs to be said.

Sounds like the way the right likes to operate, Mike in AZ :)

LOL,

2 more stupid things I wish people would stop posting:

this:

This is just Reps talking points

LOL, she already said she's not a Pub...

and this:

I don't believe, "kjmgirl", that you're open-minded enough to admit that you could be wrong about things in general.

translation: you don't think like they think therefore your opinion is stupid...

Thanks for bringing 2 more out in the open, kjm.

Please Rupert, sometimes I wonder if you are actually Obama's teleprompter. Your comments are right from the Democratic talking points.

Maybe you should go back and actually read your comments. If it's something that you or the left don't agree on you try to discredit the source. Then your MO is to mention Fox and Bush and then accuse everyone of using the Republican talking points.

Only the Looney on the Left find ways to attempt to discredit someones opinion. It's interesting to watch you flip flop when you agree with something when the Dems do it but when the Repubs do it you are all of a sudden against it. kjgirl says she is a Libertarian but yet you don't believe her. Maybe someday you will find that no matter what your political affiliation, it doesn't mean you agree with everything they stand for. Most Libertarians, Libs and Conservatives that i know I can have a educated debate, but too many on the vine like you just tow the party line. And then people wonder why we are in the mess we are.

Mike Rupert--

Kshark, you redefine what it is to be partisan. Kettle meet DARRKK lmao

Laugh all you want, you came in here with the partisan chip on your shoulder and attacked the piece by kjmgirl. I certainly didn't. I saw the mere fact there are too many lies being told and the lies need to be stopped. YOU want to perpetuate the lies thus your whole, and well rather pointless, reason for posting here.

Do tell me how I redefined partisan?

You finally did it, Kskark. You finally described perfectly your entire and unremitting participation on Newsvine.

Which means absolutely nothing, except you just wanting to continue with your flaming commentary.

kjmgirl--

Well this opposition or rather those slamming your piece are basically showing that anyone that is NOT 100% and absolute liberal or on the left are obviously without a doubt partisan, wrong, stupid, and don't know anything.

If you dare actually present facts you are obviously a partisan and wrong.

The attacking posts are actually in a way exemplifying what you were getting at, the constant stream of red herrings and lies being espoused.

Mike in AZ -

Please Rupert, sometimes I wonder if you are actually Obama's teleprompter. Your comments are right from the Democratic talking points.

Yours and Kshark's are straight out of the right-wing talking points :)

If it's something that you or the left don't agree on you try to discredit the source. Then your MO is to mention Fox and Bush and then accuse everyone of using the Republican talking points.

lmao did I mention Fox or Bush? You're becoming paranoid, and you don't realize it.

Only the Looney on the Left find ways to attempt to discredit someones opinion

lmao either you're completely new to politics or you like to close your eyes to what the right does.

It's interesting to watch you flip flop when you agree with something when the Dems do it but when the Repubs do it you are all of a sudden against it.

This describes how both sides work when it comes to gaining political advantage. Both sides do it. You probably do it as well :)

kjgirl says she is a Libertarian but yet you don't believe her

She leans mostly right, and my point was that she fails to admit the weaknesses and failings of the right wing. You have a hard time understanding that.

Maybe someday you will find that no matter what your political affiliation, it doesn't mean you agree with everything they stand for.

You want a mirror?

Most Libertarians, Libs and Conservatives that i know I can have a educated debate, but too many on the vine like you just tow the party line.

You're confused. I pointed out her inability to be honest about the right. You have a tough time reconciling this and being honest about it.

And then people wonder why we are in the mess we are.

Your specific inability to be honest about the right flies in the face of you attempting to show yourself above bias :)

*********

Kshark -

Laugh all you want, you came in here with the partisan chip on your shoulder and attacked the piece by kjmgirl.

Like Mike in ZA you're having a hard time reconciling with kjmgirl's inability to be honest about the right. I'm sorry it's uncomfortable for you to hear.

I certainly didn't.

I know you didn't. You tow the right-wing party line, as does kjmgirl mostly.

I saw the mere fact there are too many lies being told and the lies need to be stopped.

Ladies and gentlemen, Kshark has always pointed out the weaknesses and failings of the right, and given full credit to the left when deserved. And if you believe that I have a bridge in the middle of the ocean I'd like to sell you.

YOU want to perpetuate the lies thus your whole, and well rather pointless, reason for posting here.

Uhu, my lies about kjmgirl's inability to be honest about the right. That's one big lie isn't it lmao

Do tell me how I redefined partisan?

I'm sorry. I guess I should have expected you to remember how you've constantly reacted to the left and right on Newsvine since you've been here. My apologies.

Which means absolutely nothing, except you just wanting to continue with your flaming commentary.

Actually you're a true partisan and you know it. You can't wiggle your way out of your Newsvine participation and your history here. Nice try.

By the way, anyone who doesn't believe "kjmgirl" doesn't have an extreme bias for the right and an extreme bias against the left, just check out her previous statement above:

My "bent" is common sense - perhaps the left has a derth of that these days?

That's her opinion. And part of her opinion is to consistently leave out the failings and weaknesses of right which is clear not only in the bent of her piece but in her above statements.

Mike, Which way do you lean ?

What are your centrist views ? (must be that based on comments provided by Mike)

Why do you hide your work ?

So many questions, so few answers.

Good morning, kjmgirl! Loved your op ed piece. Voted up.

kjm

great piece!!!

and yes Mike Rupert brought up another one....democrats who say you are a republican......I dont get that from republicans claiming I am a democrat when I go all freedom on social issues.....but democrats...its you tow their line or else you are a republican.

the mentality of such is quite amazing.

and get laid....dont forget.

ryoushi12, to what or whom are you referring?

Ummmmm, I'm confused. Vol.

Wow, thanks for admitting YOU HAVE NO FACTS TO BACK UP YOUR SILLY SELFSERVING SELFCENTERED SOCIOPATHIC CLAIMS.

What are we up to, #13 now (adding to your original list KJM)? Or is it higher than that?

Seriously ryo, just because someone believes in libertarian principles does not mean that they only care about themselves. How do you explain the legislators in DC who are conservatives or liberals, many of whom fit that exact description you just gave?

Mike Rupert--

Keep trying Mike, you have proved absolutely nothing about me. Basically, as I already said, you exemplified everything kjmgirl was eluding to. I don't even think you know how to be bipartisan, but I guess because I am not a rapid, fanatical extreme liberal, because I sit in the middle, because I actually do not even like politics and I am not affiliated with any political party, because I base any leanings purely on opinion NOT party, because I don't go above and beyond the call of duty to go out and purposely attack people, because I actually research a heck of a lot, because I do not worship Obama, because I have constantly looked at the stupidity of both political sides, but because of all of those becauses I am wrong at every turn according to you and I am some right-wing(completely unfounded) f-ing loon.

So I guess I need to be an extreme, radical, fanatical liberal in order to fit into your world.

Good luck with that and continue with the red herrings and ridiculous intolerant bullying. You are doing a bang up job.

Cheers

BTW it is hilarious you had to hide your whole column there. LOL

Nice article and it,s all Daffy Duck's fault.

10) "It's all Bush's/Obama's fault." - How can ANYTHING in government be solely the fault of a President? Presidents don't have THAT much power.

Sounds good on paper, but all too often people use it to escape responsibility things that they supported. This happened a lot with the Iraq war. Once the public largely turned against the war, and once we found definitively that the reasons given to us for the war were lies, people who supported the war and Bush couldn't admit that Bush was wrong or a liar and that the war was wrong without admitting that they were duped or didn't care.

Quite a few things are the fault of a President because the President is extremely powerful. Anyone who launches wars unilaterally is power, and it is generally understood that the President of the United States – being the leader of the sole remaining super power – is the most powerful person on the planet.

9) "We need to tax the rich and we'd have plenty of money." - Really? Here's a little tidbit for you - it would take the combined wealth of the 15 richest people in the WORLD to pay 1 year's interest on the national debt.

You can't actually say that without pegging the interest rate of a specific year, because the rate changes quite a bit. The rate on debt dropped from 1.6% in 2008 to just 0.3% in 2009. This is why the argument that the government should tighten its belt during recessions betrays a child-like ignorance of economics – in fact recessions are the best time to deficit spend because of low interest rates). That interest in 2009 was about $189 billion. By comparison, the Bush 2001+2003 tax cuts that were extended last year are blowing a $280 billion hole in the budget this year alone. Merely letting those cuts expire would cover the debt interest. Raising taxes after that would cover it by several times over.

And since tax rates today are extremely low, returning them to the Clinton-era rates should make significant progress towards addressing the deficits and debt.

8) "Corporations pay no taxes" - It's Bull@!$%#, plain and simple. SOME corporations don't pay taxes. Most do.

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes:

(Reuters) - Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.

The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.

Some. Not most.

7) "The government needs to create jobs" - The government does NOT create jobs - except government jobs. The Private Sector must create jobs.

Republicans love this one, unless it's time to run for an election. You know, like the GOP did in 2010. Jobs jobs jobs, where are the jobs Mr. Obama? Can't really ask that question or do that if government can't create jobs. Too bad it did, though. 1.9 million new jobs since the ARRA spending kicked in, in late 2009.

6) "Insurance companies are only in business to deny claims and make money" - it's been debunked a million times. The profit margin for a health insurance company is 5-6%. And NOBODY is in business to sell a product that doesn't work.

WellPoint's profit margin in 2008, the most recent number I could find, was 22%. Revenue: $61.2 billion. Expenses: $47.7 billion.

1) "The Dems/Repubs are responsible for the deficit". - NEITHER party is immune to blame. BOTH parties had their hand in it and both parties continue to spend like drunken sailors. If there is anyone left in America who truly thinks either party is solely to blame I suggest they get a lobotomy.

Not strictly true. All things being fair, Democrats would spend and raise taxes so that there is no deficit, as Bill Clinton did. But things are hardly ever fair, and Republicans have pledged to special interests to never raise taxes under any circumstances. I've often laughed at the "tax and spend liberal" smear because the alternative is a "charge and spend conservative". Neither is ideal, but at least one is fiscally responsible. And it's not the one the GOP picks.

It also doesn't take into account special circumstances like this recession. Estimated tax revenue for this year, due to the Bush cuts and the recession, is around $2.6 trillion. At the rate it was growing from 2005-2007, we should have hit $3.8 trillion in revenue this year, which would leave us with just a $200 billion deficit even with crazy spending.

And to circle back around to the "both parties did it" excuse so that one party (the GOP) can escape responsibility for its actions: The Bush tax cuts cost the government $1.7 trillion in lost revenue from 2001-2008, before they were extended. Both parties didn't do that. The GOP passed the tax cuts under the "nuclear option (2010 edition)" of reconciliation because Democrats tried to filibuster something this country couldn't afford. It's estimated that making those cuts permanent, like Republicans want, will add another $4.4 trillion to the national debt from 2009-2018.

* * * * *

One more I wish people would stop posting:

1) Social Security and Medicare are solvent!--it's pure, utter BS, the only people who are going to get a benefit out of SS/Medicare are those getting it now.

Lkessler,

They are, until a certain date if things aren't changed. Medicare is solvent until 2024. Social Security is solvent until 2036. What you guys need to understand is that solvency merely means that someone or something can meet all of its obligations. It doesn't mean that it won't be able to do so in the future. Those are the problems with Medicare and Social Security. Yet Social Security is extremely easy to fix. Repealing the payroll tax cap would keep Social Security solvent probably forever.

kjmgirl... he does make one point. If the interest rate changes, then it might take 16 or even 14 of the combined richest people to pay that one year,s interest payment. Although the way that the debt is climbing and in particular the way that Obama wanted to see the debt climb, it would probably take a higher number. When you consider how low interest rates are now, it becomes highly probable that any change in the rate will be to the upward side. Bad news where the debt is considered.

BOTH are responsible.

To some degree, yes, but the point he was making was that they are not EQUALLY responsible. To the extent that either is responsible in any way, one must look at the impacts of the specific policies they enacted into law.

On that score, the majority of our accumulated debt over the last 30 years, to the extent that government policy caused the debt (as opposed to economic conditions outside the influence of either party), any fair look at the policies pursued by each party shows clearly that in the aggregate the "tax cut and spend on defense and unfunded Medicare Part D" republicans have created far more of the problem than the "increase taxes except as part of a short term stimulus" democrats have.

1) The president may unilaterally begin "war" for 60 days. That's all. Then it's up to the Congress, so NO, it's NOT a unilateral power of the president - except for those 60 days.

You're being a bit of an idealist in the face of reality. So that's just wishful thinking. No Congress has never taken action to sanction a President for ignoring the War Powers Act. It's the difference between ideals embodied in law, and the practical side of life that often is quite different. It has even been argued that WPA is an unconstitutional restraint on the executive's Article 2 powers. That argument is not entirely without merit, but is pointedly moot given that Congress refuses to enforce its own law.

This situation is far from unique. FCC regulations of broadcast television and radio are pretty blatant violations of the first amendment, yet we do it anyway. These things only have such force as applied, and the WPA has never been enforced. For all intents and purposes it might as well not exist at all.

If any Congress wants to do the right thing, they'd have my support. Although I think it would also be fruitless. The truth is WPA is Congress trying to exercise power it simply doesn't have. It can either go to court to try to force the President to back down – which will never happen because of the separation of powers – or it can impeach the President, which given the makeup of Congress probably won't happen either.

Really the WPA needs to be a Constitutional amendment, and until it is, it's DOA.

2) Letting the tax cuts expire ACROSS THE BOARD might give us enough money to cover the deficit

Not even close.

OR to pay the interest on the debt,

And then some.

but if we raise taxes ON THE RICH we wouldn't have "plenty of money".

It wouldn't eliminate the current deficit, but it wouldn't need to. The Democratic argument has always been to balance spending cuts with new revenue, in addition to the increased revenue we'll see as the economy (apparently quite slowly) recovers. As I noted and you ignored, had the recession not happened, we'd only have about a $200 billion deficit this year instead of $1.5 trillion, and that $200 billion deficit could have been turned into a $80 billion surplus just by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. End the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (instantly, just to make a point even though you can't end wars like that) and we'd have a $230 billion surplus. Fix the GOP's disastrous and unpaid Medicare Part D mess, and it's $300 billion.

Contrary what to you think, or your friends think, or the people you disagree with think, or what the idiots in D.C. think, eliminating the deficit is easy. It's dealing with the consequences (people in Congress losing their pet projects) that's difficult.

And for what it's worth, polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans support our ideas. They want spending cuts balanced with higher taxes on the rich. Poll after poll after poll has shown that.

If you don't think there are enough rich people out there to help out, think again. There's this one hedge fund manager out there that made $4.9 billion last year. Not for the fund, that's profit for himself. And it was taxed at 15% while you and I get taxed at 35%, because of loopholes created by Republicans that treat his earnings as capital gains instead of income. Fixing that loophole would mean getting $1.7 billion out of that one dude alone. And he'd still be a multi-billionaire, so save the crocodile tears. When someone like Warren Buffet says he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary does, he's not joking.

Your own LINK specifically states that 57% of American companies owned no taxes ONE YEAR OUT OF THE LAST SEVEN. So if you had one year on your income taxes in the last 7 years, is it fair to say that you pay NO TAXES????

It also said more than half, and 47% of U.S. companies, paid not taxes for "two or more years" in that span as well. That's in addition to the finding that 25% paid nothing at all in 2005.

4) Health Insurance Companies profit margins

I quote WellPoint's financial statements, and you go to a partisan hack from a notorious right-wing think tank. Heh. Your surrender on the point of insurance company profit margins is accepted.

And finally, your point about ONLY democrats being responsible for the deficit - Really? Do you expect ANYONE to believe that crap?

I'm going to assume that you meant "ONLY republicans", since "ONLY democrats" doesn't make any sense. And to that, no. I don't expect anyone to believe that, since I never said it. I'm not surprised that you'd invent things to attack. That said, I'll repeat this indisputable fact that you ignored as my retort:

The Bush tax cuts cost the government $1.7 trillion in lost revenue from 2001-2008, before they were extended. Both parties didn't do that. The GOP passed the tax cuts under the "nuclear option (2010 edition)" of reconciliation because Democrats tried to filibuster something this country couldn't afford. It's estimated that making those cuts permanent, like Republicans want, will add another $4.4 trillion to the national debt from 2009-2018.

By 2018, that'll be $21.4 trillion in new debt that Republicans are responsible for. Both parties don't do it. That's a false equivalence that Republicans use to escape responsibility for their actions. They did the same with violent rhetoric. And I won't let it slip by without letting truth back into the room.

If you don't like seeing the truth, and it's pretty clear by the mere existence of this story that you don't, then I suggest you disable comments in the future. Otherwise, the truth is going to find a way to be heard, be it from me or someone else. You might as well just accept it.

Mark Perry works at American Enterprise Institute, one of the most consistently wrong right-wing think tanks in America.

You didn't know that?

Why are you looking at the last 30 years? Because if you go back further it shows that the DEMS have been responsible as well?

Um, because debt didn't really start piling up until the last 30 years. You didn't know that either?

Wow.

The national debt in 1977 was $706 billion. It was $1.1 billion by 1982, $2.1 billion by 1986, $4 trillion by 1992, $5.7 billion by 2001, $10 .4 trillion by 2009, etc. But more to the point:

President/National debt total

Carter: $776 billion
Carter: $829 billion (+53)
Carter: $909 billion (+80)
Carter: $994 billion (+85)
Reagan: $1137 billion (+143)
Reagan: $1371 billion (+234)
Reagan: $1564 billion (+193)
Reagan: $1817 billion (+253)
Reagan: $2120 billion (+303)
Reagan: $2345 billion (+225)
Reagan: $2601 billion (+256)
Reagan: $2867 billion (+266)
Bush: $3206 billion (+339)
Bush: $3598 billion (+1,292)
Bush: $4001 billion (+1,403)
Bush: $4351 billion (+350)
Clinton: $4643 billion (+292)
Clinton: $4920 billion (+277)
Clinton: $5181 billion (+261)
Clinton: $5369 billion (+188)
Clinton: $5478 billion (+109)
Clinton: $5605 billion (+127)
Clinton: $5628 billion (+23)
Clinton: $5769 billion (+141)
Bush: $6198 billion (+429)
Bush: $6760 billion (+562)
Bush: $7354 billion (+594)
Bush: $7905 billion (+551)
Bush: $8451 billion (+546)
Bush: $8951 billion (+500)
Bush: $9654 billion (+503)
Bush: $10413 billion (+759)
Obama: $11785 billion (+1,372)

Don't have 2011 yet.

Now, it'd be easy to just say that the numbers speak for themselves. Under Democratic presidents the debt grows, but slowly. Under Republican presidents the debt grows wildly. But there are some important caveats. Despite the Savings and Loan scandal happening under Reagan and Bush 41, that bailout didn't even cost $100 billion. So you can forget about blaming those two bloated years in the middle of Bush 41's only term on that. Additionally, the first year of any President's term (normally) has spending set in the previous year. So you can attribute the first year of any first term to the previous president. Congress has a great deal of say in this. Clinton had to deal with a GOP Congress for most of his administration, but that's not actually good for the GOP trying to claim responsibility for getting spending under control. As you can see, Bush 43 also had a GOP Congress – the same Congress that Clinton had in his last year in office – and yet spending nearly quadrupled. And of course the Great Recession lowered government tax revenue by almost a trillion all by itself, without considering changes in spending at all. All recessions do this and they hit everyone the same way, just by differing degrees. The late 2000s recession that Obama and the Democrats inherited (remember, it began in 2007 at the end of a housing bubble that began in the 90s) is the largest in history that isn't a depression.

Anyway, this is why we only go back about 30 years when looking at debt. We basically didn't have any significant debt more than 30-35 years ago. Most of it has come in the past 34 years, and most of it came under Republican presidents:

Carter: $218 billion (4 years)
Reagan: $1,730 billion (8 years)
Bush 41: $1,145 billion (4 years)
Clinton: $1,126 billion (8 years)
Bush 43: $4,215 billion (8 years)
Obama: $1,372 billion (1 year)

Just remember the caveats. The 2010 debt was passed in 2009, the 2011 was supposed to be passed in 2010, etc. Obama's record remains to be written fully, and it'll be pugly, but everyone else's is now set in stone. Especially George W. Bush's. He added more debt in eight years than the previous three presidents combined did in 20 years.

I don't believe, "kjmgirl", that you're open-minded enough to admit that you could be wrong about things in general. I honestly don't.

Got that right, my experience attempting to engage in adult debate with kjm has been the same. If you say something she disagrees with, she responds with a nasty comment or if she's seeding she'll delete it, yet she's always reminding of the coh that exists for us all but not for her. That said, interesting piece on what irritates the seeder, we no doubt all have responses we hate to get, but isn't that the reason we are here? To debate and prove them wrong?

P.S. The above is an OPINION. Do NOT ask for proof.

Defiantly could use some weight by address & disproving all 10 allegations, opinion or not.

Dennis in WA--

This will give you the most comprehensive, no political slant at all, complete facts about the national debt.

http://kshark.newsvine.com/_news/2011/07/18/7108059-national-debt-facts?last=1311187265&threadId=3176762&sp=0&pc=25#last_1

One point to take into consideration for that 30 year period is that the Democrats controlled the house through most of it, and had control of the senate for the larger portion of that time frame.

goldminor,

I graphed it out about a year ago but never wrote a story to go with the graphs. Here's one of them.

I didn't really analyze the data because I didn't write a story, but there's one thing that's for certain. When Bill Clinton was elected, the deficit started to shrink all through his presidency -- with a GOP Congress. And the instant he left office, with the same GOP Congress, the deficit skyrocketed.

The rest of the data is somewhat inconclusive beyond the fact that deficits increase significantly when a Republican is in the White House. Scroll up and look at it. The Clinton administration is the only during that period when spending actually dropped meaningfully.

Eh, anyway. It is what it is.

By the way, those graphs are from a completely different set of data than what's in #1.58.

SH-2000--

Then here is a thought, put kjmgirl on ignore, stay away from her seeds, do not talk to her, nothing. The fact that you came into her piece right now to then belittle and berate her to others is quite immature and monumentally petty.

If you have a problem with kjmgirl then STAY AWAY FROM HER and put her on ignore. You have that advantage, use it.

Dude -- off topic. Move on or discuss the topic at hand.

I speak for others on this article who REALLY don't care what happened between the two of you on another article. If you don't like kj, go away. DUH!!

Paul... I looked up deficit increases to get a better understanding of them over time. I remember where Clinton talked about reducing said deficits. He was lucky enough to be president at a time of a business explosion when VC's and others were all scrambling to find their place in the internet boom. That is why he was able to partially reduce the debt at that time. Right after he left there was the dot.com bust. The stock market tanked and not too long after that 9/11/01 happened.

That's an interesting claim, but where's your data to support it? What were tax revenues in 1998, 1998, 2000, and 2001?

Why are you looking at the last 30 years? Because if you go back further it shows that the DEMS have been responsible as well?

No, because I've reviewed the facts before I commented. In 1981, US total federal debt was at its lowest point (relative to GDP) since well before WWII (something around 32-33% of GDP). Then, federal government policy changed - the policies that were instituted were republican policies (despite SOME support from Democrats) - massive tax cuts and massive increases in defense spending - and presto, by the end of Reagan's presidency, the debt was well over 50% of GDP.

During the Bush II presidency, the same fiscal policies (massive tax cuts and massive increases in defense spending) were pursued, and had the same result.

Republican policies have shown themselves to be far worse for the debt.

pwt...

So you can forget about blaming those two bloated years in the middle of Bush 41's only term on that.

Bush 41 had a democratic Congress, during his entire Administration, if you're interested in placing blame.

Bush 41: $1,145 billion (4 years)

...

Clinton had to deal with a GOP Congress for most of his administration...

During the last six years of Clinton, Congress was controlled by the Republicans.

Clinton: $1,126 billion (8 years)

Thank you for the comparison. :-)

...

Bush 43: $4,215 billion (8 years)
Obama: $1,372 billion (1 year)

At the risk of feeding the tired, dead-horse syndrome...

Bush 43 = Bad

BO & democratic Congress = Much worse!

It is what it is.

Paul... not sure on the numbers, but look at all the internet startups during the dot.com boom. You know that a lot of job creation went with that. Money was flowing in cities all around the country. I was driving as a courier at that period of time. Pick up and delivery around the SF/Bay Area. I was making around 3500$ a month. Then the bust happened and my income dropped 50%, although the mileage driven stayed close to the same per week.

PWT wrote:

Lkessler,

They are, until a certain date if things aren't changed. Medicare is solvent until 2024. Social Security is solvent until 2036. What you guys need to understand is that solvency merely means that someone or something can meet all of its obligations. It doesn't mean that it won't be able to do so in the future. Those are the problems with Medicare and Social Security. Yet Social Security is extremely easy to fix. Repealing the payroll tax cap would keep Social Security solvent probably forever.

The key word: "until."

And "until" I see things that let me know that I can safely put my money there and watch it grow they way I have with my own investments, thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather pass on government guarantees and guarantee my own way, myself.

Or do I dare forget how often most of you folks faulted one side or the other for "raiding the social security/medicare kitty" just a few years back?

Either there's money, or there isn't. I'm going to bet on "there isn't"--at least not much left.

Paul... not sure on the numbers, but look at all the internet startups during the dot.com boom.

goldminor,

There are only three ways to make an existing deficit larger: more spending, lower revenue, or both. If you're going to claim as a fact, or even as an inference, that deficits increased during a certain period because of the tech bubble bursting, then that means a drop in revenue and you should have some data to prove it.

No offense, but if you don't know the numbers then I think your claim is bogus.

You know that a lot of job creation went with that.

No, I don't know that for a fact. A lot of tech startups went best, but they were all tiny. A couple dozen, or hundred employees at most. Where's your proof that "job creation went with that"?

* * *

And "until" I see things that let me know that I can safely put my money there and watch it grow they way I have with my own investments, thanks, but no thanks.

Lkessler,

Medicare and Social Security are not those kinds of investments, they are trust funds. And if you're working, it's not like you have a choice about contributing to them.

I'd rather pass on government guarantees and guarantee my own way, myself.

I get that, but there are significant problems with privatizing Social Security. First and foremost, had your money been invested in the financial sector, you'd have lost most of it at the height of the lending crisis. Second, most people would get far less out of private investment than from the government. Social Security has more people paying in than taking out, because what people take out is more than they put in as individuals. If you go private, you won't get nearly as much out of that as you would SS because you'd only be getting back your own investment.

And that's assuming your investment doesn't turn into a liability all by itself even without considering the volatility of the market.

Or do I dare forget how often most of you folks faulted one side or the other for "raiding the social security/medicare kitty" just a few years back?

That would only matter if we wanted Social Security to be solvent beyond 2026 without making any changes, because it would have a larger positive balance. But it still has a positive balance which is why it'll make it another 15 years without even being touched.

That said, fixing Social Security is ridiculously easy. SS is funded by the payroll tax, but it's capped at $106,800 per year. It was believed that this cap would be enough to keep the trust fund solvent forever because it was predicted that middle class wages would continue to increase as they had in previous decades. They did not. Over the past decade or so, the gap between increasing wages for the wealthy and the middle class has exploded. Middle class wages have been stagnant for a long time, yet the population continues to grow. And that's killing SS. The fix is to raise or eliminate the payroll tax cap. The only people paying more in taxes would be those making more than $106,800 per year, which is about 15% of the nation. Or about 12 million people out of 310,000,000.

Either there's money, or there isn't. I'm going to bet on "there isn't"--at least not much left.

At its peak, the Social Security trust fund has something like $1.3 trillion dollars in it.

The stock market peaked around 12,000 then fell about 4,000 points at that time. Where were you that you don't remember that?

Plus the Nasdaq dropped from 5048 to around 1500 in a short period of time. Then it went still further down over the next 6 months. The loss at the time was estimated at 5 trillion. Of course, the downturn was further driven by 9/11.

The stock market peaked around 12,000 then fell about 4,000 points at that time. Where were you that you don't remember that?

Someplace I didn't care. The stock market is one giant fraud, inventing money and value out of thin air while allowing people to trade valueless pieces of paper amongst themselves. The stock market could drop to zero tomorrow and I wouldn't care that it did, nor would I ascribe any meaning to it at all. The markets go up and down based on butterflies farting in the wind. The stock market is the biggest joke in the world.

pwt...

The stock market is one giant fraud

Please provide proof.

...inventing money and value out of thin air while allowing people to trade valueless pieces of paper amongst themselves.

Please provide proof.

The markets go up and down based on butterflies farting in the wind.

Please provide proof.

The stock market is the biggest joke in the world.

Please provide proof.

To quote you:

A person should have to backup their claims with proof. That's how we Get Smarter Here. Letting people off to say anything they want without proving any of it is how we all get dumber, here and everywhere else in life.

...

Someplace I didn't care.

The fact that you don't care/understand/participate in the stock market does not negate goldminor's point.

Paul William Tenny

Medicare and Social Security are not those kinds of investments, they are trust funds.

Anyone who trusts the feds to manage their money is a fool.

The stock market could drop to zero tomorrow and I wouldn't care that it did, nor would I ascribe any meaning to it at all.

And you'd be making a huge mistake. The stock market is the best leading indicator of economic conditions, and one whose numbers the feds can't cook.

The proof is evident from history. Stock market began to crash in 1929 and the Great Depression ensued. Stocks rose during the 1980s and 1990s and economic prosperity arrived. A sharp decline in the market began in late 2007 and by the second half of 2008 banks were failing so badly that Congress enacted TARP and bailed out our automakers.

The stock market is the biggest joke in the world.

As explained above, that is simply not so. Ignore its warnings at your own peril.

The stock market is the best leading indicator of economic conditions, and one whose numbers the feds can't cook.

rickace,

Interesting, Paul Krugman – like him or hate him he's one of the foremost economic experts in the country – says the stock market is "a notoriously bad indicator of the economy's direction", and suggests watching bonds instead. It was bad enough that the inability of the stock market to predict recessions has spawned a joke from another Nobel Prize winner. Says Barrons:

The Nobel-laureate economist (Paul Samuelson) said that the stock market had predicted nine of the last four recessions.

To put Samuelson's comment in the parlance of medical tests, the stock market as a predictor of recessions often produces false positives: Many of the downturns it says are just around the corner turn out never to materialize.

Needless to say, however, false positives are not the only kind of error that tests can have. They can also produce false negatives, which in this case would occur if the stock market, prior to a recession, failed to decline significantly -- falsely suggesting that the future is bright.

Has this ever happened? […]

You can see right off the bat that the stock market has produced many false negatives when forecasting a recession. Over the three months prior to the last 28 recessions, for example, the stock market declined on just 18 occasions. Over the six months prior, the market fell just 15 times.

A paper by the Philadelphia Fed also found that the stock market wasn't able to accurately predict recessions. The New York Fed has found that "the empirical regularity that the slope of the yield curve is a reliable predictor of future real economic activity", not stocks.

Mike Shedlock analyzed the S&P 500 and also found that while the stock market has declined prior to several recessions, it also declines without them and rises through them, which makes them a worthless economic indicator:

Looking at a chart of the S&P it is difficult to suggest the Stock Market is a leading indicator, coincident perhaps but certainly not leading.

Moreover, the biggest decline during the period was a 35.9% drop in 1987, a period in which there was no recession. Furthermore, I circled four areas with very similar patterns in the 1980-1992 timeframe that were recessions following essentially sideways corrections in the S&P 500. Two of them were recessions, two were not.

For the 1981 recession and the 1990 recession, one could only tell there was a recession coming in hindsight. Finally the January 1980 recession vs. the S&P 500 looks like noise. The stock market actually rose at the start of the recession. […] The stock market is at best a coincident indicator, known only well after the fact. Furthermore, even as a coincident indicator, the stock market gives many false signals, making it totally useless for all practical purposes.

Those findings are in line with the New York and Philadelphia Fed, what the Barrons writer found, and what Krugman and Samuelson – two Nobel Prize winners in economics -- have said.

Your personal faith in the stock market is... inadvisable.

Paul William Tenny

Those findings are in line with the New York and Philadelphia Fed, what the Barrons writer found, and what Krugman and Samuelson – two Nobel Prize winners in economics -- have said.

Economists are abysmally poor forecasters. I'd never base a financial decision upon their advice.

Your personal faith in the stock market is... inadvisable.

Really now? I had a short position during 2008. When millions saw their IRAs sawed in half, mine grew handsomely.

What pwt does not realize that is that there are many interactions happening within the market. To the average person the rhyme and reason of these moves will never be apparent. This is why there are so many market pundits out there. At least the obscurity of the market creates jobs for many in this regard. Yes, the market moves up and down, but that is generally indicative of weakness in market sectors. These moves are not necessarily reflective of the economy as a whole. That is the other part that pwt is missing.

I repeat:

pwt...

The stock market is one giant fraud

Please provide proof.

...inventing money and value out of thin air while allowing people to trade valueless pieces of paper amongst themselves.

Please provide proof.

The markets go up and down based on butterflies farting in the wind.

Please provide proof.

The stock market is the biggest joke in the world.

Please provide proof.

To quote you:

A person should have to backup their claims with proof. That's how we Get Smarter Here. Letting people off to say anything they want without proving any of it is how we all get dumber, here and everywhere else in life.

Often, you demand of others, that which you are ill-prepared or unable to provide yourself.

...

That is the other part that pwt is missing.

There are many missing parts.

Proof is one of them...

Economists are abysmally poor forecasters.

rickace,

Perhaps they are, but that's irrelevant. I never claimed they were. (Ignoring for now the fact that I didn't cite "economists", but two Nobel Prize winning expert economists.) The issue is the usefulness of the stock market as a leading economic indicator, as you argued it is. Only it's not, as I've proven.

* * *

What pwt does not realize that is that there are many interactions happening within the market.

goldminor,

And you base that on what? You have proof somewhere that I don't realize this? I assume so, since you stated it as a fact. Care to share it?

I based that on comment 1.79 and some of your other remarks. Of course this is mostly an assumption on my part. I do not know you beyond the limited interaction here on this site.

If you ever want to know something, don't assume. Just ask. If your unstated assumption is correct, it won't take long to confirm it, whatever it may be.

pwt...

If you ever want to know something, don't assume. Just ask.

I did:

The stock market is one giant fraud

Please provide proof.

...inventing money and value out of thin air while allowing people to trade valueless pieces of paper amongst themselves.

Please provide proof.

The markets go up and down based on butterflies farting in the wind.

Please provide proof.

The stock market is the biggest joke in the world.

Please provide proof.

To quote you:

A person should have to backup their claims with proof. That's how we Get Smarter Here. Letting people off to say anything they want without proving any of it is how we all get dumber, here and everywhere else in life.

Often, you demand of others, that which you are ill-prepared or unable to provide yourself.

I can provide proof that the stock market isn't one giant fraud:

Apple Stock. No matter how buggy an item from Apple, people are always lining up to buy the latest. And no matter how sucky the economy, people always find the cash to buy a new iPhone/iPad.

It's called provide a quality product, and the consumer will come. Even in this lousy economy, Apple can count on its customers--because it provides them with what they want and are willing to pay for.

PWT is gettin' PWNED!!!!!!

Apple Stock. No matter how buggy an item from Apple, people are always lining up to buy the latest. [..] It's called provide a quality product, and the consumer will come.

The former negates the latter.

How so, Tenny? As of 2011, Apple has sold 100 million iPhones. 100 million!! I still don't see Apple stock sinking--so where are you going with your "former negating the latter?" Just because Apple released an iPhone in 2007 and it couldn't be activated right away due to AT&T software issues, it didn't mean that you didn't have a cool-looking iBrick.

Plus, Apple always fixes its bugs... Always. That's why their customers come back again, and again.

pwt...

The former negates the latter.

Nice deflection, even if it lacks ANY validity.

...

Memo to Paul:

We are still interested in your response...

The stock market is one giant fraud

Please provide proof.

...inventing money and value out of thin air while allowing people to trade valueless pieces of paper amongst themselves.

Please provide proof.

The markets go up and down based on butterflies farting in the wind.

Please provide proof.

The stock market is the biggest joke in the world.

Please provide proof.

To quote you:

A person should have to backup their claims with proof. That's how we Get Smarter Here. Letting people off to say anything they want without proving any of it is how we all get dumber, here and everywhere else in life.

Often, you demand of others, that which you are ill-prepared or unable to provide yourself.

ryoushi12 @1.42

SILLY SELFSERVING SELFCENTERED SOCIOPATHIC CLAIMS.

Obviously you didn't read the post. Everything kjmgirl states is obvious common sense - only a pinhead dolt party-line follower that cannot think for his or herself would dispute it. The real problem is that for the most part, no president (or senator or congressional representative for that matter) has ever been elected because people voted with intelligence. The winner of elections generally the one who can come up wit the most pinhead dolt party-line follower votes. Intelligent votes are for the most part, the minority.

so where are you going with your "former negating the latter?

Lkessler,

You said that people will buy Apple products no matter how buggy they are, then said "it's called a quality product, and the consumer will come." If people will buy buggy products from Apple no matter what, then quality products or not, "the consumer will come".

I'm not saying anything about Apple, just pointing out that the former negates the latter.

* * *

Obviously you didn't read the post. Everything kjmgirl states is obvious common sense - only a pinhead dolt party-line follower that cannot think for his or herself would dispute it.

Chief CRD,

Careful, that's a violation of #1 of the Newsvine Code of Honor. There are many people who dispute kjmgirl's list and calling them "pinhead dolt party-line followers" is insulting other Newsvine users:

Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks.

There's no point in demonizing and insulting other users who disagree with you or kjm.

I'm guessing that pwt is going to continue ignore some questions and avoid providing the proof that he demands of others...

I'm ignoring you because you rarely provide proof of your claims, rely heavily on fallacies and non sequiturs, rarely stay on topic, and often resort to repetitive childlike parroting.

I debate people who behave like intelligent adults, so you're a nonstarter.

Get used to it.

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes:

(Reuters) - Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.

The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.

Some. Not most.

Sorry... But what does "most" mean to you??

Let's say we have one pile that has 43 donuts in it, and another pile with 57 donuts...

Which pile has the MOST? (HINT: They both have "some")

Seriously DYPHJ? Did you bother reading your own link?

The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.

Bolded the statement you apparently overlooked when you read the article. Here's another one taken from the same article:

More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.

So yeah, less than half of US companies paid no income taxes in two or more years, and one could guess that the percentage goes further down as the number of years goes up.

Sorry... But what does "most" mean to you??

Let's say we have one pile that has 43 donuts in it, and another pile with 57 donuts...

Which pile has the MOST? (HINT: They both have "some")

If you were trying to make the point that MOST companies have, at some point in their past, not paid income taxes, then you would be correct. Since companies only pay income tax on profits, and that span of 98-05 includes the dot com bust, so it is not hard to believe that 3/4 of corporations did not see a profit for one year out of a 7 year period...

However you seem to want to show that most corporations do not pay income taxes in any given year, which is patently incorrect.

However you seem to want to show that most corporations do not pay income taxes in any given year, which is patently incorrect.

Sorry. But where exactly do I "seem to want to show" anything of the sort?

I quoted a post from another Viner (meaning: not you) and pointed out that the response to the quote they were referencing was wrong. period. I quoted the entire part of the post that I was referencing (#1.50) and made my statement, which for what they were talking about is completely correct.

pwt...

I'm ignoring you because you rarely provide proof of your claims...

Pot, meet Kettle:

pwt:

The stock market is one giant fraud

Please provide proof.

pwt:

...inventing money and value out of thin air while allowing people to trade valueless pieces of paper amongst themselves.

Please provide proof.

pwt:

The markets go up and down based on butterflies farting in the wind.

Please provide proof.

pwt:

The stock market is the biggest joke in the world.

Please provide proof.

To quote you:

A person should have to backup their claims with proof. That's how we Get Smarter Here. Letting people off to say anything they want without proving any of it is how we all get dumber, here and everywhere else in life.

Often, you demand of others, that which you are ill-prepared or unable to provide yourself.

...

...repetitive childlike parroting...

We could have avoided this if you would just provide the proof that you demand of others...

...

I debate people who behave like intelligent adults, so you're a nonstarter.

LOL! As has been documented, in the past:

Your Recipe for debate:

Spin.
Overgeneralize.
Verbosity.
Limited Accountability.
Condescending, snide remarks.
Insult us into believing that you actually know what you're talking about.

Your reluctance to debate comes from my exposing your flawed approach to data analysis, among other reasons.

...

Space does not permit me to remind everyone of the multiple citation requests that you have ignored.

Get used to it.

We are...

To quote you:

A person should have to backup their claims with proof. That's how we Get Smarter Here. Letting people off to say anything they want without proving any of it is how we all get dumber, here and everywhere else in life.

Addendum: except when dealing with trolls. So that doesn't apply to you.

@ PWT comment #1.57

Factcheck.org is NOT run by the American enterprise Institute, but by the Annengerg Public Policy Ceneter at University of Pennsylvania. And that it is NOT run by Mark Perry, but by Director Brooks Jackson.

LOL!

I see.

What you're revealing is that, while you demand proof from others, you find that selectively providing proof works better for you.

Addendum: except when dealing with those who regularly refute your verbose, unsubstantiated and flawed comments.

One of many examples:

The stock market is one giant fraud, inventing money and value out of thin air while allowing people to trade valueless pieces of paper amongst themselves. The stock market could drop to zero tomorrow and I wouldn't care that it did, nor would I ascribe any meaning to it at all. The markets go up and down based on butterflies farting in the wind. The stock market is the biggest joke in the world.

Don't worry. I'm not going to ask you to "backup your claims with proof", again.

You, I and everyone else knows that you can't...

...

We now return you to your Ignore List...

Too funny!

@ PWT comment #1.57

Factcheck.org is NOT run by the American enterprise Institute, but by the Annengerg Public Policy Ceneter at University of Pennsylvania. And that it is NOT run by Mark Perry, but by Director Brooks Jackson.

Elaine-1503791,

I suspect you haven't been following the conversation. Perry was referenced by kjmgirl in in #1.51 via a blog post he made about health insurance companies. Perry works for a notorious right-wing think tank that opposed health insurance reform, and AIE has a record for being wrong about just about everything. Very little he says credibility.

None of that has anything to do with Factcheck.org.

That said, Politifact is a better fact checker.

Elaine-1503791--

Interesting things about the APPC (Annenberg Public Policy Center). Of course I am not making assumptions or implications, just was looking some things up and following the electronic trail.

APPC Part of the Annenberg Foundation. The Annenberg Foundation, with $49.2 million dollars funded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. One of the co-authors of the grant to secure the $49.2 million for the challenge was....Willian Ayers. The founding chairman and president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, for 4 years, was Barack Obama.

And that ladies and germs is why nobody takes the right seriously anymore. *clap*

@Paul William Tenny:

The Right takes themselves very seriously. :D Just like the Left takes the Left very seriously. It's all one giant silly circus with no one really taking each other seriously.

Don't even start with the false equivalencies. Come on. Nobody says crazy @!$%# like this on the left in the numbers you see on the right.

@Paul William Tenny:

What false equivalencies? I do see your fond of Red Herring I see. I said both sides take only themselves seriously which is largely true. It appears compromise is becoming a forgotten art. Mores the pity.

pwt...

Nobody says crazy @!$%# like this on the left...

You aren't giving credit, where credit's due. You're stuck in the mud, on the left, and you said this:

The stock market is one giant fraud, inventing money and value out of thin air while allowing people to trade valueless pieces of paper amongst themselves. The stock market could drop to zero tomorrow and I wouldn't care that it did, nor would I ascribe any meaning to it at all. The markets go up and down based on butterflies farting in the wind. The stock market is the biggest joke in the world.

And that ladies and germs is why nobody takes you seriously anymore. *clap*

Addendum: except when dealing with trolls. So that doesn't apply to you.

I find it ironic that the same person who says that labeling a position, claim or argument "left wing BS" is a somehow a CoH violation has no problem calling others names, which is an obvious and blatant CoH violation. Face it, PWT, you made idiotic and moronic claims that you cannot back up in any way shape or form. All too typical from our leftist-statist friends Reported (for all the good that will do).

There's no point in demonizing and insulting other users who disagree with you

And, yet...despite PWT making that statement...well, we'll just let the record speak for itself, okay?

http://pwtenny.newsvine.com/_news/2010/02/26/3956230-they-arent-even-human-anymore-this-is-why-i-hate-republicans

merleliz...

From pwt's "article:"

...I hate Republicans so much.

How in the world does one hate an entire political ideology???

So, he hates the nice, retired, church-going couple from Des Moines, who just celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary?

Amazing!

This, from a self-professed educated person...

...

Demands proof from others, yet refuses to provide proof when asked.

Prohibits demonizing and insulting, yet actively practices both.

Yep, sounds about right...

Face it, PWT, you made idiotic and moronic claims that you cannot back up in any way shape or form.

Justaguy01123,

I did, when I was discussing the topic with reasonable people. In fact I so soundly destroyed the fantasy that the stock market is predictive of recessions that rickace simply left afterward.

pwt...

...I so soundly destroyed the fantasy that the stock market is predictive of recessions...

Dream on. Citing a couple of economists and newspaper articles does not "soundly destroy" anything.

Learn this... Few disciplines are more ambiguous, or open to interpretation, than the study of economics.

More than likely, Rickace grew bored trying to explain the stock market to someone who believes that the stock market, is "based on butterflies farting in the wind."

Many have.

...

LOL! This, from the guy that wrote:

The stock market is one giant fraud, inventing money and value out of thin air while allowing people to trade valueless pieces of paper amongst themselves. The stock market could drop to zero tomorrow and I wouldn't care that it did, nor would I ascribe any meaning to it at all. The markets go up and down based on butterflies farting in the wind. The stock market is the biggest joke in the world.

And you still haven't cited ANY proof to back up your claims.

...

Truly, a legend in his own mind...

WOW! Too funny!

Global777

More than likely, Rickace grew bored trying to explain the stock market to someone who believes that the stock market, is "based on butterflies farting in the wind."

Exactly. I've been a student of the markets since 1987 and have studied under experts with international credentials, like Dr. Van Tharp (trading coach), Robert Prechter (founder of socionomics), D.R. Barton, and Christopher Castroviejo (an associate of billionaire financier George Soros). My grasp of the subject is founded in the knowledge and experience of people who are much wiser than anyone I have encountered on Newsvine.

Few disciplines are more ambiguous, or open to interpretation, than the study of economics.

Aye. Economists are notorious for the failures of their theories to predict changes in the economy and the markets, which are intimately related. Socionomics OTOH has probabilistically predictive value.

Paul William Tenny

In fact I so soundly destroyed the fantasy that the stock market is predictive of recessions that rickace simply left afterward.

I'd respond to that but I don't feed trolls. Biting my ankles will get you nowhere.

I've been a student of the markets since 1987 and have studied under experts with international credentials, like Dr. Van Tharp (trading coach), Robert Prechter (founder of socionomics), D.R. Barton, and Christopher Castroviejo (an associate of billionaire financier George Soros).

That fallacy is called appeal to authority. You're right because of what you know, what you've done, who you know or who you are. As opposed to proving your claims with evidence that can be analyzed and judged by everyone, as I have done.

As such, I find your grandstanding unpersuasive.

Your assertion that the stock market is the best leading indicator of economic conditions was proven false last week without any rebuttal from you other than to note that "economists are abysmally poor forecasters", which while possibly true, isn't in any way relevant to your claims.

And now, given a second opportunity:

I'd respond to that but I don't feed trolls.

You turn and walk away a second time.

One would think that someone as well studied as you would be able to quickly and easily prove me wrong. You're a student of the market for decades. You've studied under experts. You've forgotten more in a day than I'll ever know about high finance, or something equally as hubristic.

This isn't the first time I've cornered someone only to have them make excuses for why they don't have to continue debating something. But at the end of the day the facts are the same. I've provided evidence to prove my claims which debunk theirs. They haven't.

You haven't.

I'd respond to that but I don't feed trolls

You're not fooling anyone. You can't respond because you're smart enough to realize that you said something indefensible. Trying to defend your statement now would just end up digging a deeper hole, and you know that's a place you don't want to go. I'll give you credit for having the intelligence to realize that when so many other people don't, but you'll get no respect for pretending that your walking away from this is anything other than you trying to save face after @!$%#ing up.

Paul William Tenny

That fallacy is called appeal to authority.

That would be relevant if I were debating you. It was however addressed to Global777.

I've provided evidence to prove my claims which debunk theirs.

Really now? You've merely debunked a misinterpretation of my claims.

Me: The stock market is the best leading indicator of economic conditions

Note that I did not claim it was infallible. Your arguments have no traction. They are merely example of the economy not following the market in a trend of relatively minor degree. See #1.81 above for examples of when the two correlate during major trends.

And you have yet to rebut that.

Trying to defend your statement now would just end up digging a deeper hole, and you know that's a place you don't want to go.

The only hole in evidence is the product of your fertile imagination. As I noted previously, your opinion is founded in a misinterpretation of my original claim. When you begin debating my words and not your distortions thereof we might have a discussion of substance.

A person should have to backup their claims with proof. That's how we Get Smarter Here. Letting people off to say anything they want without proving any of it is how we all get dumber, here and everywhere else in life.

I totally agree...therefore, I would like for you to provide proof of your assertation that:

The markets go up and down based on butterflies farting in the wind.

Were you referring to any specific butterfly...or does your statement apply to all butterflies in general? Also...please provide proof that butterflies actually fart....and remember, when you decide to refuse to answer this based on your claim that I am also a "troll"...which really means:

you made idiotic and moronic claims that you cannot back up in any way shape or form.

that:

you'll get no respect for pretending that your walking away from this is anything other than you trying to save face after @!$%#ing up.

I believe that is referred to as "hoist with your own petard"...

Face it, PWT...you lost all credibility in this debate ages ago...but you were right about one thing - Rickace has probably forgotten more in a day about high finance than you will ever know...all of your own "appeals to authority" notwithstanding.

pwt...

That fallacy is called appeal to authority.

Being the expert on fallacies, that you are:

I didn't cite "economists", but two Nobel Prize winning expert economists.

That fallacy is called appeal to authority.

...

As opposed to proving your claims with evidence that can be analyzed and judged by everyone, as I have done.

Not so fast, with another of your false claims.

We are still waiting for the "evidence that can be analyzed and judged by everyone", regarding your statement:

The stock market is one giant fraud, inventing money and value out of thin air while allowing people to trade valueless pieces of paper amongst themselves. The stock market could drop to zero tomorrow and I wouldn't care that it did, nor would I ascribe any meaning to it at all. The markets go up and down based on butterflies farting in the wind. The stock market is the biggest joke in the world.

...

I've provided evidence to prove my claims which debunk theirs.

You still don't get it. You make ludicrous statements, cite carefully selected authors and articles, impress only yourself and while everyone is left scratching their heads wondering "is this guy for real?", proclaim that you have won a debate.

WOW!

What rickace, along with many others, realizes is that your aren't wearing any clothes...

pwt...

You've outdone yourself this time. You attempt to call out rickace, yammering the following:

And now, given a second opportunity... You turn and walk away a second time.

...only to have them make excuses for why they don't have to continue debating something.

I've provided evidence to prove my claims which debunk theirs. They haven't.

Yet, when given multiple opportunities to provide evidence to prove your claim:

The stock market is one giant fraud, inventing money and value out of thin air while allowing people to trade valueless pieces of paper amongst themselves. The stock market could drop to zero tomorrow and I wouldn't care that it did, nor would I ascribe any meaning to it at all. The markets go up and down based on butterflies farting in the wind. The stock market is the biggest joke in the world.

you discover that "You can't respond because you're smart enough to realize that you said something indefensible."

To further quote you:

Trying to defend your statement now would just end up digging a deeper hole, and you know that's a place you don't want to go... but you'll get no respect for pretending that your walking away from this is anything other than you trying to save face after @!$%#ing up.

So, you play the troll card, slink away, and set up your grandstanding soapbox on another corner, calling out others with empty rhetoric, like:

A person should have to backup their claims with proof. That's how we Get Smarter Here. Letting people off to say anything they want without proving any of it is how we all get dumber, here and everywhere else in life.

You're not fooling anyone, anymore...

To hear some of them they must think we have an alter of her that we light candles around ;) Also been called one of Paul's ilk or a minion. What is ironic is how a lot of lefties actually reserve the status of demi-god for "The One"; his highness himself.

And yet, I've never heard one my fellow "lefties" refer to President Obama with anything that even comes close to demi-god reverence. That whole "the one" thing is an anti-Obama meme with no support; another of those "lie, repeated often enough" things that seem to substitute for substance these days.

I wish people would stop with the stupid "us/them" crap.

The only hole in evidence is the product of your fertile imagination.

rickace,

Nothing but empty rhetoric. No data. No debate. Just walking away.

So be it. I debunked your claim, with evidence, and you walked away. Should this ever come up again in the future, the record will reflect that.

* * *

I totally agree...therefore, I would like for you to provide proof of your assertation that:

The markets go up and down based on butterflies farting in the wind.

merleliz,

That's not an assertion, it's hyperbole. It wasn't meant to be taken literally. Contrast that to the things I've been trying to debate with rick. I'm pretty sure if you ask him, he'll tell you that his claim that the markets are a leading economic indicator was serious and meant to be taken so, as were my replies after that where I showed -- definitively -- that they are no such thing.

If you want to knock me for starting a serious conversation with a drive-by exaggeration, so be it. But don't sit there and pretend that I meant that literally. That's being naive or just more trolling.

Face it, PWT...you lost all credibility in this debate ages ago...

Perhaps with you, but considering your trollish behavior on Newsvine, I won't be losing sleep anytime soon over it.

* * *

And yet, I've never heard one my fellow "lefties" refer to President Obama with anything that even comes close to demi-god reverence.

Kate In Greensboro,

Of course not, and I've written about this before. Just not sure where or I'd link it. That framing perfectly illustrates the cult of personality that has come to define modern conservatism's view of politics, leadership, and governance. Remember, over the past decade, "Bush was the movement and the cause".

Bush was their "The One", their God, for nearly a decade. He was their daddy tough-guy leader that let them sleep well at night. And they worshiped at his feet appropriately. Because that's the twisted way they see the world and this country, naturally they expect us to act the same way. To elect not a good political leader, but a religious figure that will lead us all to salvation that we'll venerate, bow to, and defend no matter what.

And they get very angry and confused when we don't do that. But it doesn't stop them from seeing the world through a bizarre and disturbing cult of personality filter.

Remember this?

Beyond the DOJ, huge swaths of the right-wing movement were devoted to an unprecedented veneration of George Bush. A whole industry on the Right was created to convert him into a warrior-deity, including truly creepy reverence books by National Review writers (see here for various illustrations). Some on the Right actually speculated that God intervened in our elections because he had hand-picked Bush to be our leader. Even Bill Kristol admitted that the GOP had turned into little more than a Bush-centered personality cult, telling the New York Times: "Bush was the movement and the cause." More than any single, discrete issue, what motivated me to begin writing about political issues was the warped climate of hero worship constructed -- by the Right and the media -- around George Bush as a "War President."

None of that has changed or gone away. The right is still dominated by cult of personality politics. We've seen it with Palin and we'll see it with the next Republican president. Because they think that is normal, healthy behavior, they expect everyone to act they way they do. Partly because they want to, and partly because that expectation -- even in the complete absence of evidence -- reinforces the delusion that there's nothing wrong with them or what they are doing.

But there's nothing like that happening with Obama from liberals. Sure, there are plenty of sycophantic fanboys that will defend literally everything he does, but that's not a cult of personality. This is:

UPDATE II: So inebriating was the Bush personality cult that DOJ aide Sara Taylor actually said this while testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

"I took an oath to the president, and I take that oath very seriously," Sara Taylor said in answer to a question early in the hearing.

And right after a break, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked her if she was sure about that. "Did you mean, perhaps, you took an oath to the Constitution?" Leahy asked. It was a telling exchange.

And this:

A Republican National Committee practice of having people sign a form endorsing President Bush or pledging to vote for him in November before being issued tickets for RNC-sponsored rallies is raising concern among voters.

When Vice President Dick Cheney spoke July 31 to a crowd of 2,000 in Rio Rancho, a city of 45,000 near Albuquerque, several people who showed up at the event complained about being asked to sign endorsement forms in order to receive a ticket to hear Cheney.

''Whose vice president is he?" said 72-year-old retiree John Wade of Albuquerque, who was asked to sign the form when he picked up his tickets. ''I just wanted to hear what my vice president had to say, and they make me sign a loyalty oath."

The right's fantasy that the left views Obama as a demi-god or some such, is nothing but projection. It's what they do, what they want, and all they understand.

pwt...

Nothing but empty rhetoric. No data. No debate. Just walking away.

So be it. I debunked your claim, with evidence, and you walked away. Should this ever come up again in the future, the record will reflect that.

The record will always reflect that you, pwt, are the very best at that which you accuse others of doing.

When given multiple opportunities to provide evidence to prove your claim:

The stock market is one giant fraud, inventing money and value out of thin air while allowing people to trade valueless pieces of paper amongst themselves. The stock market could drop to zero tomorrow and I wouldn't care that it did, nor would I ascribe any meaning to it at all. The markets go up and down based on butterflies farting in the wind. The stock market is the biggest joke in the world.

you discover that "You can't respond because you're smart enough to realize that you said something indefensible."

...considering your trollish behavior on Newsvine...

The voice of experience...

...

pwt:

Bush was their "The One", their God, for nearly a decade. And they worshiped at his feet appropriately.

Who writes this crap?

Because that's the twisted way they see the world and this country, naturally they expect us to act the same way.

Since you can't lead, and we don't care if you follow, just get the hell out of our way.

...

pwt:

Partly because they want to, and partly because that expectation -- even in the complete absence of evidence -- reinforces the delusion that there's nothing wrong with them or what they are doing.

Pot, meet Kettle:

But there's nothing like that happening with Obama from liberals.

LOL! Lunacy and Hypocrisy at its finest!

And yet, I've never heard one my fellow "lefties" refer to President Obama with anything that even comes close to demi-god reverence.

I guess ol Kate didn't know or forgot about this gem:

"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."

Of course, Newsweek has since been sold...for a dollar.

You dare to call yourselves "libertarian"? That's some joke. You sound like right wingers in denial. The only one touching libertarian here is Paul William Tenny and you all attack him. No wonder the GOP is in tatters.

There are things in libertarianism that I find quite appealing. Limited or small government (more towards the limited), strong civil rights, states rights, etc. It's this perversion from small government to minimal/no government where things go off the rails.

But I really just don't see the value in such framing. Big government, small government, no government, it all seems like a shallow cover for pushing unstated policies with unstated motives. I prefer to frame it as -- is government doing what I want, in a way that benefits its citizens, and in the best way possible?

If yes, then who cares how big it is? If no, then it will never matter how small you make it.

Libertarians come in all shapes and sizes. Not everyone who is a libertarian has the crazy foreign policy views of a Ron Paul, nor should they have to in order to legitimately call themselves libertarians.

then who cares how big it is?

Libertarians do because they know that more government = less freedom, as did the founders. There really is no way around that.

Basically, libertarians believe that one should be free to do whatever one wishes provided it does not violate the right to life liberty or property of others through force or fraud and concomitantly one alone should suffer any consequences that may arise from such.

Libertarians do because they know that more government = less freedom, as did the founders.

That's an opinion, not a fact.

Thomas Jefferson certainly considered it a fact. Most folks consider it common sensical but then most folks aren't liberals.

Most folks consider it common sensical

Also an opinion, not a fact.

..but then most folks aren't liberals.

You just can't stop leaving petty, inflammatory comments. Flagged.

YAWN...

when you get the 'apologies' dialog box, click ok and then refresh.

do this once.

:)

it's because for some reason NV is double and triple posting.

It's Bush's fault!!!!!!!!

In the spirit of the article, it must be Bush/Obama's fault :-)

It,s hard for an old dog to learn new tricks.

But I don't wanna!!

Someone quick shaving cream kjm's toilet before she notices!!