I will be going to the march in DC on 9-12. I am fed up with politics as usual and the disdain for American values shown by Obama. I hope to meet some of you there. Hopefully Harkonen will be there. I did meet AOW & Frog Burger.
This march is about the failure of Obama to respect the values of the founding fathers. I am an American and do not care to reside in EU lite. My values come from our founding fathers and the opinions of shoppers in Sam's Club are more important to me than the imbeciles in a social science faculty lounge.
Americans want jobs, not a nanny state. Americans want immigration laws enforced. Americans want a safe country and criminals behind bars. Americans want an end to regressive taxation.
Americans want judges who respect the Constitution and do not look to foreign law when deciding cases in America.
Those of you who can not make it are encouraged to participate in local events. Remember there will be infiltrators who are not as creative as our ingenious Protest Warriors. There may be a few
dullards , but a good time will be had by a peaceful expression of our first amendment rights. Thousands of people chanting Acorn Sucks is also worth the trip.
12 comments:
Beak,
Let's plan on meeting up.
Maybe MJB will attend again?
MJB is a good kid. I'm hoping Steve and perhaps a few extras go. I would like to go back to that same restaurant. Any place that serves fried Zucchini with a killer Ranch dip is high on my list.
I have a great plot script for Frogburger. I will tell you off line, but the folks at work loved the idea. They were in stitches and loved the concept.
Americans want jobs and they want Obama to provide them but they don't want a nanny state?
Beak, come back when you and the rest of the Baggers can make sense.
Ah yes, as a commie you forget that there are ways for the government to generate job creation in the private sector.
You are an F student in the classroom
of life.
Ducky-
It's very simple. The government just has to cut taxes, do away with any unnecessary regulations, and reduce the size and scope of the federal government. One of the first things any business person figures into the equation is his potential tax burden and regulatory obligations. This tells him how much he should invest in the way of employees. It lets him know off the bat what his expansion potential is.
Common sense should tell you if he's paying a tax rate of twenty-seven percent, he can hire a lot more people than he can hire if he's paying a tax rate of thirty-four percent. At the lower rate, he can add to the employment numbers, and can possibly expand his business at some point, thus adding even further to the employment numbers and, by the way, to the tax base.
Plus, even if he is a successful business entrepreneur, he is still less likely to expand-thus NOT adding to employment and to the tax base-if his taxes and regulations are too much.
Thus, high taxes and too many regulations just defeats the purpose of providing taxes to the government, in addition of being a drain on the engine of job creation.
Of course, I think you actually know all this, you just enjoy being a wanker.
How can they do that without spending and increasing the deficit?
Something that Baggers oppose.
You're in a Catch-22 and you are totally out to lunch.
Ducky-
How is cutting unnecessary regulations and reducing the government going to result in increased government spending? It would have the opposite effect, it would result in a decrease in spending. Much of government spending is related to the cost of overseeing and enforcing burdensome, unnecessary regulations.
Regulations cost money. So do government employees. The idea that reducing them would save money is self-explanatory, and more than makes up for any tax reductions, provided the government streamlines the bureaucracy that remains, which becomes exponentially easier to do with eliminations of unnecessary regulations.
It also makes it easier on businesses who are now hamstrung by foolish regulations.
The resultant increase in employment would at the same time increase the governments tax receipts. More people to work equals more people paying taxes. But these same workers paying less taxes equals more spending in the economy, equals even more business growth, equals more taxes collected from businesses. Who since they are still paying less of a percentage of their income in taxes and burdensome, unnecessary regulations, might well expand and hire yet more who will then pay taxes and spend money in the economy.
The worse thing that would happen by reducing government would be government worker lay-offs, but that can be eased by buy-out of long time employees who are nearing retirement, and by reducing the rate of new hires.
I would think you could understand all that, but go ahead and do some more wanking if you must. You know you want to.
Nostradumbass said:
"You're in a Catch-22 and you are totally out to lunch."
And you're a total fuckwad and a waste of skin. But I'm too polite to mention it.
PT, don't waste your time trying to argue with the dumbshit. He's just a mentally deficient bomb thrower.
Warren-
Well, you know, he claims he's a Catholic, so I figure maybe there's a small glimmer of hope somewhere that he would want what is really best for the biggest number of people, so I have to step up and make my case to him. You'll note he didn't really make any kind of reasoned argument against my explanation. That's because he has none. "You are totally out to lunch" is not much of a debating point.
Maybe Duckie needs an exorcist.
Come on Duckie, what would Comrade Christ do?
Pagan, once you write that "it is very simple" then you are consigned to the Libertarian sand box to amuse yourself while the adults try to resolve this.
There is nothing "very simple" about the world economy nor is there anything "very simple" about the numerous conflicts of interest present.
This "tinkle down" theory has been tried and found lacking.
Warren, didn't they tell you to take the proper dosage in rahab?
Thew only thing wrong with Reagan's economy was the deficit. Now you will probably say the deficit was due to tax cuts. The fact is, the deficit was due to there not being enough government reduction and spending cuts.
That was partly Reagan's fault for the increase in military spending, but it was also the Democratic Congress's fault for fighting him tooth and nail in making other spending cuts.
Fast forward to Bush, and you had the same situation on steroids. You had massive tax cuts couple by massive spending increases that was funded mainly by borrowing. Thus, he added greatly to an already massive debt.
Now Obama comes along and throws more money after bad, worse than any two presidents, maybe any three, ever did.
So you have stimulus money that is mainly targeted at government workers, state and federal. What private sector jobs he might have saved is almost all union jobs. That is the only jobs he's really concerned about.
I want to save union jobs too, but sorry, that's just not good enough. Union jobs make up less than a fifth of the overall economy, and there's no way in hell spending is going to create or save more jobs in the private sector. And before long, what union jobs he's saved will eventually crash and burn anyway. We might be headed toward another long depression, or maybe even another great one, but this fool thinks he can keep printing money and raising taxes on "the rich" and its going to work out.
It's either unbelievably incompetent, or he's angling for some long-term redistribution scheme, hoping for massive business failures so he can rebuild from the ground up with the new beneficiaries beholden to him and the Democrats.
Of course, under Obama, while there might be some new business "success stories", there will be few new millionaires, as under the Obama system, you should only be allowed to make so much money. At the end of the day, there will be far more failures than successes, I'm afraid, but of course he will trumpet the successes.
I believe in tax AND spending cuts, because I am realistic enough to know that without reductions in government spending and government growth, tax cuts are counter-productive over the long haul.
Where me and conservative Republicans part company is in military spending. I think there is going to have to be reductions-massive ones-before its going to work. We've dug ourselves a hole, and before we are going to be able to dig our way out, there is going to have to be sacrifices all the way around when it comes to government spending. The military is not an exception. We can't afford to let it be an exception anymore.
Nostradumbass said:
Quack quack quack.
"Americans want jobs and they want Obama to provide them but they don't want a nanny state?
And on
And on
And on...
Ever hear of a straw man? It must wear you out just setting them up and knocking them down.
You're not pointing out anyone's ignorance but your own.
You're black hole stupid. Your mere presence sucks the intelligence out of a conversation.
Post a Comment