T1B

National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers on Sunday’s “Meet the Press": “I don't think there's any question they [the Bush tax cuts] have to be repealed. The country can't afford them for the long run.”

What ??? We can afford to print up a trillion or more $$ and throw it around like monopoly money--but can't "afford" tax cuts ???
We are truly living in troubled times.

Don't worry, Wolfman. People who shit out more intelligence than you could gain in a lifetime are working on the matter.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:People who shit out more intelligence than you could gain in a lifetime are working on the matter.

Do Mgo and Screwed share a troll?

Lemme see if I got this right.

We can't afford tax cuts, but, we have to print up trillions to spend on stimulus?

Tax cuts would be a stimulus.

Tax cuts have historically shown time after time that they result in increased revenue.

Something here doesn't compute. The problem is is that all spending needs to be "targeted". In other words, cretins like wolfie ain't smart enough to spend their jack the right way. We need really smart folks like Mgo mentioned to do it for us.

Does that pretty much cover it? I'm not sure either seeing as I'm one of those cretin types that has the crazy notion that I should decide where to spend my fukking money.

We can afford to print up a trillion or more $$ and throw it around like monopoly money

Actually, no, we can't - at some point that is going to come home to roost.

We can't even get people to tell us how it's being spent.

PSUFAN wrote: We can't even get people to tell us how it's being spent.

It's been spent propping up the corporate leeches at Citi-group, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Merrill Lynch, etc.... so they can pay multi-million dollar executive bonuses and buy new corporate jets.

Meanwhile, the average schmuck who can't afford his mortgage because he lost his job due to the shit economy, which was caused by the above mentioned leeches, can go fuck himself.

Pretty simple.

Well, only those making above $250K will have to worry about this. B. Hussein Obama promised that during the campaign.


If true this is just crazy. We are seeing earnings going down and at the same time the "change" will be to take more of our money, so in the end we have even less.

Sadly, I don't think B. Hussein Obama has to do anything to raise taxes. The Bush tax cuts weren't permanent and had a sunset date. Unless Congress has made them permanent, B. Hussein Obama needs only sit back and let them sunset and then blame Bush for not making them last longer.

We should all take a moment and thank our lucky stars for The Messiah.

I mean, the fed needs to impliment "economic stimulus" NOW!...


By taking $1 trillion+ and giving it to the wealthiest of the wealthy.


Ronald Reagan would be so fucking proud... at least he made the elite build bombs to earn their checks.

Then again, heaven fucking forbid that to interject cash flow into the US economy...


here's a radical fucking concept...

If The Corrupt One Part 44 wants to put a trillion dollars into the economy to "stimulate" it...

Last year, $1 trillion is around what the American People... you know, those People who actually own this country, and grant rights to the government, not the other way around....


But the People paid right around $1 trillion in personal income tax.



If Messiah wasn't such a corrupt fucking LIAR with horrid ulterior motives, he'd just call off the IRS for a year, and excuse all legal residents from paying income tax this year.


BINGO. 1 trill directly into the economy. No beauracracy siphoning funds straight off the top, no mismanagement of funds, no special interests fighting over the carcass of our Free Nation...


Just a straight up, right now influx of 1 trillion fucking dollars, without all that pesky inflation and interest. Who knows, Congress might even do the right thing, and try to rope in spending to make that 1 trillion fucking dollars a win/win scenario, without having to pay it back to foreign interests, or to fire off the printing press in overdrive.

Straight into the pockets of those who need it most... and they can catch up on their overdue mortgage, which puts money into the lending institutions to loan out (remember the story we were told about why we need to pony up for a bailout? Seems like a simple solution to me).

But Messiah isn't going to do that, since that takes feeding special interests out of the equation, and doesn't fit with his philosophy of some people being more equal than others.


Change you can't fucking believe in, since we haven't actually seen this "change" yet.


His tangled web of lies is worse than any of the lies Bush told to prop up his pet special interests... and Bush was pretty fucking bad.


Be warned, My People -- this snake oil salesman is on his way to becoming the most corrupt POS we've seen yet. Having a shitty president was not a good excuse to vote in an even worse one... which Messiah will prove to be.

Rack 88 ! I like it. But give everyone an extension on the 2 week free-for-all as long as the corporate leeches War Wagon mentioned are the victims. I think they should extend it indefinately on those corrupt CEO fucks all the way down to their executive administrative assistant in house whores until the mob's bloodlust has been satiated.

War Wagon wrote:

PSUFAN wrote: We can't even get people to tell us how it's being spent.

It's been spent propping up the corporate leeches at Citi-group, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Merrill Lynch, etc.... so they can pay multi-million dollar executive bonuses and buy new corporate jets.

Meanwhile, the average schmuck who can't afford his mortgage because he lost his job due to the shit economy, which was caused by the above mentioned leeches, can go fuck himself.

Pretty simple.

You CAN blame Bush for this one.

88 wrote:Letting people keep their money instead of sending it to the IRS would make rich people richer and poor people poorer. See, poor people don't pay taxes. So letting them keep their own money screws them hard. Rich people pay tons of taxes, so letting them keep their money rewards them for being rich. Never forget that progressive tax rates are intended to redistribute wealth from those who have it to those who don't.

And as always, it's the middle class who have to carry the bulk of the tax burden for both the rich and poor.

I'm not sure at what income level one is defined as "rich", but I know that a family making $80,000 a year misses the $8,000 tax far more that the one bringing in 200k misses 25k.

Mister Bushice wrote:You CAN blame Bush for this one.

I'll adress this one with a quote:

mvscal wrote:
Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution

While W was no friend of the Constitution, he didn't undermine it that badly.


Which spending bill did W pass unilaterally again?

mvscal wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:You CAN blame Bush for this one.

Sure, if you're an idiot.

He signed the bailout and did not require ANY oversight or accounting on how those funds of ours ere to be spent.

There was the "suggestion" they be used to help homeowners.

War Wagon wrote: And as always, it's the middle class who have to carry the bulk of the tax burden for both the rich and poor.

Speaking of Article 1, remember when there was rules that made the 16th Amendment unConstitutional?

How odd that an improperly ratified "amendment" flew in the face of an established principle:

Article 1, Section 9 wrote:No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

But following the Law of the Land precluded an explosively-expanding federal government, so that rule-of-law had to go. BTW-it violates the 14th Amendment, as well. The 16th is truly an amendment based in double-speak.

Mister Bushice wrote: He signed the bailout and did not require ANY oversight or accounting on how those funds of ours ere to be spent.

See if you can figure out why you're an idiot... this time.



While he was certainly complicit in the theft, he's so far down the totem-of-blame, it's a non-issue.

Dinsdale wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote: He signed the bailout and did not require ANY oversight or accounting on how those funds of ours ere to be spent.

See if you can figure out why you're an idiot... this time.

House Approves, Bush Signs Bailout Bill

In a stark reversal of Monday's vote, the House approved the Senate-passed version of a financial market rescue bill. By a vote of 263 to 171, the House passed a $700 billion plan to buy up troubled financial assets, patch the AMT for a year, and extend dozens of expiring tax cuts (some for a year, some for two). While the final cost to taxpayers of the bailout is impossible to estimate, the tax portion of the bill will reduce revenues by $107 billion.

Moments after passage, President Bush signed the bill into law.

While he was certainly complicit in the theft, he's so far down the totem-of-blame, it's a non-issue.

No. The buck stopped at his desk, and he signed it away without requiring accountability BEFORE handing out the cash. Now they are halfway through spending it and the GAO has no idea how it was spent because the TARP office was less than 25% staffed when it was signed into law.

You know TARP? Those are the ones who were going to oversee the whole mess.

Typical half ass Bush administration bullshit. when you have an idiot in charge, you can't expect much more.

Mister Bushice wrote:No. The buck stopped at his desk, and he signed it away without requiring accountability BEFORE handing out the cash.

Two things must be made clear here:

1) I'm the farthest thing from a Bush Apologist you'll ever find, and

2) You're a fucking idiot.


There's two things you've proven to be quite unfamiliar with (and both are of extreme importance to you not making a fool out of yourself any worse than you have):

1) Article 1, Section 7 (which unlike you, I don't need to look up)

2) Math


Get back to me if you get a clue into Round 2 of your stupidity. 20 votes against a lame duck is nothing, you fucking idiot.

Bush was a spectator in this one, and had no chance of being in any other role.

Birdy wrote:What exactly are you doing for this economy? Why haven't you found a way to power your vehicle off of the protein compounds pumped into your face daily?

I can't believe I am going to do this... but rack that. ^

Obama may not be able to inspire the crippled to get up out of their wheelchairs (okay... maybe that's the VP), but he sure as fuck inspired this trainwreck of a poster to mash out something that actually made me laugh.

Change?

Dinsdale wrote: There's two things you've proven to be quite unfamiliar with (and both are of extreme importance to you not making a fool out of yourself any worse than you have):

1) Article 1, Section 7 (which unlike you, I don't need to look up)

2) Math


Get back to me if you get a clue into Round 2 of your stupidity. 20 votes against a lame duck is nothing, you fucking idiot.

The bill required 2/3s majority in the house and senate to become a law without the president being able to stop it. It got that in the senate, but not the house, which was closer to 60%. Bush had the chance to ensure that no cash went out without absolute assurances that oversight would be enforced, instead of all the pretty language and convoluted sweeteners that were added to acquire enough votes. He never intended to do anything BUT sign whatever got to his desk and you know it. The first version was stopped by the house criminals until they got their own agendas satisfied.

NONE of them cared about accountability and to this DAY that has not happened. The banks got to spend it any way they wanted to. It is unlikely that we will ever know where $350 billion of our tax money actually went.

And he held the final stop, when he was poised with the pen to sign that piece of shit. He could have sent it back based on the house vote alone IF he wanted to.

Bush was a spectator in this one, and had no chance of being in any other role.

He was betting on it saving his pathetic legacy and was too stupid to see what was obviously going to happen when you give away money without enforced accountability.

Mister Bushice wrote:It got that in the senate, but not the house, which was closer to 60%.

~61%.

I'll repost, for the slow folk (you) --

20 votes against a lame duck is nothing, you fucking idiot.

Bush could have shoved every pen on his desk up his ass, and it was still passing in its current form.


I'm all about blaming Bush... for the countless things he actually did wrong. Signing the bailout wasn't one that should even cause a blip on the Blame Bush Radar... the bailout was a foregone conclusion, Bush's support or not.

mvscal wrote:It was actually to his credit...sort of. Had he vetoed the bill, Congress would have just continued to lard a new bill with pork until they got enough votes to override the veto...which is exactly what they did to get it passed in the first place.

I'll have to agree with that wholeheartedly.


See what you've done by being an idiot, Bushice? You made me agree with him.

Dinsdale wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:It got that in the senate, but not the house, which was closer to 60%.

~61%.

Bush could have shoved every pen on his desk up his ass, and it was still passing in its current form.

Don't think he didn't spent most of his days in office doing just that.

But by that house vote he had the opportunity available to send it back to ensure the wording was clear regarding oversight, but he never intended to BE sure.

He would have signed the first piece of shit version without looking at it as well, and you know it.

He didn't author it, but by not standing firm and demanding accountability BEFORE issuance he certainly left the door wide open to allow for others to completely fuck it up, which they did as usual.

See what you've done by being an idiot, Bushice? You made me agree with him.

Being called an idiot by you is more of a compliment than anything else, given how much of the shit you post that gets shoved right back up your rectum.

and Mvscal has a point about pork loading, but better to have tried and failed than not to have tried at all.

It's hard to imagine them making what actually happened even fucking worse, though.

You were expecting something else from Bush?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Don't worry, Wolfman. People who shit out more intelligence than you could gain in a lifetime are working on the matter.

Based on experience. I don't know if that argument will fly here MgoBlue.

Diego in Seattle wrote:You were expecting something else from Bush?

Again, I'm as big of a Bush hater as you'll find, but c'mon.

From your article:

The administration plans to cut the jobs of 157 of the agency's 345 estate tax lawyers, plus 17 support personnel, in less than 70 days. Kevin Brown, an IRS deputy commissioner, confirmed the cuts after the New York Times was given internal documents by people inside the IRS who oppose them.

Who's in charge of "the administration" these days?

First, I'm adamantly opposed to estate and gist taxes... the taxes have already been paid. Taxing the same money-in-circulation multiple times is both bad for the economy, and oppressive.


But here's a tidbit some of you seem to have missed from the news as of late...

Bush ain't the Head Honcho anymore.

We have a new corrupt POS to hate for being an Enemy of the People these days...

Or did you miss that headline?

Yup, Bush was a corrupt fuckup. And now he's gone.

I'd say the Peoples' efforts would be much better spent trying to keep a tight leash on a guy who promised "change" and "no more business as usual" as he hired possibly the biggest scumbag special interest lobbyist this country has ever known to eventually take charge of the biggest checkbook the fed has, then hiring a person who brags about being a "socialist" to hold an office where her entire group of known associates as well as herself stand to make substantial financial gains by her checkwriting, then having the fucking audacity to proclaim that he's not going to hire any lobbyists in his administration... after the fact.


Dude should be out on his fucking ear after one fucking week. If this is his break from "business as usual," we're in deep fucking shit, and I'm expecting this to be but the tip of the iceburg in terms of the lies he'll tell to prop up his pet special interests.


But don't just blame the HNIC -- the Senators YOU VOTED FOR approved those appointments.

Throw the whole lot of them out.

But as citizens, every last one of you should be VERY AFRAID of where this lying to redistribute wealth to his political allies will take us.


Gee, a politician from Chicago that's as dirty as they come? Man, who ever woulda thunk it?

Wasn't our American car industry in trouble ? I see those "intelligent" wizards in power have decreed that the car makers need more regulation.
Marvelous !

Dinsdale wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:You were expecting something else from Bush?

Again, I'm as big of a Bush hater as you'll find, but c'mon.

From your article:

The administration plans to cut the jobs of 157 of the agency's 345 estate tax lawyers, plus 17 support personnel, in less than 70 days. Kevin Brown, an IRS deputy commissioner, confirmed the cuts after the New York Times was given internal documents by people inside the IRS who oppose them.

Who's in charge of "the administration" these days?

Since Portland doesn't seem to have a RIF program I'll help you out here. Look at the line below the writer's name.

Apparently, San Diego had an outstanding Whining Is Fundamental program.


The line below the writers name states it's from 2006.


Now, do you find your political commentary is more æffective, relevant, and worthwhile if you cry about things that happened over 2 years ago (props to Bush for at least trying to get one thing right), or to focus on the crisis known as Obama.

Wolfman wrote:Wasn't our American car industry in trouble ? I see those "intelligent" wizards in power have decreed that the car makers need more regulation.
Marvelous !

Yeah, I don' know why they would want to hobble a struggling industry with even more burden. Guess they want to throw some more tax dollars at them/bailout when they reach their financial knees...again.

Dinsdale wrote:Apparently, San Diego had an outstanding Whining Is Fundamental program.


The line below the writers name states it's from 2006.


Now, do you find your political commentary is more æffective, relevant, and worthwhile if you cry about things that happened over 2 years ago (props to Bush for at least trying to get one thing right), or to focus on the crisis known as Obama.

We were talking about why Bush didn't put regulations regarding executive compensation into the bailout, not Obama. ADD much?

Diego in Seattle wrote:We were talking about why Bush didn't put regulations regarding executive compensation into the bailout, not Obama. ADD much?

Diego in Seattle wrote:You were expecting something else from Bush?

No additional smack required

mvscal wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Something here doesn't compute.

It's quite simple. When he says "country" he really means bloated Federal government.

Is that the same kind of code language you use when you say things pretending you like pussy when we know in actuality that you are daydreaming about your boyfriend's stiff cock sliding into your asshole?