Obama’s record far better than G.W. Bush’s


Another anti-Obama rant by Roberta Bardsley. Does it ever end?

Where was Roberta when George W. Bush was president? He is a man a lot of historians are rating as one of the worst presidents ever.

Let’s look at his record. Came into office with a budget surplus and left with us hopelessly in debt.

The worst thing, however, was his war in Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction? There weren’t any. Almost 5,000 Americans dead, tens of thousands wounded, crippled and traumatized and more than 100,000 Iraqis killed plus billions of dollars wasted. All for nothing!

Oh yes, he also got rid of Saddem Hussein. He may have been a bad guy but he kept the warring Shites and Sunnis apart. Christians were free to worship but now live in fear of their lives.

Mission accomplished? Sure.

Look at Iraq now with bombings, assassinations and close to civil war. Obama may not be perfect but he is trying and will never have the shameful record of George W. Bush.

William Henry

Walla Walla



Iopine says...

WOW - do you have your own small library that you keep this rethoric in or do you pick it up off the current White House Website? Amazing!

Posted 3 April 2013, 11:40 a.m. Suggest removal

loplover says...

Actually, you can get those stats in any major news organization's archives. Facts and numbers are what they are. Most of the letters this paper prints are written by those whose ONLY source of "news" is quite obviously Faux "news" and the right-wing media echo chamber. They dislike numbers because they are solid and not as subject to twisting and manipulation as words, so Faux & their friends tend to avoid statistics whenever possible.

So many letter-writers locally don't even try to put the faux talking points into their own words that it either makes them appear really lazy or, what I believe, completely brainwashed. We keep hearing about President Obama's policies that are going to "destroy this country" without ever hearing just which policies those might be, much less how anything he has done is going to result in the destruction of God, apple pie, and the American way. Perhaps it's the raising of capital gains taxes 1/10 of 1 per cent? That's sure devastate things!

Posted 3 April 2013, 2:25 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

I really don't understand your major news organizations that give true facts. Most of the stories printed in the U-B are out of the AP which is one of the most liberal media outlets. I look at numbers every day and I see a country being devastated by a community organizer that doesn't claim his home town of Chicago anymore. This White House is totally lacking leadership in any form.

Posted 4 April 2013, 6:27 p.m. Suggest removal

loplover says...

You should probably try getting at least SOME of your information from sources other than Faux "news" and the right-wing media echo chamber. They have a tendency to use "dog whistle words" to turn off their viewers critical thinking skills while ramping up their fear, rage, and racism. The AP is hardly "liberal," and the rest of the corporate-controlled media are only as liberal as the conservative mega-conglomerates that own them. But when someone makes that accusation, along with using the term "community organizer" as an insult, it becomes patently obvious where he or she is getting his or her "facts." And Faux is the only "news" channel that actually went to court and was awarded the legal right to tell flat-out lies and still refer to them as "news."

Posted 13 April 2013, 10:30 p.m. Suggest removal

PeggyJoy says...

Amazing! Seems like your lacking in knowledge of the facts. Take your blinders off.

Posted 4 April 2013, 3:27 p.m. Suggest removal

mtnthc says...

If I recall correctly Roberta and the other local reactionary baggers said the end of the world was certain during Obama's first term, funny how it never came to pass. Maybe this time they can make it happen (at least to themselves) and pull a Heavens Gate.

Posted 3 April 2013, 3:59 p.m. Suggest removal

wwguy7 says...

Is Mr. Henry seriously trying to stick up for the actions of Saddam Hussein? Unbelievable. Open your eyes sir. Whether or not you agree with the war, if you can't agree that the world is a better place without Saddam, you are a lunatic.

Posted 3 April 2013, 4:08 p.m. Suggest removal

kurtfr says...

He did write, "He may have been a bad guy...." But I can't help to remember when Ronald Reagan established diplomatic relations with Hussein in 1983 by sending Donald Rumsfeld as his special envoy. I guess him gassing, torturing and killing his own people was pretty good policy back in the 1980's.

Posted 3 April 2013, 4:43 p.m. Suggest removal

PeggyJoy says...

No, he was not "sticking up" for Hussein, he was simply stating the facts, which is seem is hard to comprehend for many like yourself.

Posted 4 April 2013, 3:26 p.m. Suggest removal

wwguy7 says...

No need for a personal attack PeggyJoy. When your socialist leader comes under fire, you don't deal with it very well do you?

Posted 5 April 2013, 11:20 a.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

Mr. Henry's comment, "He may have been a bad guy," didn't mean, "Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't." The context of the sentence suggests: "Yes, he was a bad guy, but at least he kept the Sunnis and Shiites from killing each other." So, I don't think Mr. Henry was equivocating on Hussein's badness. Rather, Mr. Henry was criticizing Bush for opening a Pandora's Box he didn't understand.

Having said that, it's hard to acknowledge any "good" that someone like Hussein or someone like Hitler does without coming across like you're partially supporting him.

"Yes, Hitler really built some great buildings and brought a sense of pride back to the German people....oh and he did that other stuff too." That's a fine line that is better avoided.

Posted 6 April 2013, 4:04 p.m. Suggest removal

wallyworldguy says...

Let’s look at his record. Came into office with a budget surplus and left with us hopelessly in debt.

I don't believe you would even try to argue budget facts. If bush put us hopelessly in debt, then where did Hussein put us budget wise???

Posted 3 April 2013, 4:50 p.m. Suggest removal

ImJustSayin says...

Please explain how the deficit has further increased under Obama and how that's not classified as "hopeless". He's had 5 years to take a bad situation and make it better...yet has made things worse and the U.S. weak in the eyes of the world.

Posted 3 April 2013, 6:26 p.m. Suggest removal

PeggyJoy says...

The deficit increased! How many more jobs across this nation would have been lost, if Pres Obama hadn't stepped in. And just exactly what have the Republicans in Congress been up to the last 5 years. BLOCKING everything that Pres Obama brings up to great jobs, etc.
Isn't it about time you and other start living in the real world.

Posted 4 April 2013, 3:31 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

Do you realize that there is a third part to this government - namely the Senate that has your very own Sen Murray who can't put a budget together?

Posted 4 April 2013, 6:29 p.m. Suggest removal

blue_streak says...

Just to keep you in touch with the real world, please note that the deficit is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to fall this year and continue shrinking in 2014. Unemployment continues to be a problem, but the economy is adding jobs . . . when Bush left, the country was losing hundreds of thousands of jobs per month, with no end in sight.

I'm never quite clear what Roberta means when she says Obama is ruining the country or when you say the US is "weak in the eyes of the world." And so far neither you or Roberta seem able or willing to offer much in the way of specifics.

Posted 4 April 2013, 5:20 p.m. Suggest removal

ImJustSayin says...

How's this for a very current fact:


only 88,000 jobs added. Pathetic!

Posted 5 April 2013, 7:10 a.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

Yes it is pathetic. That's what happens when you have a Congress that refuses to compromise and work with the President. We could be in much better shape now if the House Republicans were more like the Senate Republicans, which, as I write this, isn't saying much.

Posted 12 April 2013, 6:33 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

In the last four years we have destroyed $6 trillion - more than any of the previous presidents. Wow, can't imagine?

Posted 3 April 2013, 6:22 p.m. Suggest removal

PeggyJoy says...

Do you understand where Bush/Cheney came up with the trillions of dollars they blew on invading Iraq! And while these two fools were flushing these trillions, they, ALSO, cut taxes, which by the way is where money comes from to invade countries and kill their citizens.
Only fools would cut taxes, which most when to the upper 1%, when they would need this money to blow on their invasion of Iraq. Seem syou and others STILL DON"T GET IT.

Posted 4 April 2013, 3:36 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

If you had a clue you would be amazing yourself missy. You think that the House is the mainstay in Obamas devastation of this country. Have you ever heard of the Senate who hasn't passed a budget in 4 yrs or just passes legislation loaded with pork. Some of your comments are totally unbelievable. Did you realize when those ware were started there was a unanimous vote by the Democrats and Republicans. Catch a clue instead of just trying to degrade somebody.

Posted 4 April 2013, 6:17 p.m. Suggest removal

kurtfr says...

What's your definition of unanimous? Iraq War resolution: Senate vote: 77 Yes & 23 No. The no's were 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent. House vote: 296 to 133. The no's were six Republicans and 126 Democratic and one Independent.

Posted 4 April 2013, 7:30 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

Excuse me for confusing the issue - there were YES votes on both sides of the aisle.

Posted 5 April 2013, 12:43 p.m. Suggest removal

ImJustSayin says...

The last two years of the Bush administration was run by a Democratic Senate and House. Yet Piggyjoy wants to blame this economy on 2 individuals. Sad

Posted 5 April 2013, 7:12 a.m. Suggest removal

tpeacock says...

The current administration is run by a split Senate and House, yet you all want to blame everything on the President; so what's the difference? It's not hard to see at all that partisan worship by the masses is the central theme behind many of these comments. Belief in everything your party leaders throw your way, along with the talking heads of the TV and radio waves is an absolute waste of time and energy.
You folks who continually act so childish with your name calling, person bashing, and failure to fully investigate the claims behind your stand, preferring to tow party lines and fall in line with the garbage that comes form these sources is utterly pathetic.
Here's a grand idea; open your wallets and purses, pull out your ID cards/driver's licenses, and do the math on your age. Being an adult isn't easy for many, but to continue with childlike tendencies when interacting with others, especially when the math shows you're far past being a child should be embarrassing at the very least.
Unfortunately, it's becoming more and more prevalent in today's society, probably more damaging to society that any one President could ever be, no matter his/her party.

Posted 6 April 2013, 9:12 a.m. Suggest removal

loplover says...

Threads lose my interest when they simply become name-calling, bullying, and attacks upon other posters. I really hope that the paper moderates their threads better than some of the national outlets. I'm not Peggyjoy, but if you had insulted me the way you just did her, I'd be asking the paper to ban you. This is not the forum for personal attacks. Besides it just makes the attackers look petty and mean.

Posted 13 April 2013, 10:35 p.m. Suggest removal

loplover says...

Don't forget that much of that $6 trillion wasn't real money. When economists discuss money, they also use anticipated profits as if they were actual hundred-dollar bills sitting somewhere. When the housing crash occurred, the "value" of houses---many, many houses---dropped in half or more. Now they were the exact same square footage, same number of beds, baths, etc. The difference was that nobody would any longer PAY a million dollars for the same house that would have brought a million a month before. So presto, a half million dollars "disappeared." But it doesn't mean that somebody put that much, in cash, in a cardboard box and trucked it to a safety deposit box in Dubai. Although, truth be told, a lot of the millions, actually billions of dollars that "disappeared" in Iraq and Afghanistan, did actually vanish in the way I just described as well. At least if a lot of soldiers who guarded those boxes can be believed. And I believe them...

Posted 13 April 2013, 11:02 p.m. Suggest removal

chicoli says...

It has been said that there is a worldwide warrant for the arrest of neocons, including George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Collin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney and others for the responsibility of hundreds of thousand of inocent Iraqui civilian casualties. Could the Iraq war be considered "the other hollocaust"? Only history will tell. In the mean time no more French Riviera vacations, no Cancun...oh no, no se puede...for these guys!

Carlos F Acevedo MD

Posted 4 April 2013, 1:24 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

Where does that come from - the cartels in your home country?

Posted 4 April 2013, 6:18 p.m. Suggest removal

chicoli says...

You just cannot help dragging the civil discourse to a lower level. I've seen you viciously humiliating decent citizens, decent enough to ignore your venom by excluding themselves from this forum, carrying their wounded egos at their back.
Nanvet, the US is my home country. I've been an American citizen for longer than you will ever be. I know this country infinitely better than you do. I've studied American history both formaly at the academic level, and at the cuotidian level by my extensive internal traveling. I know this country from the external perspective as I've lived overseas in several countries. Just by reading your "Robertaesque" rantings I can tell how superficial your understanding of America is. Please stop hurting people! As to from where "that" came from, you will not find it by reading "tid-bits" at a dinner.

Posted 5 April 2013, 7:55 a.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

Apparently my travels didn't get to elite status for all of your characterizations that you spew forth. My viciously humiliating narrative is only addressed to those that put forth offensive writings such as your own. Just because you say you have an educational background does not make you an intellect!

Posted 5 April 2013, 1 p.m. Suggest removal

carcrazy says...

Actually Paco, wouldn't you agree that a large portion of the crime in your ancestral home is because of the drug cartels that now use Puerto Rico as a portal to ship their product into the United States. You don't need to respond so vehemently to those that question you, it only shows your lack of self control.

Posted 5 April 2013, 7:34 p.m. Suggest removal

chicoli says...

Poor carcrazy( should I call you Renee?), you certainly don't even know your American History or geography too well. Puerto Rico, as a US territory, has its coast, maritime ports and airports controlled by the US Coast Guard, the US Navy, the Ports Authority and the TSA, all of them related to the US Federal Government. Puerto Rico is USA by historical definition. More drugs come through Miami, New York, L.A. or San Francisco than through San Juan into the rest of the island, meaning into the United States. But I understand from where you are comimg from. It's more convinient to blame Puertorricans, Mexican or Colombians when in fact the incredible and insaciable appetite for drugs is indigenous and is deeply ingrained in the lack of self control of the American culture.

Posted 8 April 2013, 11:40 a.m. Suggest removal

carcrazy says...

See, there you go again PACO. Assuming you know who I am (but you don't even have the right gender), and you evidently aren't aware of the issues with drug cartels using the commonwealth of PR to move their product into the continental United States. Do some research on the subject. As a former Coast Guard Law Enforcement officer, I am keenly aware of smuggling operations onto all of our coasts. I do know my history and geography and I know very well the history of Puerto Rico. I also am not blaming PR, Mexico, or Columbia for our drug culture here, but there are criminal elements in each of those countries that are ruthless in their unlawfullness.
You carry an elitist attitude paco, personified by your statement to namvet that you will be "an American citizen for longer than you(he) will ever be." I understand that you hold dual citizenship, but are you that much better than the rest of us?

Posted 8 April 2013, 7:58 p.m. Suggest removal

chicoli says...

There you go again! You had the nerve to gratuituously insulting me about 3-months ago under the name of "Renee"; and now expect that I should be nice to you? You just can not handle the facts because you do not know the facts. Your statement that you understand my holding a "dual citizenship" is an incredible demostration of ignorance about your knowledge of American history. There is NO such a thing as dual citizenship for Puertorricans. Purtorricans are as US citizens as you and namvet are, no better but no less either. Again, if you do not understand the facts, you can not be sensitive about nothing.

Posted 9 April 2013, 11:22 a.m. Suggest removal

carcrazy says...

No paco, I never said anything about you being nice to me. Where did you read that? I will never expect you to be nice to me because I know that you aren't. Forgive me if I misunderstand Peurto Rican citizenship, I'm only as smart as what I read:
In 1952, upon U.S. Congress approving the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, also reaffirmed that Puerto Rican citizenship continued in full force. This was further reaffirmed in 2006 while the U.S. Senate probed into the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's status.

Posted 9 April 2013, 1:19 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

There are a lot of myths out there about President Obama. He's not perfect, but he is not the disaster that his predecessor was. Nor is he the anti-Christ.

In response to ImJustSayin's request, here's a [3 minute video][1] showing an overview of how the 2001 budget surplus actually turned into $6 trillion in new debt by 2012.

I would also add that in order to be truly productive, the executive branch needs a willing partner in Congress. The number of filibusters over the past 5 years has shattered previous records, which speaks for itself. Obama lost the House in 2010 and only had the 60 necessary votes in the Senate for a small window in 2009-2010 due to Kennedy's tumor and Joe Lieberman's independent nature.

This Bloomberg [article][2] explains how the annual deficit is shrinking and that federal spending over the past three years grew at its slowest pace since the 1950s.

And for fun, here's a [chart][3] showing the origins of about 50 conspiracy theories about Obama.

Finally, if you are seriously asking what this president has accomplished over 5 years, I would recommend reading the NY Times [endorsement][4] of him. Like him or not, it is a very well-written and thorough summary.

[1]: http://www.upworthy.com/the-complete-...
[2]: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01...
[3]: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2...
[4]: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opi...

Posted 4 April 2013, 2:56 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

Would please explain the monies that was given to these green energy companies that are now going bankrupt with nothing in the production lines. How about the monies given to foreign green energy companies with multi-millions of people out of work in America. I guess if your into the Nanny state you would love this guy. I not picking on you fatherof5 but that's what I get out of some of those articles that you have listed not matter how well there are written.

Posted 4 April 2013, 6:23 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

Yes, I'll explain. The government was acting like an angel investor - or even Bain Capital - in choosing a variety of "green" energy companies to invest in through loan guarantees and such. Out of the $90 billion invested, $1 billion has been lost. (Congress set aside $2.4 billion for losses, so he has out-performed the loss estimates thus far.)

These are risky ventures, but the hope is that the reward of newer energy technologies could be great and will move us away from dependence on the Middle East and on fossil fuels, which, even if you don't buy into the global warming concerns, are going to run out eventually -- or become prohibitively expensive as demand rises and supply peaks. I think it's worth the gamble. It is in America's interest. Solyndra and a a few others have failed, but overall, these are the anomalies.

Posted 4 April 2013, 10:59 p.m. Suggest removal

ImJustSayin says...

Out trots the uber-liberal for his 2 cents. After Obama taxes...make that 1 cent.

Posted 5 April 2013, 7:21 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

If you think companies like Solyndra are 'worth the gamble' you are not alone. Which then raises the question, why don't you and others who agree with you gamble with your own money? There's a casino called the stock market where we can each make our own judgments on such things, leaving the taxpayers' money to go for those old government standbys like cops, courts, defense, schools, and highways. Gambling should not be allowed on the taxpayers' dime.

The fact that such companies needed to be subsidized so heavily is pretty strong evidence that they are not and probably never will be economically viable. (Forget the spoliation of the environment from ranks of wind turbines visually polluting what used to be some of the most beautiful landscapes in the world.)

You say that out of $90 billion invested only $1 billion has been lost. Not so. Since all of the power produced or likely to be produced from such ventures is far more expensive than what it replaces, the entire $90 billion has been lost if we measure in any economically sensible way.

Posted 6 April 2013, 8:21 a.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

When taxpayers "gamble" we call it an investment. We invest in scientific research, space exploration, education and all sorts of things that we hope will pay dividends in the future.

As for the $90 billion "lost," I must differ with you. Those are largely loan guarantees, which are being paid back. Will the products produced by these companies pay additional dividends in the future by weening us off of foreign oil and creating more affordable and sustainable energy sources??? Or will they fizzle because they can't come up with a product that is affordable? Time will tell. But taxpayers only "lose" their investment if these companies default on the loans.

Posted 6 April 2013, 4:11 p.m. Suggest removal

ImJustSayin says...

Again.....only 88,000 jobs added last month. What a joke. Your guy doesn't care about jobs and this economy. He only wants votes so he can regain the house. So what's he out doing?? Pandering to gays, illegals, and tugging at heart strings for anti-gun laws.

Posted 5 April 2013, 7:18 a.m. Suggest removal

sohcammer says...

Bush was bad for our national debt, no argument there. But it astounds me when people say Obama has been better for the country after 5 years in office.

Obama has burdened us with 5 (soon to be 10) Trillion dollars more in new debt. 1 Trillion dollar budget deficits or more each year of the Obama presidency.

At some point you have to take responsibility for your own administration's fiscal shortcomings.

Posted 4 April 2013, 5:15 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

The growth of the debt has slowed significantly in each of the past three years. I know you don't like to hear this, but the reality is that we were in a free fall when Obama took over. The dramatic increases in spending (yes, under Bush) and the tax cuts, plus the recession's hit on revenues all combined for a "perfect" debt storm as Obama was taking office.

Then, if you are Obama, what do you do in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression? Do you suddenly raise taxes and cut entitlements so as to tackle the debt, but risk sending us into a depression? No. You lower taxes, as Obama did, and you put out some stimulus. If you look at the charts, this approach worked to stop the free fall and to point us in the right direction again. The charts are as plain as day.

But it wasn't enough. After 2009, the cluster &#%& that is Congress prevented any further real effort to address the economy. The economy is in much better shape than it was four years ago - any economist will tell you that. But it could have been better with a Congress that would have met Obama halfway. They wanted him out, so they did nothing to help. I don't blame him for that. There was nothing he could have done that would have gotten that bunch in the house to work with him. And of course, when he does use his executive powers to do what he can, he is accused of circumventing the constitution and being a dictator.

Posted 4 April 2013, 11:15 p.m. Suggest removal

ImJustSayin says...

Posted 5 April 2013, 7:21 a.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

A quote from your linked article reads: "It would be as much of a mistake to overreact to this number to the downside as it was to overreact to the February data to the upside," said Steve Blitz, chief economist at ITG Investment Research. "What we have in today's employment report is what the ISM data and the auto (not truck) sales indicated - the economy is expanding but not accelerating."

This contradicts nothing I've written. It does point to trouble ahead, I believe, if the sequester is left in place.

Posted 5 April 2013, 9:31 a.m. Suggest removal

sohcammer says...

Your partisanship is laughable. Anyone who still believes that we actually have a two party system is a dinosaur. The charts you refer to are in direct correlation to the Federal Reserve now making asset purchases with money created out of thin air to the tune of $85 billion/month of mortgage backed securities.

$85 billion dollars PER MONTH!!!! And the government is lamenting $85 billion in spending cuts. Anyone that hasn't figured out we're getting screwed by both parties is truly delusional. Ya - our economy is in much better shape than it was 4 years ago.

Lewis Black(who is a self proclaimed liberal) summed it up our two party system perfectly.

"The only thing dumber than a Republican or a Democrat is when these pricks work together. We have a two party system. The Democrats, which is a party of NO ideas and the Republicans, which is a party of BAD ideas. And how it works is the Republican stands up in Congress and says, " I GOT A REALLY BAD IDEA!!" And the Democrat says, "AND I CAN MAKE IT SH*TTIER!!"

FYI - most all federal politicians are whores to the Federal Reserve and Primary Dealers better known as our big banks. If Bush was so Bad and stupid then why didn't Obama change the chairman of the Federal Reserve when he had the chance?? Do some research instead of listening to CNN and FOX talking points.

Posted 7 April 2013, 10:23 a.m. Suggest removal

BluMtn says...

namvet60 reminds me of the Sean Hannity version of a chatty Cathy doll, but then again trying to get a Fox News viewer to think for himself is liking giving medicine to a dead man.

Posted 4 April 2013, 6:43 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

Your analogy is not very enlightening. I live my life and as your comment was stated you are not in the psychology field. So I go by observing and reading for my personal convictions and I suggest you do the same. As I have stated if you like the Nanny state have at it but I don't have to agree to anything you leeches abide by! This comment section is just that - comments and opinions which are just like what everyone has and everyone has an opinion.

Posted 5 April 2013, 6:03 a.m. Suggest removal

mtnthc says...

More like the Trash Talkin' Turleen doll

Posted 5 April 2013, 3:21 p.m. Suggest removal

kurtfr says...

What a thread we have going here. It's fun to take a look at the comments. I especially namvet60. At one point he writes, "Catch a clue instead of just trying to degrade somebody." That is a valid point. He then goes on to call some "missy", questions the citizenship of an MD and fellow veteran, and brands everyone who disagrees with him as leeches. Way to keep it classy my friend, way to keep it classy.

Posted 5 April 2013, 7:05 a.m. Suggest removal

ImJustSayin says...

Awww.....did he hurt your little feelings? Libtards have no problems dishing it out, but taking it is a different matter.

Posted 5 April 2013, 7:25 a.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

You missed his point.

Posted 5 April 2013, 9:43 a.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

I see you must not have read Pacos interpretations of (humor) to the exploitation of the previous administration. I didn't care for some of the things Bush did but he mostly certainly didn't hurt this country as bad as the Obama, Pelosi & Reid with the infamous AG Holder in the driver seat. I just call them like I see them - I do have to work so I can help pay for this Administrations vacations every month!

Posted 5 April 2013, 12:55 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

Just google how many vacation days Obama has taken compared to Bush. It isn't close. Bush took WAY more. This is just another smear with no basis in fact.

Posted 5 April 2013, 11:04 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

Have you checked out the cost between the 2? Try that on for size and you would find that Obamas cost over Bush you could feed the homeless on the difference for multiple periods of time.

Posted 6 April 2013, 3:53 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

For their first terms, it's 76 days for Obama and 180 for Bush. Hawaii IS more expensive for the presidential entourage per trip. Do you have a link that shows total costs to back up your claim? I couldn't find one.

It doesn't show total costs, but this one seems to be fairly balanced though: http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/27642...

Posted 6 April 2013, 8:14 p.m. Suggest removal

ImJustSayin says...


"Analysts suspected some of the weakness was due to tax hikes enacted in January"

Non-Fox News facts for some to choke on

Posted 5 April 2013, 7:43 a.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

This article also reads: "Washington's austerity drive could be stealing momentum from the economy."

This is referring to the Republican effort to tackle the debt before we are out of the effects of the recession.

Also, the tax hikes aren't specified. Are they the 2% expiration of Obama's 2009 payroll tax cuts, which he wanted to keep in place? Or are they the 4% tax hikes on folks making more than $1 million? So soon in the year, I would think it is the former. If so, blame Boehner's boys for those.

Posted 5 April 2013, 9:42 a.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

I always find it amazing the people that accuse everybody using Fox News for references obviously watch it a lot more than I do because they sure are well versed.

Posted 6 April 2013, 3:56 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

I'm very fond of numbers, and here's a set that's made a real impression on me. Pre-Obamacare, my insurance premium was $305 and my maximum annual out-of-pocket was $3,750. In part, this was because I preferred and bought a policy that provided true insurance, and therefore didn't cover predictable expenses like preventive care. Post Obama care, my premium is $457 (and likely to rise again in two months) and my maximum out of pocket is $10,000. The kind of policy I liked and was happy with for 35 years is no longer allowed thanks to Obama.

Obamacare is touted as one of Obama's big accomplishments, but it's led to huge premium increases, forcible changes in policies away from what the customers wanted, and its costs were vastly understated. Some accomplishment!

But you really lost me at "Saddam may have been a bad guy." You hate Bush but you're still ambivalent about Saddam? Your moral compass needs some serious adjustment.

Posted 5 April 2013, 6:03 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

Very thoughtful analogy Pearl - I must have the same policy for my wife. It has become such a state that it is impossible to get sick and if you do you better just move into an apartment and sell everything you have because they will get it sooner or later. Just part of the Nanny State that will completely devastate this great country.

Posted 5 April 2013, 7:04 p.m. Suggest removal

blueskies says...

Pearl Y, Obamacare doesn't kick in until 2014 so what you are seeing is your insurance company gouging you until then . We could see a reduction in premiums when the exchanges start up and there is more competition.

Before Obama, insurance rates were going up dramatically. You might recall, given it hit the news across the U.S., Blue Cross of California boosted its rates 39% around 2008. I was living in Los Angeles at the time and had Blue Cross. Every year I dreaded getting a letter from Blue Cross announcing its yearly premium hike which were always double digit hikes, 39% being the most egregious. Furthermore, I had a pre-existing condition which meant that if I wanted to stay insured, I had to stay in California with my existing Blue Cross policy. I had no freedom to move out of state until I reached Medicare age. We may not like Obamacare but it has eliminated some abuses and there is a good chance that it will be fine tuned well enough to take care of others like runaway hospital costs.

Posted 9 April 2013, 11:42 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

blueskies, a lot of Obamacare mandates kicked in last year, including the requirement that all policies provide coverage for preventive care, a certain number of office visits per year, and some prescription mandates, all things that I did not want covered under my insurance. Why would my insurance company decide to gouge me now, after 36 happy years together?

There is zero chance that Obamacare will ultimately save me money, or most middle class or upper class citizens, especially if we consider the cost of inconvenience, delay and aggravation. I concede the ability of government to do some things well if amply motivated and if waste is no object; we have a truly formidable defense establishment and are building a formidable internal security apparatus (not that the latter is without huge risks to our freedom). But it is simply not within the power of government to provide top quality services at moderate prices.

Posted 9 April 2013, 2:28 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

PearlY, you write: "There is zero chance that Obamacare will ultimately save me money...." I don't know your job status, but I would offer this to you: If you got cancer, God forbid, and lost your job (your fault? company downsizing? doesn't matter...), you would then be faced with finding insurance with a pre-existing condition.

Is there zero chance this could happen to you? (If so, then count your blessings, because life isn't so secure for most of us.)

This is one of many ways Obamacare could potentially be of benefit to you.

Posted 9 April 2013, 3:51 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Yes, there is zero chance of this happening short of Armaggedon, because my insurance has never been linked to my job (I've carried individual insurance with a major non-profit for the last 37 years) and I prioritize my premium over most other expenses, even when my business has occasionally operated at a loss. I'm only on the third car of my life at 60+ years old, and still don't own a flat screen TV, but I do pay my insurance premiums. This is an option that is available to probably 85% of Americans if they chose to budget it as a priority, although Obamacare will make it harder, as it is doing for me

I have family members who have had not one but two major cancer diseases, with policies just like mine, and have never had any problems continuing their coverage or getting their expenses covered. My minor brushes with cancer have never triggered a problem.

Obamacare is an effort to solve a problem that exists for 15% of the population by reducing the quality and increasing the cost of health care for the other 85%. I don't deny the problem, but the proposed solution makes no sense, unless the goal is that we should all be miserable together.

Posted 9 April 2013, 6:41 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

You have many blessings, some of which you have clearly earned with hard work and smart decisions, and some of which have certainly come to you through fortuitous events and circumstances.

What you describe, however, has not been available to 85% of Americans. Yes, 15% of the population has been without insurance, but a larger group has been on the verge of vulnerability through job loss, pre-existing conditions, and forms of poverty that are often beyond their control.

"There but for the grace of God go I," is a phrase that keeps me centered. Someday it could be me, and as much as you think you have your ducks in a row, none of us are completely safe from misfortune.

Posted 10 April 2013, 9:17 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

PearlY, it is impossible for me to know why your particular health plan costs rose, but it is certainly similar to the national trends for many years. This [link][1] shows those trends since 2007.

Unfortunately, cost containment is not one of the strengths of Obamacare. It insures more people and ensures that we are treated more fairly by insurance companies, but it still leaves insurance companies in the middle to make their profits in between us and our doctors. Many of us believe that since Medicare's overhead is so dramatically less than that of private insurers, that the public option (or "Medicare for all" as an OPTION) would have helped to drive down costs. Obama caved on this, so we didn't get to find out.

[1]: http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/ben...

Posted 5 April 2013, 11:24 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Not to worry, fatherof5, Obama didn't 'cave' on socialized medicine, he is simply acting strategically. It will be much easier - actually inevitable - to implement socialized medicine once the private health care sector has been destroyed. Starting in the 1960s with Medicare, gaining steam in the 1990s by layering mandate upon mandate and completely destroying the connection between risk and premium, that has been the strategy of progressives for fifty years. Obamacare is both unsustainable financially and guaranteed to make everybody unhappy with their coverage, instead of only the 20% who were unhappy in past years. The demand to 'do something' will accomplish the final transformation to fully socialized medicine.

As Winston Churchill once said, the vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings, the virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of the misery. On health care, I suspect it will take less than a decade, possibly two at most, before we are all virtuous. We can then look forward to a health care system that works about as well as the Washington DC school system, and like it, costs more than any other.

In other words, you'll get your wish.

Posted 6 April 2013, 8:07 a.m. Suggest removal

kurtfr says...

Churchill also said this, "The discoveries of healing science must be the inheritance of all. That is clear. Disease must be attacked, whether it occurs in the poorest or the richest man or woman simply on the ground that it is the enemy; and it must be attacked just in the same way as the fire brigade will give its full assistance to the humblest cottage as readily as to the most important mansion. Our policy is to create a national health service in order to ensure that everybody in the country, irrespective of means, age, sex, or occupation, shall have equal opportunities to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available."

He was talking about the National Health Care system in the U.K. which is single payer government system.

Posted 6 April 2013, 8:34 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

That quote is usually given with ellipses. I've always wondered what is being left out, but have never seen the full quote. Regardless, as much as I admire Churchill, he was not perfect by a long shot , and when he was wrong, he was often hugely wrong, as he was on this issue if the quote is accurate.

Posted 6 April 2013, 10:34 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

PearlY - you have great spunk and you will find that there are some people that dwell on the Nanny State and will live and thrive off of the governments misgivings as long as they have there unions and government unfunded entitlements. Not only the Federal government but a lot of states are going bankrupt due to public sector unions driving the taxpayers into extinction and will never figure why there benefits are drying up.

Posted 6 April 2013, 3:46 p.m. Suggest removal

blueskies says...

The British have Churchill to thank for establishing their National Health Service and Maggie Thatcher took great pride in it as well.
She wrote in her book, “I believed that the NHS was a service of which we could genuinely be proud.It delivered a high quality of care — especially when it came to acute illnesses — and at a reasonably modest unit cost, at least compared with some insurance-based systems.”

Posted 9 April 2013, 11:53 a.m. Suggest removal

loplover says...

One thing to remember when comparing the US to the UK, when it comes to healthcare, especially healthcare costs. The UK rewards its' doctors for encouraging patients to become healthier. In this country, the power of fast food, junk food, and Big Pharma together will never allow that to happen. They make too much money off our unhealthy habits. In Britain, if you are diabetic, your doctor, a nutritionist, and probably some other people as well will encourage you to lose weight, get healthier, and avoid those complications that are well-known to happen to the obese, like diabetes and all its' complications. In this country, besides the fact that we have a mentality that says "Nobody can tell me what to do with my body!" our doctors and hospitals make MORE money by performing amputations, kidney transplants, and all of the procedures that eventually wind up being required if diabetes is ignored too long.

Posted 13 April 2013, 10:51 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

Great Churchill quote, Kurt. As for socialism, language is tricky. There is the un-democratic, Soviet-style socialism/communism that banned religion and private property, and controlled people's lives. I unequivocally reject that model.

Then there is the "democratic-socialism" that is practiced in Europe and to some degree in the U.S.. Here, we have "socialistic" schools, fire departments, parks, air waves, police, military, etc.. In other words, we believe that there are specific fundamental services for the common good that we believe are best accomplished together. Unlike China or the former Soviet Union, we choose through a democratic process whether or not to continue these services.

Because we ALL need healthcare and because our system is far more expensive and achieves significantly [worse outcomes][1] than most other first-world nations, some of us believe we should add healthcare to a "common good" category that we do together. That isn't "feel good" liberalism; it is pragmatic, data-based problem-solving.

My favorite quote a couple of years ago was a conservative woman at my mother's church, who said: "That Obama better keep the government away from my Medicare!" Speaks for itself.

I highly recommend this [article][2] from a conservative American woman who moved to Canada.

[1]: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/...
[2]: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/permissi...

Posted 6 April 2013, 10:06 a.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

If socialism is so great and socialized medicine is so great why do all the canadians come to the states for health care. You socialists really rely on capitalism but continue to destroy it. Totally amazing! Forget your long drawn out anti-capitalism editorials.

Posted 6 April 2013, 3:49 p.m. Suggest removal

kurtfr says...

All Canadians? According to a Fraser Institute report in 2011 46,000 Canadians left the country for medical treatment. Canada's population is 30 million. So that is 0.15% of the population. Also are you saying there is no capitalism in Canada and Europe?

Posted 6 April 2013, 8:03 p.m. Suggest removal

wallyworldguy says...

the percentage is low because only the rich can afford to come here for treatment, and they do.

Posted 7 April 2013, 9:29 a.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

As usual the context is singled out - What you fail to recognize (most liberal socialists do) is that the 0.15% are canadian citizens that are in dire need of medical assistance and would have to wait for a lenghty period of time in canada but can get it done in the US.

Posted 7 April 2013, 2:49 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

As explained above, I'm not a socialist - and certainly not in the way that you understand that term. I do believe that on a limited number of things (schools, police, fire, roads, air waves, safety regulation, healthcare, FDA, parks, military, etc.), we can solve problems better collectively than we can individually. Most Americans agree with most of that list.

Canadians flocking here for healthcare, as Kurt points out above, is a myth. That said, to our credit, America is very good at treating cancer and some other special maladies. The problem is that if you can't afford insurance, these treatments may not be available to you, so you will die. That's one of the long-neglected disgraces that Obamacare is going to address.

Posted 6 April 2013, 8:26 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Just out of curiosity, what percentage of GDP do you believe SHOULD be controlled by the government? The 'limited number of things' you list is quite lengthy and combined federal, state and local governmental expenditures are probably hovering around 50% as we speak, even without full control over the health care sector, . If that level is 'limited' and acceptable to you, at what point would it be excessive in your judgment - 60%, 80%?

Posted 6 April 2013, 10:41 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

I honestly don't know what percentage of GDP it currently is or what would be the ideal ratio of public vs. private. I take the issues one at a time. I support public schools, public fire departments, public parks, etc..

When I look at the healthcare statistics around the world and compare them to ours, it just seems nuts to keep spending way more and keep getting worse outcomes. The rest of our economy - which is huge - should remain privatized.

Posted 7 April 2013, 1:11 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

If you took the government out of the issue we wouldn't be in the situation we are today. Allow health insurance to be purchased across state lines and you would see a definite Capaitalistic competition overnight.

Posted 7 April 2013, 2:53 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Hmmm. Don't you see how that could be a problem? I assume you agree that it would be extremely unwise for government to spend 150% of GDP on public services, no matter how desirable those services might be. Don't you realize that there are powerful interest groups who would benefit from that and need to be kept in check?

I seem to remember you mentioning "pragmatic, data-based problem solving" in one of your posts; how can you be pragmatic and data driven when you decline to think about a basic issue like how much of our total economy can wisely be entrusted to the whims and self-service of politicians?

You surely don't handle your own finances that way. Did you let your wife and each of your five children decide how much of the family income should be devoted to various items without regard to how much the total income was, and what other demands there might be on it?

And how about judging the effectiveness of spending? If the only answer to "kids need an education" is "raise taxes some more" you end up with the Washington DC school system, where only 15% of the students score proficient in math and reading, but the taxpayers are spending between $15,000 and $30,000 a year per student for such dismal results. When you hear data such as that, is the only thought that crosses your mind, "Gosh, we need to inject more money into that system!"? Is your mind totally closed to the possibility that it would not only be cheaper but more effective to shut down the schools and simply give a $10,000 reward to every DC parent who can produce an eight-year-old who can read and write, a 12-year old who can pass a basic science and algebra test, and an 18 year old who can write a few short essays on world history, English literature and the US Constitution? Yes, some kids would fall through the cracks but they do now, only it costs more.

I always hear people say that it's nuts that "we" spend more on health care than the rest of the world. Why does nobody complain that "we" spend more on pets, on opera, on energy drinks, on botox, on bungee-jumping or for that matter, on education?

I, for one, am spending a lot more on health care now that Obama has trashed my insurance plan, and it's raised my blood pressure too, so my outcomes are worse too. And I know that some of the reasons other countries pay less are, 1) we pay for most of the world's medical innovation and, like rich people always do, we get the shiny new gadgets first when they're most expensive, 2) most of us can get in to see a doctor when we want to, can get expensive treatments if we want them, and can sue if we're unhappy, which citizens of other countries have a much harder time doing, and 3) we pay our medical professionals much better.

Well, I need to get back to work. I'm one of those who doesn't get paid if I don't produce.

Posted 9 April 2013, 12:20 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

While I don't know the precise and ideal percentage of GDP for public services (do you?), there are checks and balances on where that figure can/should go. In addition, I try to advocate for services that aren't "all cost" and "no benefit." Obamacare, for example, is roughly deficit neutral, though it accomplishes much.

You've written a lot here, and in an ideal world there is much here to which I would like to respond. However, you also have a lengthy (and thoughtful) post for me below where you've challenged my integrity, so I'd better hit that one. :)

Posted 9 April 2013, 3:38 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

I apologize. I should not have referred to your integrity. One can have integrity even if one lacks the cold-bloodedness or is too squeamish to look ugly facts in the face. I guess what I'm looking to find out is whether you can admit to me and to yourself that getting what you want in the political arena requires threatening other individuals with violence to get them to cough up the bucks your desired programs need. That is, after all, what laws, including tax laws, are all about. Otherwise, they'd be called suggestions.

Posted 9 April 2013, 7:20 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

Apology accepted, though I wasn't offended. I believe the policies I advocate for should not be forced on others unless - through our democratic process - those policies are enacted into laws. I should not "get what I want" unless "what I want" gets turned into laws through a process validated by our Constitution. The same goes for laws I don't like.

My judgment on most of what I advocate for is that we get back more than we invest in the first place. Fixing Wa-Hi is a good example of this. Yes, there is an upfront cost, but I believe there is also better return when we invest intelligently in education.

As for "threatening" folks, I may choose to not to pay my taxes or follow certain laws, but there are consequences for that choice that I should be willing to accept. Thoreau did this, as did Gandhi and MLK, Jr.. I don't like every place where my taxes go, but then it is incumbent on me to fight to elect representation that will make change. (I'm not sure I follow your use of the word "violence.")

Sadly, there are parts of the system that feel broken...or nearly so. Big money interests have a far greater voice than you or I. Much of the media, which is supposed to keep the government honest by keeping us informed, is deeply flawed by its corporate interests, its blatant biases, and its shallow reporting.

I'm not sure if I've answered your question or not.

Posted 10 April 2013, 8:58 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Not really.

With all respect, you are still refusing to look one key fact in the face: Even if you can get 50% of voters to go along with you (or 60% in some cases) to impose or raise a tax or pass some other law, those who voted against it will still be required to obey under threat of violence (confiscation of property or prison).

If you don't follow my use of the word "violence", maybe it's because you want to pretend to yourself that because the threat of violence will be done lawfully, it somehow ceases to be violent. Before December 1865, slavery was lawful in some states, but you wouldn't argue it was non-violent, would you? Capital punishment is lawful in some jurisdictions. Does that make it non-violent?

I've always wondered why it is so hard for progressives to admit that violence underlies most laws, no matter how democratically enacted. And I keep trying to get them to face up to it in the hopes that they will then realize the need to be more restrained in its application. Maybe that is exactly why they refuse to do it: they don't want the feel-good buzz of the laws they pass to be tinged with regret at the means that have to be used.

So the answer I'm looking for is, "Yes, I realize that the threat of violence is how my desired laws will be enforced. " (Notice the 'force' part of 'enforced'?) Once we're both clear on the means, we're starting from a common understanding to talk about the ends.

Posted 11 April 2013, 9:29 a.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

I use "violence" to describe a sort of physical altercation or assault, but if you mean "enforced by law," then yes, I believe our laws should be enforced by law. I support that notion. If you drink and drive, you should be arrested and your car impounded. If I refuse to pay my taxes, then there should be consequences for that as well.

Do I acknowledge that we almost always have a majority instead of a unanimous consensus for the laws that are passed? Yes. Those who lose are obligated to follow those laws, even if they didn't support them. I'm not sure how else it could work.

Posted 11 April 2013, 1:14 p.m. Suggest removal

blueskies says...

Posted 7 April 2013, 2:01 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

By the way, in 2005 the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons reported that as many 500,000 Americans sought care overseas. That is a similar percentage of our population who left the U.S. as Canadians who left Canada.

Posted 6 April 2013, 8:34 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

The largest word in the world IF - answer a comment with a question - well if the frog had longer legs in wouldn't bump his butt.

Posted 7 April 2013, 2:56 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

It is a self-delusion of progressives that they always speak for everyone (as in your claims about what "we" believe) and that forcibly taking away from some people to give to others is the same thing as accomplishing things "together."

The lady at your church was lied to by progressives her whole life, and led to believe that she had paid for her Medicare through her contributions, just as many people believe they paid for their Social Security. You and I know better, of course; you see her comment as ironic, I see it as tragic.

Posted 6 April 2013, 10:54 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

Progressives "always speak for everyone" is pretty sweeping language, PearlY. I wrote that "most" Americans support "most" of that list (public schools, parks, roads, military, Medicare, food inspection, fire, police, etc.). I used "most" twice in order to avoid looking like I was speaking for everyone.

However, if you believe the citizenry shouldn't be taxed for the services in that list, which is what I think you mean by "forcibly taking away from some people to give to others," then I'd be interested to know what services you would eliminate and/or how we would pay for them without taxes.

Posted 7 April 2013, 1:22 p.m. Suggest removal

blue_streak says...

That's an interesting list you've compiled, 5Dad, and I'll be curious to see what PearlY or NamVet come up for services they think shouldn't be paid for by "forcibly taking" i.e. tax collections.

It's easy to parrot Ayn Rand in general terms about the evils of taxation, but much less popular to describe the toll roads, private parks, gated communities, and private security that would replace public services in a libertarian paradise.

Just to return to the beginning of the thread, I see that Roberta has published another remarkably content-free diatribe in today's paper.

I keep wondering what specific program or policy of the Obama administration she thinks has done more damage to the country than the trillion-dollar (and still counting) war in Iraq?

(And no, Roberta, the Bush record is not "moot" . . . just a couple of months ago, our Congress tied itself in knots trying to overcame the damage done by the "Bush-era" tax cuts.)

Posted 7 April 2013, 2:56 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

Your ranting mister - I do not have a problem with taxing for the essentials of the life of a city (police, fire, streets & upkeep) but to tax and dwell on paying late raises to totally throw pensions out of reality is crazy. There are a lot of people retiring at an early age and drawing a large retirement at the expense of the taxpayers that are struggling just to maintain a family. Trough feeders think that there is a never ending money supply. Also what drives me nuts is that you people only prophecy on Pres Bush but what did he inherit from Pres Clinton with the exception of a dirty White House? A lot of the problems in the early Bush Admin was started years before in the Clinton household. Grab a clue bud!

Posted 11 April 2013, 6:45 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

fatherof5, I was responding to your original post in which you said, "In other words, we believe that there are specific fundamental services for the common good that we believe are best accomplished together. " I'm glad to see you qualified that in a later post.

I'll try to answer your question about services and how to pay for them if you'll answer a set of them for me, just to see if we can have an honest diologue.

Do you agree that:

a) our current system of taxation taxes some individuals much more than others, and the inequality bears no relation to the use of services by those individuals? Examples: Bill Gates probably has paid far more in taxes to support public schools than you have, even though his three children will probably receive a private education and all five of yours may have received public educations. You and I may have paid taxes for food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, etc., even though we've never used and do not qualify for such services.

b) it is therefore fair to say that this system of taxation takes from some people to give to others?

c) payment of taxes is compulsory, not voluntary, and the failure to pay taxes as imposed can result in the deprivation of liberty and property, and in extreme cases, such as resistance to these deprivations, the deprivation of life?

d) it is therefore fair to say that this system of taxation is forcible, i.e., under threat of force or violence?

I find that progressives are often reluctant to own up to the realities of the system they advocate.

And by the way, I'm not against ALL taxation, and I'm not afraid to own up to the reality that I therefore acquiesce in, and even demand, the threat of violence against others to advance some particular goals of mine.

Let's see if you have the integrity to do the same, and then we can talk about what particular services we each believe warrant that violence.

Posted 9 April 2013, 11:30 a.m. Suggest removal

loplover says...

Thank you for providing links. Perhaps if more of these posters did the same, it wouldn't look as if they were just quoting "facts" from that powerhouse of truthful information and objective journalism, Faux "news."

Posted 13 April 2013, 10:54 p.m. Suggest removal

sohcammer says...

Any partisanship on this board or otherwise is laughable. Anyone who still believes that we actually have a two party system is a dinosaur. The Federal Reserve now making asset purchases with money created out of thin air to the tune of $85 billion/month of mortgage backed securities.

$85 billion dollars PER MONTH!!!! And the government is lamenting $85 billion in spending cuts. Anyone that hasn't figured out we're getting screwed by both parties is truly delusional. Ya - our economy is in much better shape than it was 4 years ago.

Lewis Black(who is a self proclaimed liberal) summed up our two party system perfectly.

"The only thing dumber than a Republican or a Democrat is when these pricks work together. We have a two party system. The Democrats, which is a party of NO ideas and the Republicans, which is a party of BAD ideas. And how it works is the Republican stands up in Congress and says, " I GOT A REALLY BAD IDEA!!" And the Democrat says, "AND I CAN MAKE IT SH*TTIER!!"

FYI - most all federal politicians are whores to the Federal Reserve and Primary Dealers better known as our big banks. If Bush was so Bad and stupid then why didn't Obama change the chairman of the Federal Reserve when he had the chance?? If this is making any of the simple minded drool, do some research instead of listening to CNN and FOX talking points.

Posted 7 April 2013, 7:06 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

I agree to a certain extent especially about the Federal Reserve - but if all the politicians and government employees were put on Social Security and Medicare instead of on separate accounts you would see a big difference in this country today.

Posted 8 April 2013, 6:24 a.m. Suggest removal

blueskies says...

Federal govt employees are covered by FERS since 1984 but federal elected officials, including Congress, pay into Social Security and Medicare just like much of the rest of the nation: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history... .

Posted 9 April 2013, 11:07 a.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

The politicians may pay into Social Security and Medicare but they are not covered by the two. They have there own voted in pensions and health care that do not cost the same as the good ole tax payer. That's the reason they got so nervous on Obamacare because they forgot to exempt themselves and had to go back and amend the legislation.

Posted 9 April 2013, 2:55 p.m. Suggest removal

MyFamNews says...

You are wrong namvet

Posted 11 April 2013, 2:53 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

A great Margaret Thatcher quote "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of OTHER peoples money"!

Posted 8 April 2013, 1:12 p.m. Suggest removal

dukhuntr says...

You people are truly what the city of Walla Walla should be proud. You have nothing but bickering to comment on. I have read this thread a couple of times... it is no wonder that you people elect John Turner as Sheriff and want to support a city council that can't prioritize and make the required meetings, but also have such small minds that you have a outside company come in and paint over a mural, however you still support the worthless crap they call " ART " on some Main Street corners. It just proves that this city must have some rich very well educated idiots.

Posted 8 April 2013, 11:28 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

Namvet, I don't know if dukhuntr is insulting you and your ilk or me and my ilk....or maybe all of us together. :)

Posted 9 April 2013, 3:59 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

Well I'm not even going to guess but I didn't vote for Turner and I haven't made a comment (yes I know I've made comments on everything else) on the mural and I'm not rich - so I'm not going any farther than that. lol :)

Posted 9 April 2013, 6:39 p.m. Suggest removal

pdywgn says...

I voted for Turner. So far I haven't had one reason to feel bad for that vote! The former undersheriff is doing her time and absolutely no one has attempted to question the Chief of Police in College Place as to why he didn't notice that they were living way outside of their means.

Posted 10 April 2013, 2:11 a.m. Suggest removal

barracuda says...

At least that has been posted publicly.... Remember the FBI, and WSP did the investigation. If there was nothing to report to the prosacuter, they didnt report it publically! Believe me... I bet he got investigated!

Posted 11 April 2013, 5:08 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

PearlY, in one of the embedded replies above you asked the following (I'll reply to each in all-caps, but please know that I'm not shouting):

YOU WROTE: Do you agree that:

a) our current system of taxation taxes some individuals much more than others, (YES) and the inequality bears no relation to the use of services by those individuals? (NOT NECESSARILY) Examples: Bill Gates probably has paid far more in taxes to support public schools than you have, even though his three children will probably receive a private education and all five of yours may have received public educations. You and I may have paid taxes for food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, etc., even though we've never used and do not qualify for such services.

b) it is therefore fair to say that this system of taxation takes from some people to give to others? (SURE, BUT IT ISN'T AS SIMPLE AS "RICH TO POOR")

c) payment of taxes is compulsory, not voluntary, and the failure to pay taxes as imposed can result in the deprivation of liberty and property, (YES) and in extreme cases, such as resistance to these deprivations, the deprivation of life? (LIKE PRISON? LIKE DEATH? YOU DON'T GET THE DEATH PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO PAY TAXES...ASK WILLIE NELSON.)

d) it is therefore fair to say that this system of taxation is forcible, i.e., under threat of force or violence? (IT'S FORCIBLE UNDER THREAT OF PROSECUTION)


Posted 11 April 2013, 7:06 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

Continued from above: PearlY, while I must stipulate that companies like G.E. pay no taxes and Mitt Romney paid a lower percentage of his taxes (14%?) than many of us middle class folks, I do acknowledge that most wealthy people pay more in taxes than poorer people. Our progressive tax code is designed to make that happen. (Even a flat tax should make that happen.)

Do poorer people get most of the benefit from the wealthy people's money? That's complicated, but I'm going to say no. In your example, Bill Gates doesn't receive a direct benefit from his education tax dollars if he sends his kids to private school, but indirectly he does benefit enormously if we have a thriving public education system. So, how much of his $40 billion dollars net worth can be attributed to our public education system versus the $10 million ? (I don't know the number) Gates has personally spent on Washington state public schools. I'm guessing it's a huge net gain for him to have an educated work force AND an educated customer base.

Take the Koch brothers for another example. Of the $10 million (?) they spend each year in taxes, how much goes to the military that protects their wealth? Compare someone with a net worth of $5,000 to someone with a net worth of $5 billion. If everything were privatized, how much more would the $5 billionaire have to spend on fire protection, police protection, and military protection to protect his assets than the poor person with a net worth of $5,000? Answer: a lot more.

Does Sam Walton's family benefit from our highway system more than I do? Yes. A LOT more.

That said, do the Walton's need a welfare safety net as much as I might? Nope. I need that more.

Also worth noting here that the 8%+ payroll taxes "everyone" pays are really only taxed up to the first $100,000 or so. Thus, someone making $60,000 per year pays 8% in payroll taxes, whereas someone making $1 million pays less than 1%. If you make $20 million, like Mitt Romney, (and assuming these were "wages" which they mostly were not) you pay less than .05% for payroll taxes, compared to the 8% I pay. This fact often gets left out of the discussion.

All in all, the wealthy have benefited - and continue to benefit tremendously from our nation's infrastructure of roads and services. There fore, I do not believe it is fair to say that taxes are simply a way of the rich being forced to give to the poor. That is a happy narrative for any wealthy folks who would delude themselves that they got where they are purely on their own efforts and initiative - and with no luck or help from anyone else.

Surely many wealthy people - especially the self-made wealthy - deserve a great deal of credit, but not all of it. Their tax dollars have also created a system of education, roads, communication, health, and protection - all of which enabled them to thrive.

Posted 11 April 2013, 7:28 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

fatherof5, you're the one who brought the issue of wealth transfers being in the direction of rich to poor. I didn't; I merely referred to some people's money being taken for the purpose of being given to others.

In point of fact, I believe many progressive policies succeed in transferring the money of poorer people to wealthier people. The Social Security system, for instance, for many decades transferred wealth from blacks, who on average had lower incomes, to whites, because of the longer average working life and shorter post-retirement life of blacks. The average income of those who receive the proceeds of the gas tax is higher than that of those who pay it. There are many other such instances.

Bill Gates and other wealthy people might benefit enormously if we had a thriving education system, but we don't. Our public education system is so abysmal, the average high school graduate today is less educated than I was when I finished the sixth grade. That is not entirely the fault of its being public; it's partly a side effect of the opening of greater employment opportunities to women, but whatever the reason, it is now a major drain of resources for a truly puny return. But the school buildings are sure fancier.

Anyway, it's been nice talking with you, but I see from your answer to my question on violence that we are not going to be able to do much more than throw words at each other, without really engaging ideas. That holds little interest for me, so I'll call it quits now on this thread. Regards.

Posted 12 April 2013, 12:55 a.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

That's fine. I really wasn't following you on the violence thing.

On your most recent post, though, I will say that our education system takes on more challenges than most countries in an attempt to educate "all" kids, as opposed to selected kids, like they do in much of Europe and Asia. Even with that added challenge, most communities rate their schools as good-to-excellent, but believe education is crumbling "elsewhere."

Society has changed though, and I don't think we're sending as many focused kids to school with support at home as we used to. That does have an impact, no doubt.

Regardless of our differences, I appreciate your civility and wish you well.

Posted 12 April 2013, 6:18 p.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment