Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Fruits of "Illegal" Labor

OK. I’ve been letting you off easy lately. It’s been about six weeks since my last a tête-à-tête post. They’ve been just me blathering on all by myself for far too long. Consider that remedied… 

All I did was make a teensy little factual statement (rant). Richard would have NONE of that.

Yes, Richard’s back. He makes more post mortem appearances than Tupac. Post “de-friended” appearances, that is.

Booting undocumented workers from America isn’t nearly as simple an issue as Republicans want. That’s probably why they also boot all facts surrounding the issue as well. Not to mention inventing a few of their own in the process.

Do I still have to warn you that these are lengthy? Names changed bla de blee bloo.


Originally discussed in June 2011

Bill Mancuso
You don't know how hard I fought myself to prevent this from becoming a full-blown 2,500 word rant... [That was wishful thinking. Any guesses as to how many words it turned out to have?]

Georgia's #1 economic engine: agriculture. One month after Governor Deal's Arizona-like immigration bill in action: farmers state-wide are over 11,000 workers short this season. Result: As predicted, millions and millions of dollars worth of onions, blueberries, melons, etcetera are beginning to rot away on the vines unpicked, screwing the state revenue and a chain reaction of local businesses along the way. Fuckin Republicans, it's not so cut and dried, is it? Obama may not have any balls, but at least he's not deliberately seeking to fuck America's working class like you fascist - sorry - Republican governors are attempting to do on a state-by-state basis. What else do you have in store for the middle class, Governor Deal? Gasoline tax increase or steep tax cuts for foreign corporations operating in Georgia with increased taxes for its citizens earning under $200,000 to make up for the loss in revenue? Oh, wait. You already fucking did that shit two months ago.

Oh, you'd "LOVE" South Carolina's governor!

One flaw in your argument Bill. You think that the immigration bill is responsible for the worker shortage?

When we have a 10% unemployment rate nationally? Really?

The problem is not that the Evil Republicans are not letting in enough illegal immigrants to sneak in and siphon off of the system without paying taxes.

If there is a 10,000 worker shortage in the state, while there are at least 250,000 unemployed citizens in the state, the problem here is not immigration.

Let me ax you a question... Do you think that we should even have borders? Should we just let anyone walk into this country whenever they please, in any numbers, for any reason?

Just let people walk in, set up residence, get on public assistance, get "free" medical care, a drivers license, everything that citizens are entitled to, no questions asked, no taxes paid, and with no ramifications or consequences?

Serious question. [Actually, this whole rebuttal is a series of blustery, asinine statements and questions full of misinformation that have nothing to do with what I said.]

Richard, you should check out the archives on NPR for the reports related to this topic. There was a story in the last 3 weeks that addresses that immigrant workers are the only people that continuously volunteer to do this type of work. Even teens have been reported to show up for a day or 2, but didn't return because they thought that it was toooo hard.... boooo hooo. I live in California where we have the same arguments, the problem is that people want work, but they don't want to work hard for low wages. The problem on the other side of the table is that consumers don't want to pay the extra $ that it costs to entice people into working their backs to the bone to bring them their food and clothing. That is why everything is outsourced. If you shop at Walmart, you are part of the problem and you in turn support low wages and giving jobs to different countries. From what I see here in LA, the immigrants aren't the ones in the streets begging for money, they are busting their asses to make a better life for their family. Before you go off on your rant about public funds and their appropriations, you should check out the demographics that are using these funds. From my research it is lazy white and African American people, not Mexicans or South East Asian.

People come here for a better life. That is what started this country.

The reasons why they came here are irrelevant. I may want a better life and standard of living, so can I go steal from a bank with impunity? [What?] Does it matter what my intentions with the money are? Is it ok to steal a million dollars because I plan to feed and clothe my family? [Again, what?]

Of course not. This isn't the 1600's where the continent had a very sparse population and millions of square miles of largely uninhabited land. It wasn't a country then, so the same rules don't apply in today's world. [Double what what? When a person has no facts to contribute and is solely working off of misinformed feelings, they often add ridiculously off-topic and incorrect information to the discussion. Richard is a master at this technique.]

We have borders. We enforce them, sort of. We have rules and regulations in place, and for some reason one party doesn't want to enforce them. I contend that the reason is political. In a day and age where elections can be decided by a handful of votes, granting citizen status to 15,000,000+ illegals would be a hell of an ace in the hole, no?

Even if it means sacrificing taxpayer money, our national security, preventing us from having a national language for fear of pissing off some illegals who shouldn't be here anyway, etc... As long as it helps the Democrats, we will see them continue to push for it. [None of which is true, by the way. But hey, such things never stop Republicans from insisting them to be so. And did he say "preventing us from having a national language?" Uh...]

I don't deny that many of them might be good people wanting a better life. But go through the proper channels. Follow the law, apply for citizenship the same way my great-grandparents did when they came to the US for the very same reasons.

As far as our citizens not wanting to do these jobs or we as consumers not wanting to pay triple the cost that it would take to pay them enough to get them to do it, that is a good argument. But I don't think that the answer is to just open up our borders and let anyone come in whenever they want so that we have some extra people to help pick tomatoes. [There’s that phrase “I don’t think” again, which he often says. Especially when the issue if far more complicated than just kicking out everyone that Republicans don’t like.]

Your opening rebuttal is silly and irrelevant. [Yes. Yes it was.] The argument here is not about robbing a bank to support your family. I’m sure that it would surprise you to find out that a VERY high percentage of the illegal population pays their taxes and is Proud to do so. They also don't file the tax return so that they don't leave a paper trail leading to the fact that they are illegal. You also should consider that even though it is the Democrats that are lobbying for this, the Republicans are the ones that ultimately are benefiting the work that the illegals are doing. Who do you think heads the large companies?
Your entire argument fails because of one phrase.

"Illegal Immigrant".

They are here illegally. They circumvented the law, and in essence, "broke into" this country. If I break into your house, it is a crime, I am a criminal. Why should it be any different when breaking into a country?

And if you feel that it is different, then answer the question that I posed to Bill. Should we have borders? Should we have immigration laws and requirements, and penalties for ignoring them, or, should we just let anyone in whenever they want no questions asked?

As for them paying taxes. How do you pay Federal and State income tax if you do not have a Social Security number? [I will answer that using facts. Stand by.]

And last, the Republicans benefiting because they run the corporations... I assume you are joking, right? [Well, both Republicans and Democrats run large companies, so actually everyone benefits.]

Bill Mancuso
I really didn't want to turn this into a rant. I tried really hard. But now look what you've made me do.

Yes, Richard. Gov Deal's fascist immigration bill is SPECIFICALLY the reason for the 11,000 ILLEGAL immigrant worker shortage. Unless you ignore facts. Then, in that case it is not the reason.

As Lindsay pointed out, none of the LEGAL citizens will work the job. Too hard. Little pay. Unless you ignore facts. Then, in that case they would work those jobs.

The problem with your extremist Republican black-and-white version of reality is that ILLEGAL immigrants are deeply woven into American society and not so easily excised without damaging the economy. It's a very gray reality. You can't just round them all up and kick them out; you have to come up with a comprehensive plan to deal with the issue. Unless you ignore facts. Then, in that case it is black-and-white.

As for ILLEGAL (I'm capitalizing the word ILLEGAL so you don't think I don't think ILLEGAL immigrants are ILLEGAL) [They’re actually not “illegal.” People aren’t illegal. They’re called ‘undocumented workers.’ I was just letting Richard know in his own narrow-minded view that I wasn’t denying their status.] immigrants getting free health, free driver's license free free free everything and pay no taxes to boot, you would be wrong just repeating that FOXy right wing bullshit. Actual evidence suggests that the overall costs to the U.S. economy by ILLEGAL immigrants are equivalent to or outweighed by the benefits. The IRS estimates that about 6 million unauthorized immigrants file individual income tax returns each year. The CBO says that between 50 percent and 75 percent of ILLEGAL immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes. ILLEGAL immigrants are estimated to pay in about $7 billion per year into Social Security. And they CANNOT collect on it – but the rest of us ‘legal’ citizens benefit from the ‘illegal’ contributions. The IRS issues an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) regardless of immigration status because both resident and non-resident aliens may have Federal tax return and payment responsibilities under the Internal Revenue Code. Federal tax law prohibits the IRS from sharing data with other government agencies including the INS (why would they want to get rid of people who pay taxes but can't collect unemployment or SS? It's free money to the gov't). In 2006, 1.4 million people used ITIN when filing taxes, of which more than half were ILLEGAL immigrants. Ernesto Zedillo, Director of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, asserts that ILLEGAL immigrants are only a drain on government services when they are incapable of paying taxes; and that this incapacity is the result of restrictive federal policies that require proof of citizenship. Which is why fascist Arizona-like laws are fucking stupid and instead things like the DREAM Act should be put in place to deal with the ILLEGAL immigrant dilemma. Lord God on high, Ronald Reagan did give them all amnesty after all. He knew their contributions. And because lower-skilled ILLEGAL immigrant workers wages are less than average, the rest of America benefits by paying lower prices for things like restaurant meals, agricultural produce and construction. And the economic impact of ILLEGAL immigration is far smaller than other trends in the economy, such as 1.) the increasing use of robotic automation in manufacturing or 2.) the growth in global trade or 3.) giving corporations tax benefits for sending jobs overseas. Those three factors have a much bigger negative impact on wages, prices, job growth and the health of the U.S. economy. Economists generally believe that when averaged over the whole economy, the effect of ILLEGAL immigration is a small net POSITIVE. Harvard's George Borjas says the average American's wealth is increased by less than 1 percent because of ILLEGAL immigration. Unless you ignore all the facts. Then the opposite of all this would be true.

And if you want to talk about the increased levels of crime in high ILLEGAL immigrant areas, let me just put a brick wall in front of that speeding car of stupid... Arizona’s fascist SB1070 "Papers, please" law was drafted by Kris Kobach of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), one of the most active anti-immigration organizations and a known hate group. As the GOP chair in Kansas, Kobach bragged about illegally blocking minorities from voting because they tend to vote more for Democrats. SB1070 was introduced to the Senate by Senator Russell Pearce, who has long been connected to white supremacist groups and even believes the Holocaust was a lie. The two reasons SB1070 was drafted: 1.) Get Mexicans off the streets in the most racist way possible. (British, Irish, Australian, German, etc, people are here ILLEGALLY, too, but they don't "look" ILLEGAL, so they won't be asked to see their papers.) 2.) Building more private prisons with federal money. That's right, the main reason for SB1070 was to bilk the Federal Government out of money to build private prisons to house the sudden influx of inmates that the new racist laws create. And cost more of a drain on the Federal coffers. Just to build the kind of private prisons we see on the news all the time for letting murderers escape due to cutting corners to keep a bigger profit just the way businesses are supposed to run. And hey, if a bunch of fuckin wetbacks are harassed in the process, that's just icing on the money cake, right?

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Back to the crime rates. BEFORE SB1070 was even a twinkle in its racist daddy's eye... According to figures from the Arizona Dept. of Public Safety and the FBI, the violent crime rate in Arizona in 2008 was the lowest it has been since 1971; the property crime rate fell to its lowest point since 1966. In the past decade, as ILLEGAL immigrants were arriving in record numbers because of the housing boom, the rate of violent crimes in Phoenix and the entire state fell by more than 20 percent, a steeper drop than in the overall U.S. crime rate. Among similar-sized metro areas, such as Boston, Dallas, Detroit, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., Phoenix had the lowest violent crime rate in 2008. In Detroit, which is not exactly known as a magnet for ILLEGAL Hispanic immigrants, the rate was three times higher than that of Phoenix. Counties along the Southwest border have some of the lowest rates of violent crime per capita in the nation, with rates dropping by more than 30 percent since the 1990s. There is NO evidence of “spillover” of violence from Mexico. Example: El Paso is next to Juarez, Mexico, which has seen brutal drug wars take thousands of lives. El Paso, by contrast, had 12 murders in 2009, down from 17 in 2008. Basically, cities with high numbers of immigrants are actually safer. Because when people come here ILLEGALLY, they keep their heads down, stay off the radar and work like a motherfucker to make a better life for themselves. They don't run around raping and decapitating people. Those would be LEGAL citizens. Unless you ignore facts. Then ILLEGAL immigrants kill everyone they see.

Should ILLEGAL immigrants be allowed to run around all willy-nilly in the U.S.? Well, they don't, but no, they shouldn't. Actual policies to register and integrate them beneficially into society should be enacted and enforced, like the DREAM Act. But Republicans keep filibustering such legislation. Favoring instead racist, isolationist, backward, unthinking, ignorant, draconian policies that hurt the economy way more than even if things were just left alone.

And no, not all Republicans are racist. I think there's a Bob in Ohio that isn't.

[You would think I pretty much ended the discussion, but now watch how Richard completely ignores all the facts I just presented and keeps repeating biased nonsense. And as to his question that asked ‘should we have borders or just let anyone in’ – my answer was “Should ILLEGAL immigrants be allowed to run around all willy-nilly in the U.S.? Well, they don't, but no, they shouldn't.” Since Republicans have a habit of not caring or paying attention to anything anyone else says, watch how he keeps demanding that I answer his question because he thinks I’m dodging it since he believes he’s got me over a barrell.]

Why is immigration, or expecting people to follow the law, racist? [That’s not what I said.]

Because people of other nationalities, notably Hispanics, break the law? [Notably Hispanics? Invent your own statistics much?]

If I say that we need to crack down on gang related crime, and let's say that blacks represent 70% of gang related crime in this country. By my saying that we need to crack down on gangs and the crime they create, does that make me racist? [Still not what I said. Also, try to use real statistics when making an argument. Inventing your own in an irrelevant analogy sort of makes you look foolish.]

See, that is your NPR and CNN bias shining through. [I took none of my information from those sources, as indicated by referencing the IRS and CBO, the Arizona Dept. of Public Safety and the FBI, Ernesto Zedillo of Yale and George Borjas of Harvard – just keep ignoring facts you don’t like. But even if I did get my information from NPR & CNN, it wouldn’t be biased. The problem right-wingers have is that they see fear and hate-mongering FOX “News” and right-wing talk radio as the ONLY sources of truth. Therefore, to them, ALL other news is biased and lying because it contradicts FOX and the drug-addict, Rush Limbaugh. And since the direct sources contradict the right-wing biased lies that FOX says, the facts are considered to be lies or just ignored.] You know that immigration laws are in place for good reason. But to say that we should just ignore them [That’s a lie. I didn’t say that.] and let anyone in is not an argument that you can make [Which is why I didn’t.], and you know this. So in order to diffuse the argument, you simply try to capitalize on the fact that it is mostly one particular demographic that is breaking the law [No, I didn’t.], and to use that to claim that anyone that supports the law is a racist [Nope. Didn’t do that.]. You do this [No.], knowing that most people will be so afraid of being labeled a racist that they won't see through the fact that your claim is baseless, your argument inherently flawed, and that they will back-peddle.

I won't. [Good for you, bubby.]

So if we have no plans to actually enforce our borders and immigration laws, should we just get rid of them? [Nobody ever said that.] You can rant all you want and hope that the basic facts and logic get lost in the shuffle, but I won't lose track, trust me. :-) [I’m quite sure you won’t lose track of the things you make up that nobody else is saying.]

If you think that your argument holds water, then come out and say it. [My argument holds water.] Should we even have borders and should we enforce the immigration laws on the books, as most other countries around the world have done for decades?

Bill Mancuso
You ignored everything I said, made up things that I never said and invented preposterous hypotheticals that are not true just to back an argument that isn't real. [And don’t think he won’t do it again. And again. And again.]

Not at all. You keep talking about the desire to enforce immigration laws being racist. [No, I didn’t. Which renders the next sentence useless:] The only reason you are making that claim is that of the 17 million illegal immigrants, most of them are Hispanic. [What happened to “15 million+”? And it’s actually 12 million according to the Pew Hispanic Center.]

And so you try to claim that anyone who supports immigration laws, or wants to enforce borders and policies, must be racist. [No. I. Did. Not.] It's a cowardly and bullshit statement, Bill. And it is one that the DNC and their lap-dogs in the media that you are quoting happily regurgitate ad-nauseum. [No, they don’t. This is another tactic used by FOX and right-wing radio. Since they know their audience never, under any circumstance, EVER watches any other news source, they like to tell their audience what the “liberal media” is saying. Conveniently leaving out any truth. And their audience knows no better.]

There may be economic benefits to them being here, working certain jobs, even paying some taxes. [So, you understand this, but you willingly choose to ignore it in order to continue pushing what you know are right-wing propagandistic lies? Brilliant.] Of course you have cherry-picked the articles and studies that support that [No. Don’t accuse me of using your right-wing methods.], just as I could find links and studies that claim the opposite, which is why I won't waste either of our time getting into a copy & paste contest. [I'm going to assume that this time he couldn't find any studies claiming the opposite since he always does. Normally, when I post information from their direct sources like the IRS, he posts information from biased right-wing blogs like 'Captain Capitalism' in rebuttal. Then, as people who are wrong often do, he claims both versions are equal in their bias.]

My stance is that the benefits are irrelevant. The law is the law. We have borders, we have them for a reason, and if we are not going to enforce them and hold the people that violate them accountable, then what good are they? Get rid of the borders, get rid of the laws, etc...

That is the logical conclusion to your argument. [Not according to the conclusion I gave. But then, you'd have to actually listen to what I say instead of ignoring everything that doesn't fall in line with right-wing nonsense.] It's like any other law. If you have no intention of enforcing it and punishing those that defy it, then there is no point in even having it, is there?

I just think that we need to patrol and enforce our borders, and when people sneak in and violate that, show them the door and tell them to apply for entry like everyone else.

I don't think that we need to set the law aside because they want to pick tomatoes or are likely to vote Democrat, as the cronies on your side of the argument hope for. [Yes. That’s the reason. Democrats hope illegal people who can not vote, will vote for Democrats. That is a well thought out conspiracy.]

Bill Mancuso
It would be a cowardly and bullshit statement if I said it. But I didn't. You are cherry-picking words out of my sentences. And no one in the DNC and their “media lap-dogs” are saying it either. That's just what FOX "News" is telling you they are saying. I never said the desire to enforce the old immigration laws was racist. In fact, you should be happy the Obama administration is deporting a shit-ton more illegal immigrants than Bush and Clinton combined. What I actually said was that the new, racist Arizona laws drafted by known white supremacist organizations that Republicans are making into law are racist. By default, the Republicans gleefully implementing these laws, drafted by known racists, that are contrary to the majority of constituents' wishes are racist. Especially since they do NOT solve the problems they are addressing nearly as well as if the old laws were just enforced - and they create new problems in the process.

I did not cherry-pick statistics from the FBI and AZ Dept. of Public Safety. However, I'm absolutely positive you can find your own right-wing cherry-picked versions of the same statistics. None of my information came from CNN, NPR or even MSNBC for that matter. I seek information from the source, not filtered through partisan funnels. Go ahead, scroll up and re-read the sources that I listed – which you ignored.

Again, people sneaking across the border illegally is not the black-and-white extremist reality of what's happening. If it was, then your black-and-white solution would absolutely make sense.

By the way, the DREAM Act was a Republican proposal. They've been trying to get it passed for almost 10 years. Until Obama endorsed it. Then, like the dozens of things Republicans propose, as soon as Obama endorses it, they oppose it, (like Pay-Go, Cap-And-Trade, Bi-Partisan Deficit Commission, Individual Mandate in health reform, Bush's idea to try terrorists in civilian courts, raising the debt ceiling 7 times under Bush, cutting taxpayer subsidies to big oil companies [pure socialism], payroll tax holiday proposal) like the piece of shit hypocrites they are. They're intentionally fucking the country in partisan maneuvers only to try to make Obama look bad. "Compromise" to Republicans means: Do it our way or we walk out like the immature four-year-olds we are. "Compromise to Democrats: OK we'll do it your way. Republican response: NO! We're leaving! Nya! 

Fuckin ass-hats.

But you're right. Fuck this guy in the video below and all those like him. He's obviously an illegal, murdering, rapist who snuck across the border just to cause chaos and mayhem and get free everything and pay no taxes because it's more fun to do in America than in Spic-land or wherever the fuck this lowlife, degenerate scumbag is from. In your black-and-white version of reality…

Why is the Arizona law racist? I don't care if you think that the sponser is. Why is the law?

And only Fox news is claiming that people are calling the laws racist? [No. I never said that. FOX "News" (as well as you) is claiming the laws are NOT racist. FOX also claims that Democrats are pretending the laws ARE racist - to get votes, or some other unclear reason like that. For fuck’s sake. Pay the fuck attention.] I will have to take your word for it as I have not seen Fox News in years, literally.

As for your link, I did not say he was murdering, etc... But if he snuck into this country illegally [Richard did not watch the video. Obviously.], then he should be shown the door and told to follow procedure like everyone else. Breaking into my house is a crime, whether you are a nice guy or not. If you want to come in or feel you need to come in, ring the bell and ask my permission. Don't just break in and set up camp without going through the proper channels. Why is that so hard for them, and you apparently, to understand? [Why do you ALWAYS insist on using analogies that make no sense regarding the topic at hand? Or any other hand, for that matter.]

And no, the Reps are not trying to fuck the country to make Obama look bad.  

[Yes. They are. They literally had a secret meeting about it.]

[Also, Republican Minority leader, Mitch McConnell happily said in an article, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." That is specifically putting Party over the concerns of the well-being of the country.] 

[You get that? NOT get people back to work. NOT get the economy going. NOT balance budgets, decrease spending and work on the deficit. NOT education. NOT infrastructure. No. These are not Republican priorities. What is? To fuck Obama. To specifically make him look bad so a Republican is elected next time. And who suffers as a result of this extreme right-wing partisanship? America. Fuck you, fascists.]

Obama and his failures [to stop Republicans from filibustering EVERYTHING] are making him look bad. The Reps only wish they had that much influence on public opinion. LOL [The fact that Richard continues to blindly repeat Republican lies seems to lend credence to Republican influence on public opinion.] I know that CNN at the request of the DNC made that claim the other day, but it is a lie and we both know it. [The DNC requested that CNN lie? And CNN did it? Is Richard getting his drugs from Limbaugh? Just a peek into the right-wing mentality: If they don’t like something, then it is considered a conspiracy against the Republican Party - regardless of facts.]

So are you ready to stop avoiding the question yet? [No. I answered it. You just missed it because you ignore most of what I say.] Should we have borders, and if so, should we enforce the laws governing them and hold responsible the people that defy those laws? [Answered.]

Its a simple question, why can't you answer it? [I did. Why do you keep asking it?] Why must you rant off in 5 different directions, curse like a sailor and try to create an argument that I am not really talking about? [I’m pretty sure it’s you who has gone off my original topic that I originally posed. But I keep answering your arguments that I am not really talking about anyway. Even if you do ignore all my answers.]



LOL. It's a serious question that none of the people against immigration reform have been able to answer. [In what alternate universe has no one answered that? Ignoring the detailed and complicated answer in order to continue repeating a simplistic question does not mean the question wasn’t answered.]

If we don't intend to enforce the borders and laws, and we don't intend to punish those who disobey, why waste time, money and resources on them in the first place?

Just open the borders to anyone and everyone, no questions asked.

That will solve Bill's tomato problem and restore balance to the galaxy. [Yes, that’s exactly what I’ve been advocating. Does anyone remember my first, incredibly detailed response and said Richard would completely ignore it?]

Bill Mancuso
No one in the DNC and their media lap-dogs (haha - sorry - that's just cartoony, like "Evildoers and their axis of evil") is saying anyone who supports immigration laws are racist. Seriously, I don't know where you get this stuff. It's the new, racist, specifically-profiling-Mexicans laws drafted by racists that are racist.

Also, no one is against immigration reform. In fact, immigration reform is called for. And it used to be by both parties. Now, just Democrats. The Republicans' Arizona-like laws are radical and extreme and frankly, fascist. Not logical reform that works. It's, again, these specifically racist laws like Arizona SB1070 that people are against. The DREAM Act that the Republicans came up with and now FUCKING FILIBUSTER BECAUSE OBAMA IS FOR IT would be a great, logical immigration reform measure.

The Arizona law is racist because profiling one specific race of people is racist. When you're told to look for (according to Kris Kobach, the racist author of the racist bill) - Hispanic shoes (whatever the fuck that is), speaking English poorly and people at locations of "illegal alien locale," to name a few - that's racist. As I eluded to earlier when I mentioned all those Caucasian races, I wonder how many white people will be targeted? Exactly none. Because specifically targeting Hispanics is racist.

And I don't "think" the bill’s sponsor, FAIR, is racist. FAIR is racist. They are a factually known hate group. With facts and stuff. Like, all facty factual facts or whatever. And the factually connected to white supremacist groups, Senator Russell Pearce, is factually a Neo-Nazi. Here's a photo. He's on the right, with JT Ready, Neo Nazi leader:

And here's JT Ready at a Nazi rally, second from right in the gray suit:

Ooh, look, Ready dressed in a Nazi costume:

Look at that. Ready in another dress up fascist costume...

Hey what now...

[Since this “discussion,” Nazi sympathizer, Russell Pearce was kicked out of office for his right-wing extremism (even too extreme for Arizona) and avowed Nazi, JT Ready shot and killed his girlfriend, his girlfriend 's daughter and her boyfriend and their 15-month-old daughter, then killed himself. Police said hazardous chemicals and "military grade munitions" were found at the home. Ex-Senator Pearce now denies having any relationship with Ready. Pesky photos and videos be darned.]

Oh, then there's this...

Phoenix New Times: Rachel Maddow Delves Into Russell Pearce's Supremacist Connections 

But I guess all white supremacists aren't racist, though. Wait, yes they fucking are. For a fucking fact. It's part of the fucking definition.

And as for my link, you didn't watch it.

And yes, based on the fact of Republicans doing the opposite of what the majority of Americans want (no cuts to Medicare, do legalize gay marriage, against Ryan budget, for collective bargaining rights, raise taxes on top 2% richest, do raise debt ceiling like they did 7 times under Bush, leave PBS & NPR budgets alone, don't cut SS, etc.) and even going against every single one of their own proposals after Obama agrees with them (It's now comically predictable how Republicans just do or say the opposite of what Obama does and says. Every single fucking time. "Obama should attack Libya!" Obama attacks Libya. "Obama shouldn't have attacked Libya!" "Obama attacked Libya too soon/too late/too little/too much!"), and the record-breaking number of obstructionist filibustering everyfuckingthing for the goal of making Democrats, specifically Obama look like failures - yes, they are deliberately fucking America. And based on the fact that you believe what Republicans say, their bullshit is working. That is not public opinion.

You can skip the next paragraph. It's just a list of a few bills Republicans have blocked. Yes, I cherry-picked them since I didn't want to type the over 400 bills (and counting) they blocked...

H.R. 1469 – Child Protection Improvements Act, H.R. 1511 – Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act, H.R. 1514 – Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Program Reauthorization Act, H.R. 1580 – Electronic Waste Research and Development Act, H.R. 1585 -- FIT Kids Act, H.R. 1617 – Department of Homeland Security Component Privacy Officer Act, H.R. 1622 – Research and Development Programs for Natural Gas Vehicles, Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2009, H.R. 1709 – STEM Education Coordination Act, H.R. 1736 – The International Science and Technology Cooperation Act, H.R. 1722 --Telework Improvements Act, H.R. 1727 -- Managing Arson Through Criminal History (MATCH) Act, HR 12 – Paycheck Fairness Act, H.R. 20 -- Melanie Blocker Stokes Mom’s Opportunity to Access Health, Education, Research, and Support for Postpartum Depression Act, H.R. 320 -- CJ’s Home Protection Act, H.R. 448 -- Elder Abuse Victims Act, H.R. 466 – Wounded Veteran Job Security Act, H.R. 515 – Radioactive Import Deterrence Act, H.R. 549 -- National Bombing Prevention Act, H.R. 577 – Vision Care for Kids Act, H.R. 626 – Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act, H.R. 780 – Student Internet Safety Act, H.R. 911 -- Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act, H.R. 985 -- Free Flow of Information Act, H.R. 1029 – Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act, H.R. 1110 – PHONE Act, H.R. 1258 – The Truth in Caller ID Act, H.R. 1168 -- Veterans Retraining Act, H.R. 1171 – Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program Reauthorization, H.R. 1172 -- Requiring List on VA Website of Organizations Providing Scholarships for Veterans, H.R. 1262, Water Quality Investment Act, H.R. 1293 -- Disabled Veterans Home Improvement and Structural Alteration Grant Increase Act of 2009, H.R. 1319 – Informed P2P User Act, H.R. 1380 -- Josh Miller HEARTS Act, H.R. 1429, Stop AIDS in Prison Act

Based on some of their filibusters, Republicans: don't like wounded veterans, do like spreading AIDS, hate small businesses, like elder abuse and don't want kids to have healthcare. OR, and I repeat, they are deliberately fucking America just to make Obama look bad. But only based on facts. Really I should say they are deliberately trying to make Obama look bad and don't care that they are fucking middle class Americans to do it because the rich will be able to weather their bullshit. It would be more accurate. And, I guess, evil.

It was you who said a bunch of things that weren't even close to correct that I had to address which naturally led to 5 different tangents. And in doing so, I DID answer your question when I said, "Should ILLEGAL immigrants be allowed to run around all willy-nilly in the U.S.? Well, they don't, but no, they shouldn't. Actual policies to register and integrate them beneficially into society should be enacted and enforced..." and when I said, "...people sneaking across the border illegally is not the black-and-white extremist reality of what's happening. If it was, then your black-and-white solution would absolutely make sense." I guess I just wasn't clear about saying yes, we should have borders and patrol them and enforce the current laws. However, it's just not that simple. Not that black-and-white. Not in every case. Go back and watch the link I previously posted that you didn't watch. If every single case was just someone sneaking over the border, then yes, you would be right. But it's not nearly every case. Using one of your favorite devices, analogy: If there were roots growing around your electric, cable and phone lines, you wouldn't just rip them out. You would excise part of them to prevent them from continuing to grow and leave the part that is attached to the lines so they don't get damaged. Then you would find a logical way to register and legalize them and integrate them into society. Or you would just rip them out, I don't know.

Opening the borders to solve the immigration issue is an absurd and ludicrous notion that absolutely NO ONE EVER SUGGESTED and stands on par with all extreme Republican reaction to anything suggested by Democrats. Like suggesting gay marriage will lead to people marrying goats, or social programs like unemployment actually cause people to not work or providing the women's health care option for receiving an abortion forces women to abort every time. Ludicrous, extremist and not even remotely attached to reality. But Republicans do live in an extremist version of reality where all these things are true. They just don't exist in the real world.

Here comes a tangent. But you initiated it by implying illegals "vote Democrat, as the cronies on [my] side of the argument hope for." Illegals are not voting. Democratic or otherwise. They can't. If you're suggesting voter fraud like Republicans always do, that's not actually a problem. Voter fraud is basically non-existent. No credible evidence points to any epidemic of voter fraud. It's a fear tactic (a.k.a. lie) drummed up by Republicans to initiate policies such as photo I.D. and lengthening residency to make it more difficult for new voters to register because new voters trend Democrat. For example, in Ohio, now with the most restrictive voting laws in the country, a new college photo I.D. is required, but no college issues the type the Republicans require. And students tend to vote Democrat. And if you move to campus in the fall, you can't vote because you haven't lived at that new address long enough to vote in November. And most new voters (who trend Democrat) register with those people in front of grocery stores with the clipboard. Now, you need at least 3 forms of I.D. including SS card & birth certificate to register there. Right, because everyone carries that around with them. And you have to register over a month before an election - most people register less than 2 weeks before. And a government-issued photo I.D. is needed to vote. Research shows that more than 21 million Americans do not have government-issued photo identification; a disproportionate number of them are low-income, disabled, racial and ethnic minorities, college students, and elderly. And most vote Democrat. See the pattern?

ACLU: Voting Rights            

And back to what I originally posted: Governor Deal's immigration law IS specifically responsible for booting the 11,000 ILLEGAL farm workers needed to pick crops regardless of the damage to Georgia's economy and harm to all the other states it sells crops to. NO LEGAL citizens will work crops. This is a proven fact. Governor Deal DID give foreign corporations operating in Georgia a tax break and DID raise taxes on the middle class to pay for it. And DID let the gas tax increase which has a much larger impact on the middle class, who pinch pennies these days, than the rich, who don't even notice. These are facts. Not "the liberal side" of facts. Facts. Whether they be crime statistics or Republican obstructionism, I am only stating what is happening. Just because they don't favor right-wing ideology, doesn't mean they are liberal-biased. Every argument against these facts are partisan nonsense. If only we lived in the extreme black-and-white world the Republicans see, things would be that much easier. But we do not.

But don't let any of these facts get in the way of your opinion.

P.S. - I had no idea your dainty ears were offended by my "cursing like a sailor." However, I prefer to call it "cursing like Samuel L. Jackson" since I mostly use "fuck" and derivatives thereof.


there's the rant i was looking for. well said. cursing and all.

Couple things come to mind as I read your rant. First, the problem with a rant is that it is largely an emotional outburst, and so hard to follow at times. [No matter how many times I say “fuck,” it doesn’t make it any more confusing. Unless you are ignoring what I say to begin with.] Second is that I really don't care if the guy that sponsered the law is racist. [It is abundantly clear that you do not care about facts. Especially when they contradict your biased, uninformed opinions. Which is almost all of the time.] Fact is, we have borders, we have immigration laws, and we should enforce them. [Obama has broken records deporting undocumented people. Obama spends more than Republicans on patrolling the border. Obama even deploys drones on the border. Much to the ire of liberals. These are facts he continues to ignore because it doesn’t support the lie that Democrats are weak on everything.] As for the law targeting and profiling Mexicans, I am for profiling in most cases. [Would you be for profiling six foot tall, bald, white guys? Or would you consider that racist? Or baldist? Or six foot tallist?]

When the cops are looking for a murderer and he is a black male driving a white Chevy van, it makes sense to pull over white vans, especially if they are driven by a black guy in the area that it was spotted. Or at an airport, if you know that most terrorists are Middle Eastern Men, does it make sense in either example to pull over or pull aside old Asian women? Or would you concentrate on Black males and Middle Eastern Males in those situations? [This is so utterly idiotic, I’m not even going to dissect it.] [Yes, I am. When a black guy driving a white van committed a crime, you look for a black guy driving a white van. Key phrase “committed a crime.” Randomly stopping Mexicans who have not done anything is against the law and the Constitution. Most terrorists are Middle Eastern males? I guess they are if you don’t count Ireland, England, Germany, Russia, the whole of North America, the whole of Central America, the whole of South America – Oh, wait are you talking about the United States only? Well, then I guess you don’t count: Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Ted Kaczynski, Eric Robert Rudolph, the Earth Liberation Front, Bruce E. Ivins, Lucas John Helder, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, Jim David Adkisson, Scott Roeder, Shelley Shannon, James Wenneker von Brunn, Joseph Stack, James J. Lee, the Rajneesh movement, White Nationalists, Neo-Nazis, Weatherman, the Jewish Defense League, and more.]

As for Arizona, if they have an illegal alien problem, and 99.99% of them happen to be Mexican, it is not because of some Evil Republican targeting Mexicans. [Except for the fact that there isn’t a problem. Targeting people who have committed no crime for the sole purpose of putting them in jail and have the Federal Government pay for it is about business. It’s about profit. Not about crime. As I stated in my very first response, crime has been steadily DECREASING over the past 40 years, so there is no reason for this new, blatantly racist law that fixes a non-existent problem. Doesn’t fix it, actually. It is purely a racially motivated law drafted by known hate groups. This is a ‘two-birds-with-one-stone’ scenario: get rid of Mexicans so the white race can rule supreme and make a profit doing it.]

Bill, have you looked at a map? Their entire border, and those of their neighbor states, are with Mexico. So there is a good chance that any illegals coming across the border, will be Mexican. If they shared a border with Mars, I would expect them to be concentrating on little green men with space hats. That's common sense, not racism. [By this fantastically thought-out “common sense” logic, why aren’t we building walls, patrolling and writing laws specifically against Canadians as well? Are they not coming here illegally? They are, but they aren’t visibly distinguishable from us and we can’t actually profile them without profiling ourselves. “Calling all cars. Be on the lookout for overly polite Caucasians wearing earflap hats and using the expression, ‘ay.’”]

I also don't agree with you on what the Reps are doing. They disagree with the Dems on many issues, and they disagree with me on many issues. But the fact that they swept the last election and they are doing what they said they would do, would indicate that they are not going against what the majority of Americans want. Obama did, with his Obamacare crap. Most Americans were against that and at the time the Reps didn't have the votes to block it. ["Obamacare" couldn't be more of a capitalist's business-centric wet dream that Republicans should be tripping over themselves to put in place. It literally forces people to buy health coverage from insurance corporations. The fact that Republicans are against this and spreading lies that it's socialist big government spending - the diametric opposite of the truth - is proof that they are opposing everything Obama does simply to make him look bad - even if it's things they like. And stupid assholes like Richard and the Teabaggers unconditionally believe the lies. In fact, our current form of healthcare - paying for the uninsured through higher taxes - is socialism. Republicans are against "Obamacare," why? They oppose Obama to make him look bad even when he's implementing what they want. Republicans are fucking scumbags.]

And to say that the Reps don't like Veterans or children, is just plan silly and you know it. Sounds great on an NPR sound byte, but it has no basis in reality. More emotional outburst there. [Actually, that’s not at all what I said. But you have to pretend it was in order to completely misrepresent the point I was making so it seems like I'm an idiot and your statement makes sense.] They may be against paying for things that frankly, with a several trillion dollar deficit, maybe we can't afford? The Dems never take that approach, because they seem to feel that there is a limitless supply of other people's money. [Fundamentally not true. But if you only listen to what the drug-addict, Rush Limbaugh tells you, then you would think that lie was true.] We need to cut spending on some things, we need to hold back at times. The economy is in the shitter, the national debt is horrific, and continuing to go on a spending spree for social programs in order to buy votes, just isn't a smart move at this time. [Yes, helping the needy is about vote-pandering. I forgot. Sarcasm aside, Obama is not on a spending spree. That is a lie repeated ad infinitum by Republicans and their mindless followers, such as Richard, believe it unconditionally. Because they want to. However, as this article explains...

What is clear by your long list of bills, is that Congress has too much free time on their hands. I think that the government is doing too much, and trying to control things in a scope that would horrify the Founding Fathers. [If you mean the Republicans in government would horrify the Founding Fathers by their colossal amount of obstructionism, then I agree. But I know you mean the Democrats. Because you ignore historical and current facts in order to continue pushing your biased misinformation. Not that Republican propaganda has any influence on your opinion or anything.] The role of the government is to provide national defense, basic roads and infrastructure and a basic foundation for the states and local governments to provide the basic necessities. That has evolved into government passing thousands of laws that control or fund every facet of our existence, with no real way to pay for it. I know, raise taxes on the 2% more successful folks, but that doesn't cut it long term. [Yes, those poor successful folks who became successful all by themselves without any help from anybody. Let them keep their money that they earned all by their lonesome.]

So yeah, rant away, Republicans want everyone to get AIDs, they want to BBQ small children and whatever other outlandish things you think they want. [All I did was list some of the many bills the Republicans filibustered. If you think those things are outlandish, then I agree: the Republican Party is outlandish.] Thank god we have you and Al Franken to protect us from the ghastly hordes of Evil Republicans that America votes into office. [If only Al and I could.]

And as for gay marriage, I don't care about it. If gay people want to marry, let them. If people want abortions, let them. If you want to pray in school, fine, if you want a moment to just ponder whatever beliefs system you subscribe to, go for it. I don't care if God appears on our money, I don't care enough about it to have it removed. I think that all religions are nothing more than cults with large congregations that give them pseudo-credibility, but I see absolutely no difference between Christianity, Scientology or Witchcraft. It's all the same no matter what label you put on it, so basing laws off that crap is stupid and it is where I usually part ways with the Republican Party. [One of two things he and I completely agree on. Frightening, I know.]

I am more Libertarian than anything. [Except for all the Republican ideals you extoll that are in no way Libertarian.] I tend to agree with Dems on Social Issues [Except for all the times you don’t?], but I tend to side with Reps on gun rights, national defense, taxes and things like that.

The rest, I don't agree with either party on.


Oh, and as for voter fraud, ever heard of Acorn? Mayor Daily of Chicago? Democrat poll worker arrested for having a Vote-A-Matic machine in his trunk as he worked on the Florida recounts? Thousands of dead people registering and voting for Democrats? DNC volunteers rounding up homeless people and bussing them in to register and vote Democrat in exchange for cartons of cigarettes? People being registered 17 times for absentee ballots and having them all voting Democrat? [You can bet your entire Troll doll collection that I will skewer this complete and utter bullshit in my response.]

Voter fraud happens anywhere, but your party is far more adept at it I am afraid.

Oh Bill, I meant to ask you about cutting funding for NPR...

If there was a government sponsored, tax-payer funded radio network that leaned 90% towards the Right, the way that NPR leans to the Left, would you be complaining about someone cutting its funding?

Of course Democrats hate the thought of one of the more Liberal media outlets being defunded. But they would do the same thing in a heartbeat of NPR was Conservative, wouldn't they?

You betcha!

NPR gets how much of their funding federally? Also, I'm curious about the documentation of the leftist leanings of NPR, and I don't mean how it was at its inception, I mean the modern NPR?

1) Why should they get any Federal funding? If the government was sending a check for a couple million to Fox news, or an equal amount to Fox news, you think the Dems would be ok with that? You think that if it went to Rush Limbaugh they would not mind? They scream whenever you talk about cutting money to NPR because it caters to them. [FOX and the drug-addict Limbaugh are private, for-profit businesses. NPR is a public, non-profit organization. A right-wing group is certainly able to start a non-profit organization and get Federally subsidized as well – but there’s no profit in that.]

2) Have you listened to it? That is like asking if CNN and MSNBC lean Left. Of course they do. That is why Fox stands in such stark contrast, because it is the lone outlet that DOESN'T lean Left. [MSNBC does lean left. CNN does not. But as I explained earlier, EVERYTHING not FOX or right-wing talk radio is considered ‘liberal’ by the right-wing – even non-partisan news – just because they don’t agree with the right-wing propaganda.]

[This article that Richard posted is apparently supposed to support his argument.]

$432 Million dollars for NPR and PBS. Almost half a billion dollars in tax payer dollars, every year, for public television and radio.

Why? All radio stations are free to pick off of the airways, as are any broadcast stations, so it is not like this is the only means to give radio and TV to poor people. They can get free HD Radio and now HD local and network channels. [They are not free. Corporations pay radio stations for air-time for their commercials. Privately owned radio stations are corporations that make a profit. NPR is public non-profit.]

[The American Coalition for Ethanol estimates that "when combined with state and local government aid to large, privately owned, for-profit oil companies, subsidies amount to anywhere from $133.8 billion to $280.8 billion annually from all sources of taxpayer aid that goes to the oil and gas industry." Why? Why am I subsidizing a privately owned, for-profit corporation that doesn’t need to be?]

The article talks about how 21,000 NPR/PBS jobs would be at risk if the funding was cut. While that is intended to make the average person go, "Oh noes! Those poor people!", I see it another way...

If the only thing keeping them afloat is the half a billion that the overtaxed [We currently enjoy the lowest tax rates in over 50 years.] Americans are having to cough up each year whether they listen to it or want it or not, then maybe they should go the way of the Dodo. It says to me, that a business that cannot survive without the subsidy, is a failed business. Other stations sell advertizing and make money and stay afloat, and when they don't, they go belly up or change format to something that people do want and does attract advertizers. [Again – not understanding the difference between ‘for-profit’ and ‘non-profit’ organizations. Also, why are Americans having to cough up each year to ‘for-profit’ oil companies whether we want it or not? The business in which the top 5 companies combined made $140 Billion PROFIT in 2011. Is he saying that he's AGAINST businesses like NPR that can't survive without a needed subsidy but he's FOR businesses like oil companies that are subsidized that DON'T need it? Another fine example of a right-wing circular argument.]

Why should NPR get to have a failing business [Not failing. Non-profit. A distinction Richard refuses to make because the way he’s arguing it, it makes it seem like he is right. Or, he really is ignorant of the facts. Which is probably more likely.] and demand half a billion dollars a year to stay afloat? What makes them so special? [Taxpayer-subsidized for-profit oil companies are special, how?]

If they cannot compete and stay afloat on their own, then frankly, they do not deserve to. Other [for-profit] stations are struggling and they don't get to force the taxpayers to foot the bill...


Oh, I did. Half a billion clams a year for your Left-Wing [all-wing] government sponsored [non-profit] radio.

If they were giving even half that to [for-profit] Rush Limbaugh or [for-profit] Glenn Beck, would you be fine with the Feds funding that with taxpayer dollars?

Please explain in detail how NPR is left-slanted. GO!

Bill Mancuso
Emotional? Maybe a little. I won't deny it. But the exuberance with which I relay my facts makes them no less accurate. Much in the same way that with the calm, cool demeanor in which you relay your misinformation makes your statements no more accurate. And all my points are valid. It's not my fault if you find it hard to follow my factual responses to each of the factless things you write.

Republicans are doing what they said they do? They said they'd create jobs. That's the only thing they haven't done. "So be it." In fact, they've been working against creating jobs to, again, make Obama look bad. What they actually did upon taking office is attack Roe vs. Wade as they always do, attack unions, school, police and fire funding, attempt to repeal health care, which would cost millions more $, spend the stimulus money they asked for while simultaneously condemning it, cut pay and pensions and benefits for the working class, raise taxes on the working class to pay for the tax cuts to the rich - you really never heard of any of this? You really think the ONE thing they ran on, creating jobs, is what they're doing? Then where are the jobs they promised?

People are against Obama's health care plan until they stop listening to the Republican lies about it and actually look into it themselves. Which you haven't yet. Is it perfect? No. Needs work. But it's a start. And it needs the public option that the Republicans originally wanted but then went against after Obama was for it.

Of course I know Republicans are not against vets or children. [Unless they’re gay or poor.] My point is that they're filibustering the bills that help them because they are just going after Obama at any and all costs. Thanks for making my point.

[Here is a chart that demonstrates explicitly that the Republican minority is working their fucking balls off to obstruct everything the Obama administration does. They have DOUBLED their standard obstructionism when it comes to Obama…]

Congress has too much time on their hands trying to get bills passed? Which is their job? The government is horrifying the Founding Fathers? Way to repeat the Republican mantra of Democratic big government nonsense. It's Republicans who love authoritarian big government programs. Democrats aren't innocent but their big government stuff is more aimed at helping the people whereas Republicans pass massive legislation to help big business and control your life in the way they decide you should live it, all the while massively expanding the size of government. You've fallen into the Republican trap of listening to what they say and not paying attention to what they actually do. Want to hear some facts you'll ignore? Good. Here we go... Three radical bills to restrict abortion rights. And passed 64 new anti-abortion laws. Sorry, I meant to say SIXTY-FUCKING-FOUR. Talk about controlling people's lives. Do you understand all the new government offices that will have to be created to monitor all the women's reproductive rights in America? And the federal government tells you what to do, not you and your doctor? If a woman wants or needs an abortion, Republicans want to first force women to listen to anti-abortionist, non-medical, government-mandated script that includes medically disproven information written by pro-life, anti-abortion politicians, or go to prison. Forcing a doctor to give you false information - or go to prison. What the fuck about that for the perennial Republican chanting of "keep the government from getting between you and your doctor?" Now they're making it LAW to specifically PUT government between you and your doctor! Huge huge HUGE government! And try to ban contraception. What? And expanding the NSA to wiretap phones and check citizens' emails and library book check-out lists without a warrant - fascist big government. The previous Republican president, Bush, with the Republican controlled Congress increased the size of the federal government by more than any other time since World War II when they created the Department of Homeland Security. The Patriot Act - allowing an American citizen to be arrested and held without charges or the right to council - forever. Fascist, rights-stripping legislation. How's that for freedom? Censoring textbooks. Omitting the parts of American history they don't care for? Maybe that's why it's harder for Texas kids to get into college. They don't know history anymore. Anti-gay marriage. Stripping middle-class collective bargaining rights. Stripping democratically elected government officials and installing dictators – I mean, “emergency managers,” and close your town. Fucking huge, fascist, life-controlling government. In Florida, every state employee and benefit recipient (having committed NO crime) will be forced to get drug tested, costing the cash-strapped state hundreds of thousands of dollars more a month. Huge government. A Republican judge in Alaska wants to prosecute people for having sex outside of marriage. Big government. Get rid of EPA because Koch brothers want to be free to pollute as much as they want? I'll stop here, but please feel free to back your claim of Republicans being against big government. And Democrats being for it.

How did we get into this deficit again? Oh, yeah. Two unpaid-for wars and two tax cuts for the wealthy. And yeah, Obama's a spineless pussy for not getting out of them.

Implementing spending cuts only will not get us out of debt. Tax rates also need to be raised. At the very least end subsidies for billion-dollar-profit corporations. That is socialism. You should be against it. I guess not when it’s for the rich, though.

What Democratic spending spree to buy votes?

I have heard of ACORN, the organization that helped low and moderate income families who tend to vote Democrat. Their voter fraud instances were the same average as all voter registration. Almost none. And in most cases, the votes were collected by volunteers as a way to get paid by ACORN, not commit voter fraud - according to California courts. Did you hear that the Massachusetts, New York and California courts found NO criminal wrongdoing after investigating the "heavily edited footage" of James O'Keefe? And that the US Government Accountability Office said neither ACORN, nor any of its related organizations showed any evidence of mishandling federal or donated money? No, I'm sure you didn't hear about this from the conservative agenda sources you get your misinformation from. They wouldn’t report that part of the story.

But after the continued Republican chest-thumping, like they always do, Congress defunded it anyway. [Because Democrats didn't want to look like pussies, they just went along with the Republican false outrage machine before the jury was in on whether ACORN actually committed any crime.]

Mayor Daley? The ranked sixth best mayor in American history by 160 historians and political scientists? From 50 years ago? The start of the whole fake voter fraud nonsense by Republicans that they now continually use to attack Democrats? And even if the alleged voter fraud accusations fabricated by the Republicans were true, Kennedy still would have won without counting any of the alleged fraudulent votes. You get an F- for Republican math skills. Again, you should get the whole story before you throw it at me. Not just the cherry-picked "this will make Democrats look bad" parts. All that aside, let's keep to the current century, ay?

Vote machine in the trunk. Dead people registering and voting Democrat. Rounding up homeless people to vote in exchange for cigs. Registered 17 times for Democrat absentee ballots. You're repeating thoroughly debunked right wing lies, Richard. These are all false. Already proven so in the real world. [I'm not going to give the real stories behind these lies right now because they will be addressed in a later post. I don’t want you to think I’m just pretending these aren’t real and that I’m using the right-wing ‘denial-without-fact’ form of debate. I think it will be titled “PolitiFiction” since the discussion happened after a bullshit PolitiFact article.] In fact, almost all of what you're saying has been proven false. But you just keep repeating the right wing propaganda. Nice to see you check your info. Next you'll bring up the "New Black Panthers." Which consists of exactly two guys who stood in front of one voting place one time to intimidate the voters who statistically vote Democratic 97% of the time. Then the two guys disappeared. [And no one would have ever heard of them if FOX "News" didn't cry about those two clowns over and over and over for days. What? FOX "News" trumped up a virtually non-existent issue and tried to blame it on Democrats?] Voter fraud is just about non-existent on either side of the aisle. But only if you go by facts. [Not counting the rampant voter-fraud perpetrated by Republican politicians who continually seek ways to prevent people from voting for Democrats. Scroll through my ¡Vete a la Chingada, los Republicanos! page. I've chronicled many such instances. Specifically, numbers 5, 6, 13, 25, 29, 43, 45, 51, 52 and 67.]

If you don't watch FOX, where do you get your misinformation from? Talk radio? Rush? Boortz? Hannity? Beck? O'Reilly? Ingraham?

Mark's on your NPR nonsense. If you ever answer him. But, Mark, I'd like to propose a theory... Republicans think NPR is liberal because it has the word 'public' in it. Republicans substitute 'public' with 'social.' Which leads to 'socialism.' Which they mistakenly confuse for 'Communism.' Which they have been trained to associate with 'Democrats.' Who are 'liberal.' IT MUST BE STOPPED! Also, it's not on a specifically designated conservative station and since they only see the world in black-and-white, it must be a liberal station since that is the only other possible option in their ‘two-options-only’ world. And let me pose this question: If we cut the half billion taxpayer handout from NPR and PBS, non-profit, educational organizations, shouldn't we also cut the $4 billion taxpayer handout to the oil companies that make $20-$30 billion in profit each per year?

It's like the fight between Philo Beddo and Jack Wilson in Any Which Way You Can.

Bill, you are a smart man, why must you keep spouting nonsense that you know is not true? [What Richard meant was: “I am going to ignore all the confirmed facts you’ve just given and continue to repeat the debunked nonsense that the drug-addict, Rush Limbaugh told me.”]

There is not, nor has there ever been a tax cut for the rich that is paid for by the middle class. It's a myth, one that the Libs use to generate resentment of the have-nots towards the haves. [What Richard meant was: “I am going to ignore the obvious tax cuts given to the rich and claim the issue is resentment of the “haves” by the “have-nots” because the drug-addict, Rush Limbaugh informed me that the new talking point for the Republican party is to twist the middle class’s desire for equality into resentment of the rich, which has the benefit of tricking me into supporting the rich over my own best interests and I obediently follow what the drug-addict, Rush tells me because he is a Republican.”  

Tax cuts go to people that pay taxes. The poor, don't pay income taxes. The rich, pay most of the income taxes. [Notice he's specifying 'income' taxes and avoiding all the rest of the taxes that the poor DO pay. It makes him feel like he is on the correct side of the argument. What? A Republican deliberately ignoring half of the story that disagrees with right-wing talking points?]

If you give a 3% tax cut across the board, who saves the most money? The middle class person that after deducting his mortgage and kids and stuff who only has a $4,000 tax liability, or, the evil rich guy that paid a few hundred thousand dollars in taxes?

Go look up the break down of "Who pays the taxes". The rich, pay the most. So any tax cut would benefit them the most. You cannot give significant tax cuts to the people that don't pay taxes. Well, that's not true, we do give poor people tax refunds who didn't pay taxes in the first place, it is called the Earned Income Tax Credit. So again, tax cuts go to people who pay the taxes, and the Rich pay most of them.

Won't argue with you on abortion policies, as my Libertarian leanings would side with you on that 100%. Same with gay marriage. I think it is hypocritical for Republicans to say they want government to be less in our lives, and that's great that they do apply that to my wallet [Actually, their big government social control policies end up costing you much, much more than any tax break they give you, so, no, they don’t apply conservatism to your wallet. Of course, to understand that, you’d have to pay attention to what they do instead of what they say they do.], but when they feel right at home in the womb or your bedroom, it contradicts that philosophy.

As for them trying to not create jobs to make Obama look bad, stop it. That is absolute nonsense and you know it. [Except for the facts.] Let's see, I can create jobs and be a hero and secure my political future, or I can try to not create jobs in order to make one man look bad, and thereby take myself down as well... Hmmm, what to do... Don't be silly. That mantra that the DNC started last week sounds great, but only the gullible are gonna buy it. It is baseless and it doesn't even make any sense. [Yeah, that’s not how it works. You have to pretend it is in order to also pretend the Republicans aren’t fascists. This is actually how it works: No jobs are created during the Obama administration and Republicans claim Obama couldn’t create any jobs so America must elect a Republican as President because obviously, Democratic ideals don’t work. Naturally, they neglect to explain that Republicans blocking every jobs bill is really why no jobs were created.]

As for NPR, nobody thinks it is Left leaning because the name public is in it. It's the programming and content that makes it lean Left, much the same way that you conclude that Fox leans Right. [Since I know he doesn't listen to NPR, I'm sure he's told NPR leans left by the drug-addict, Rush Limbaugh. I however, stomach some FOX on occasion. They do not lean right. They are a right-wing fundraising propaganda machine.]

And nobody stripped middle class Americans of bargaining rights. One state stripped GOVERNMENT workers from bargaining rights. There's a difference, as there should be, when your paycheck is paid for by the taxpayers.

I wouldn't know where to begin...

GO BACHMANN!!!! [Mark is being facetious.]

Bill Mancuso
So, then that's a 'no' on stopping the $4 billion in subsidies to corporations like big oil (= tax cuts), corporate jet tax cuts, agriculture subsidies (= tax cuts), McDonald's subsidies to open stores in other countries (= tax cuts to send jobs overseas), subsidies to Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers (= tax cuts), Amtrak subsidies (= tax cuts), etc, etc, etc.

I guess if they're not explicitly labeled "tax cuts," you don't understand that a subsidy is the same thing. [Plus those things specifically called “The Bush Tax Cuts.”] Whether you keep more money or get money from the government, it is the same thing, no matter what it is called. But I guess this is a liberal myth.

Oh, and those subsidy kind of tax cuts are socialism in its purest form. Direct handouts. Taking money from "A" and giving it to "B."

Tax rates have not been this low since the 50's, so I don't want to hear how overtaxed corporations are. And technically, yes, corporations do pay the most in taxes. That is if you don't take into account all the subsidies (tax cuts) and loop holes that enable giant corporations to pay NO taxes in America like Bank of America, who somehow received $1.9 billion in return (tax cut after paying no taxes), General Electric, who somehow received $1.1 billion in return (tax cut after paying no taxes), Citigroup, who somehow received $6.7 fucking billion in return (tax cut after paying no taxes) and Valero Gas, who somehow received $100 million in return (tax cut after paying no taxes). I pay more taxes than all those ginormous corporations all put together. And so do you. And yes, many other multi-billion dollar corporations do pay between 2% & 50% income tax. They have OK or bad accountants. But I guess this is a liberal myth.

[I fell into the Republican misinformation trap here. The wealthy make the most money, so they obviously pay most of the taxes. The reality is that they pay less of a percentage of their income than 99% of Americans. That’s actually the problem people have. The ‘fairness’ issue.

Here is an excerpt from a “discussion” I had with someone else where I explain the difference between ‘total taxes paid’ and ‘percent of taxes paid’ - a distinction Republicans will NEVER acknowledge since it completely eviscerates their bullshit. I won’t ever post it because the other guy was so fucking full of shit that it actually became incredibly boring…

:::> But, yes, Professor, you are correct. The top 1% pay 28%, top 5% pay 44% and the top 10% pay 55%. Your manipulation, however, is that that is of TOTAL TAX paid - not PERCENT OF INCOME paid. A standard right-wing deceit.

Also according to the 2007 CBO report, the top 10% controls 73% of the wealth (top 1% has half of that 73%) and the bottom 90% controls a meager 27% of the wealth. The average income of the top 0.01% is $24 million. The bottom 90% is $30,000.

Even if a 'top one percenter' paid only a .5% tax rate and a 'bottom 90 percenter' paid a 50% tax rate, they would still pay more TOTAL TAXES than a 'bottom 90 percenter,' so your intentionally misrepresented numbers are, indeed, bullshit.

If you make a million dollars and I make $50,000, and we both paid a 30% tax rate, even then you would still pay more in TOTAL TAX, but I would not have a problem because we are paying the SAME RATE.

In 2010, the top 1% earned 93% of all new income. How is this even remotely possible unless corporations get more tax breaks and pay their workers less (I'm only counting the ones actually in America)? This system blatantly geared toward only helping the rich isn't a sustainable one. No, Republicans believe it's NPR’s fault. Stop funding them.

In 2011, the Fortune 500 companies generated $845 billion in profits - the most profit EVER. And that was UP 16% from 2010. The financial services sector earned $150 billion profit - UP 19% from 2010. The effective corporate tax rate is 18.5% - the lowest in over four decades.

Yet almost a quarter (75,000,000 – and growing) of Americans live in poverty as this wealth continues to aggregate more and more at the top. I bet you believe this is wholly due to lazy freeloaders on welfare who want everything for free. After all, that IS the typical nonsensical right-wing argument in defense of the greedy 1%. <:::

And as for Richard’s statement that poor people pay no taxes, here is another excerpt of my reply from that same “discussion” with the Professor…

:::> And please, you uneducated moron, please stop saying half the country pays no taxes. That, too, is a flat out fucking lie. Half the country pays no FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. And even that is only an anomaly of the past three years because of the temporary breaks passed due to the current economy. All of which have expired already. Those who don't pay Fed taxes are the elderly who do not work, students who do not work, children who do not work, people on disability who do not work and people who do not make enough money to even reach the bottom tax bracket. Yeah, that family of four making under $20,000 are nothing but a bunch of socialist freeloaders. However, those people DO pay sales tax, social security tax, Medicare tax, payroll tax, excise taxes, state taxes, local taxes, property tax, etc. Here's an article full of facts that you either won't read or will just ignore - Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes <:::]

The working class doesn't get the benefit of that amount of loop holes. How many off shore accounts and tax shelters and multiple businesses that you can shell-game your money around to enable you to not pay any taxes AND get a refund? But I guess this is also a liberal myth.

According to the IRS, those ladies and gentlemen who collect taxes, the number of people with incomes of $200,000 and paid no U.S. income taxes jumped 79.5% from 2007 to 2008. Unless you think the IRS is a liberal organization making up more myths.

And you're right, many families under the poverty level (which rose by 37% suburban & 18% cities in the last 10 years) pay no taxes. Freeloaders!

As for Republicans not raising taxes on the middle class to pay for the cuts for the wealthy, I could write a really long list of the factual instances contradicting that completely misinformed statement, but I'll keep it local and short. You must have missed the very first thing I said about the steep tax cuts our very own Governor Deal gave to foreign corporations operating in Georgia and increased our taxes to cover it. What I meant was, for a fact, Governor Deal gave steep tax cuts to foreign corporations operating in Georgia and increased middle class taxes to cover it. Foreign! Not even American! Sending jobs over seas! I mean, over fucking seas! But I guess I made up another liberal myth.

I'm sure in this article with a sea of plain old simple, unadulterated facts, you'll deem them liberal cherry-picked because they don't jibe with the conservative agenda. And what the fantastically mustachioed guy says in the video, too. I'll offer it anyway.

If the Republicans are not preventing the Obama administration from creating jobs, then how does filibustering every job-creation bill create jobs? And where are the jobs they're not preventing from being made? It must be purely Obama's fault. Even though the Republicans ran in 2010 on a job-creation platform. Well, tricked you into thinking they were going to create jobs but really wanted to go after middle class-helping social programs. As they do every single time they get in power. But they say they don't and you believe them contrary to what's happening to and around you. And apparently, you missed every Republican making defeating Obama their one and only goal. Mitch McConnell, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." John Boehner parroting, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President.” and on Obama's agenda: “We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.” and "This is not a time for compromise." But I guess this is a liberal myth. Oh, and please let me know what the Republicans have done to create jobs. I'll take one example. And cutting corporate taxes doesn't count, because, speaking of myths, trickle-down economics is a myth. Or, voo-doo economics, to quote Bush senior. Before he became VP and denied he said it, not understanding what a video recording is.

You still haven't given an example of just what liberal things NPR does. As for the conclusion that FOX leans Right (they don't really lean, they kind of have both feet planted firmly on that side), I don't have to gather information and come to a conclusion. Their mission statement is to give the conservative side of information. As if 'information' is or can be politically motivated. FOX "News" holds Teabag rallies, donated $1mil to the Republican Governors Convention, supports and fundraises for Republican candidates only.

Republicans aren't systematically stripping (or attempting to) bargaining rights of public and private unions in every state they control? I better call my brother in Jersey and let him know the collective bargaining rights of his non-government job weren't really stripped by Gov Christie. Nor were the rights of all those government teachers and government construction workers and government child care providers and government plumbers and government steelworkers (just kidding - none of them are really government workers - all private) in Wisconsin, Ohio, New Jersey. And the proposed union-stripping bills in Idaho, Indiana, Tennessee, Illinois, Nebraska, Florida and Michigan. If that's ONE state, I give you another F- in Republican math.

To be fair, I guess they wouldn't report the fascist things Republicans are doing or attempting to do on the conservative news outlets, and you only listen to those, so I'll let that wildly incorrect statement pass. Or I guess this is just another liberal myth.


No, a tax cut and subsidy is not the same thing. A tax cut is not being given anything. You are simply being stolen from less. ["Stolen from." Ooh, scary.]

If I come to your house with a gun and confiscate 38% of your income each year, and next year I come to your house with a gun and only take 35%, that's a tax cut. It's your money, I simply confiscated slightly less of it than I confiscated from you last year, that's all.

A subsidy is when someone gives you money, like some of your examples. Or the Earned Income Tax credit. Or Medicare. Food stamps. Any government grant. Welfare. Unemployment. Keeping NPR afloat, etc...

As for my charts about the top 5% paying 58% of the taxes, those are taken from the IRS tables and are personal income taxes *ONLY*. They do not contain corporate taxes. The breakdown looks like this:

Top 1% pay 38% of the taxes
Top 5% pays 59% of the taxes
Top 10% pays 70% of the taxes
Top 25% pays 86% of the taxes
Top 50% pays 93% of the taxes
And the bottom 50% pays less than 3% of the taxes

Corporate Taxes are an entirely different table, and I contend that regardless of laws, corporations will never pay taxes, as those will be factored into the cost of doing business. Raise taxes on corporations and they will manifest themselves in layoffs, increased unemployment, decreased employee benefits and higher prices of the goods or services that they produce. Hence, any corporate taxes are ultimately paid for by the employees and the consumers, not the corporation. Its another one of those things that sounds great on a bumper sticker, but when your GI Joe with the Kung Fu Grip goes from $15 to $20, that will be why. Raise taxes on the corporation, and those costs get added to the overhead and passed right on to the consumer. That's the reality of it, and that's why I don't think that it really matters what tax laws you pass for Corps. In the end, if you tax them enough they will just move HQ to Bermuda or something and take a lot of jobs with them.

And the reason why the IRS reported that people with income over $200k who paid no taxes jumped in 2007-2008 was probably because of the economy tanking and them taking huge losses on property or investments and getting to write a ton of stuff off. That year, I made $175k, and with my ex-wife's income we were over $200k and I can assure you, we paid a shitload of taxes. LOL [Anyone reading this, I want you to keep reading this paragraph over until it makes ANY sense to you. Then, when you figure it out, please explain it to me in the comments section of this post. Thank you.]

What the Republicans seem to be blocking as far as job creation goes, are bullshit bills that just spend money and if they create new jobs, they would be GOVERNMENT jobs. I don't think that spending a shitload of money to add more layers of red tape and adding more people to the government payroll is the answer, do you? I mean, it's great for the government to control more and more people's lives, but it isn't good for this country as a whole. [So, Republicans ran on creating jobs and all they have done is protect us from Democrats creating expensive government jobs? Aside from none of that being even remotely accurate, why haven’t the Republicans proposed any cheap, non-government jobs? Also, why is it OK for Republican presidents to create GOVERNMENT jobs in times of recession (proven to actually help the economy), but Democratic presidents are not? Excuses have to make sense at some point, don’t you think? Krugman: Reagan Was More Keynesian Than Obama]

The Reps want to stop Obama, not because it is Obama, but because they believe that what Obama wants, is bad for the country. To think that they are doing everything on a personal level is just stilly, so stop it. They believe that what he wants is bad for America, and a lot of us agree.

PS - Palin for 2012 [Richard is NOT being facetious.]

Bill Mancuso
So, the government letting you keep, say, $1,000 in the form of a tax cut is not the same as the government giving you $1,000 in the form of a subsidy? OK. Grover Norquist would disagree. I happen to also, but for the opposite reason as Mr. Norquist. That's not to say some programs shouldn't get subsidized. Some should. But Republicans tend to fight for the big, for-profit corporations that don't need them and Democrats tend to fight for the non-profit organizations that help those in need. Like corporate jet subsidies vs. subsidies to help low-income families' heating and cooling costs. Oh, damn. I forgot. There's no reason anyone should be in a low-income family. They're all just lazy freeloaders living off of the government programs that actually cause people to do the things that the programs were designed to help. And that certifiably insane mentality is the reason there is no reasoning.

OK. Nice tax chart. Do you understand what it says? When you have 90% of the country's money, doesn't that lend to basic concept of paying 90% of the country's taxes? Or do you think the poorest 50% should pay 90% of the - no, fuck that. Do you think the poorest 50% should pay 50% of the taxes? Let me simplify it for you. We're the only two people in the country. I make $10 million. You make $100 thousand. The country collects $2 million in taxes. If the top 50% (me) paid 50% of the taxes and the bottom 50% (you) paid 50% of the taxes, an equal share, you would owe the country $900,000, that is, if you had paid the IRS every penny of your income. I paid my million to the IRS. Why haven't you paid yours? Deadbeat freeloader. Even simpler: You earn $2. I earn $1. At a 50% tax rate, would your argument be that you pay twice as much in taxes than I do? No, because after paying no taxes, you would get a $.50 subsidy from the government, which is where my tax money is going instead of to the WIC program. F+ on Republican math skills. You get the + this time because that chart is confusing if you're not paying attention.

If taxes on corporations were raised, that would inevitably manifest into layoffs, increased unemployment, decreased employee benefits and higher prices of the goods or services that they produce? OK. I wonder if there is any historical evidence that proves the fallacy of that extreme, misinformed statement that blatantly protects big corporations' CEO's interests and not the workers who do the work? If there was only some way we could find out. Why, oh why don't they keep records of things that actually happen in the past?

Corporations shouldn't have to pay taxes because their taxes are factored into the cost of doing business? OK. That absurd notion would mean NO ONE should pay taxes ever because everything everyone buys should be factored in. Glad I don't have to pay federal taxes after my business makes a profit because I bought gas for my car today and lunch at Jersey Mike's sub shop.

The reason the IRS recorded the number of people making over $200,000 paying no taxes jumped was due to the economy tanking and people taking huge loses in investments and getting to write it all off? OK. Before the economy tanked? Yay for flux capacitors. But even if that were true, why did it benefit only the wealthy? Why did people making UNDER $200,000 still have to pay taxes? Ah, no write-offs. Your argument for rewriting the tax code so it shifts the burden back off of lower income people to correct Reagan's Tax Reform Act of 1986 is compelling.

Republicans want to stop Obama because they believe his policies are bad for America? OK. I forgot, Obama hates America and wants to destroy it. His policies are far more conservative than Reagan's ever were, and Reagan is considered a God by the conservatives. And Obama keeps agreeing with Republicans' proposals - then the hypocritical cock-knockers suddenly hate THEIR OWN IDEAS and claim they're terrible (We went over this already - do I need to go through the list again?). But no, it's not personal.

I can't even comment on the Palin 2012 thing. If I start, I'll only start crying with laughter. Then snot will run down my face. The laughter will build to a crescendo and I will fall out of my chair. When I hit the floor, I'll flex upon impact and shit myself. Then sit up really quickly, smashing my skull on the table, knocking myself out. I will wake up hours later, covered in tears, snot, blood and poop. Do you know how hard that is to get out of a carpet?

Unless you were kidding. You were kidding, right? No. I guess you weren't. All hope is lost.

Palin thinks Paul Revere was warning the British not to take our guns away. Jeez. How utterly fucking stup ytjytkjy.M:"trygjhh.jk/luhjlm/:<

I heart you Bill Mancuso

Bill Mancuso
Chuck Schumer is copying me.

Bill, tax cuts and subsidies are not the same. [I think if he repeats that 3 more times and clicks his heels together, it will actually come true.] A tax cut is MY MONEY. The government is not giving me a dime when they give me a tax cut. They are simply taking less. A subsidy is when they give me money that wasn't mine to begin with. So there is a difference.

And I am not saying that Corps shouldn't pay taxes, I am just saying that the reality is that they don't. Also consider that a corporation is nothing more than a collective of individuals, from the CEO in down to the mail room, and each and every one of those people all pay taxes. A Corp is not a thing, it's a group, and if you are already taxing all of the individuals within the group, do you really need to then tax the group as a whole? Seems a little bit like double-dipping, no? [No. Unless the workers receive an equal share of the corporate profits. What? They don’t? So, they’re not really a part of the corporation, but a separately paid employee? Jackass.]

Obama doesn't hate America. Like most Liberals/Socialists, he has the best of intentions, but the worst ways of execution. [Liberal and Socialist are not the same thing, but nice try slipping that in. Also, it's getting harder for Republicans to ignore that Obama is implementing mostly Republican policies. One of their new excuses as to why they hate {what} Obama {is doing}, is that it's "the way" he's implementing them. "We don't filibuster everything he does because he's black, we do it because we don't like the way he implements our policies."]

And Schumer is not copying you, as I said before, this is the latest DNC PR Campaign that you will hear echoing through the mainstream media. Election cycle is warming up, and this is the latest ploy... "Obama is failing because the Evil Reps are destroying jobs and trying to frame him and make him look bad..."

What utter dreck.

Bill Mancuso
I had no idea they labeled the money. I'm going to go check to see what mine says.

Your ‘double-dipping’ theory makes no sense.

Since I didn't know Democrats were saying Republicans are intentionally sabotaging the economy to make Obama look bad because I came to that conclusion all by myself using my magical power of "observation," it still seems to me that Chuckie copied me because I said it before him.

And the supreme court says a corporation is a person, not a collective. So a corporation is a thing. It can donate, it can pay taxes. But what I just said is silly because first, your double-dipping theory doesn't make sense anyway. And second, the right-wing dominated supreme court is biased in their decision-making.

They don't label the money. Its common sense, something that usually eludes the Left, probably because they subscribe to the notion that the government owns the money, that it belongs to them and not the people that earned it. [No one on the Left ever said that, but those on the Right need to pretend they did in order for their completely stupid tax theories makes sense.]

A tax cut is a reduction in the rate of confiscation.  [Ooo. “Confiscation” sure sounds really bad. I think you're swaying me to your way of thinking. I guess fear-mongering works after all.] They are letting you keep a little bit more of YOUR money, that YOU went to work and EARNED. It was yours all along, it is not theirs to give.

As I said before, if I come to your house every week and steal $25 from your wallet, and then one week I only steal $23, did I give you $2?

No, I simply stole less than I stole from you the week before. I didn't give you anything, and I cannot give something that I don't own in the first place.

A subsidy, is not the same. [Don’t forget to click your heels.]

Bill Mancuso
So, if you got to keep an extra $500 of YOUR money due to a tax break, that's OK. But if you got a $500 subsidy, that's, what? I'm lost on your virtually indistinguishable technicality that makes absolutely no difference in its result of big corporations having a preposterously large amount of money that should be spent on education, health and socially responsible things of that nature like infrastructure. I am acutely aware, however, that we are tackling the issue from opposite perspectives. Yours being the "What's in it for me?" perspective. A generally self-centered, conservative Republican perspective. Mine being the "How will this help the most people?" perspective. A generally socially-centered, liberal Democrat perspective. Do we cut the wealthy's $2 billion corporate jet subsidy that they don't need and apply that money instead to WIC ($868m), AmeriCorps ($914m), National Parks Services ($51m), The Smithsonian ($7m) and the NEA ($167m) or perhaps leave the subsidies alone and maybe just return the tax levels to the Clinton era where hardly anyone went out of business, closed jobs or passed cost on to consumers and America kind of did pretty fucking awesome as far as the budget? Or would you prefer the Eisenhower (the last great Republican president) 91% tax rate when America was booming? Or do you prefer Reagan's voodoo/trickle down taxes that earned the top 2% an 80% hike in income, the middle 95% received an unnoticeable 2% hike and the bottom 3% an actual loss in income? Or Bush's, which resulted in, well, look out the window. Of course, his two wars that he kept off the books didn't help, either. And yes, Obama's a pussy for not getting us out of them. [This was before we left Iraq.] He's also a pussy for continuing to think that the Republicans will ever work with him to fix the economy or anything else, for that matter. He should have just done what Bush did and abuse the shit out of his power and just fucking do it. Difference is the corporate interests of Bush vs. the mostly public interests of Obama.

Also, you are confusing being socially conscious with socialism. And subsequently confusing socialism with Socialism. And then Socialism with Communism. Note the capitalizations. All have different meanings. All conservative Republican politicians obfuscate those definitions to further their corporatist agenda. It helps them in playing the fear card to get their base fired up to get them elected to implement their selfish, socially destructive, human-rights-violating policies. None of which are good for the society known as America. Good for corporations and the wealthy, yes. Everyone else, no. Just take a look at what they're doing all over the country right now after the 2010 elections. Supporting corporate interests, slashing worker benefits, civil rights violations and anti-constitutional policies. Not a goddamned thing about jobs - which is what they ran on, sneaky fuckers that they are. And since the conservative Republican voters have a tendency to never investigate anything, but instead parrot directly the pre-edited and packaged misinformation that is sold directly on FOX "News" as real news, (Roger Ailes' plan since the Nixon administration--The Washington Post: Richard Nixon and Roger Ailes 1970s plan to put the GOP on TV), the conservative base eats it up, believing it is real. In fact, it is nothing more than smoke and mirrors all designed to help protect corporate interests at the expense of the working class. As evidenced by, well, evidence. When the workers are all dead, who will do all the menial labor for the rich?

If you claim the left operates the same as the right regarding information dissemination, you wouldn't be completely wrong. The main difference is that the right completely makes up things that are patently false while also ignoring things they don’t like, whereas the left just conveniently doesn't report certain things. Which is why, when I watch either form of talking heads (I watch both - I would be a hypocrite talking out of my ass if I didn't, and nothing I said would have any credibility), I research what they say, instead of blindly following and repeating – such as yourself.

Also, how is Obama executing all the Republican ideas in the worst way? That doesn’t make any sense.

How is it indistinguishable? [How is keeping $500 extra indistinguishable from getting $500 extra?]

One is them letting me keep my money, that rightfully belongs to me in the first place. The other is giving me money that belongs to someone else. [Click.]

Why is that so hard to understand?

Bill Mancuso
Richard, I have to be honest. I really do enjoy our little ideological sparring matches. I have been de-friended just for posting stuff, not even having any communication about the topic with the person. How can someone be so weak in their convictions that they run away just because someone says something. I'm glad you hold your ground. You may not be able to tell, but you make me think hard about what you say. I'm not saying you'll change my mind, but you do make me think. And that shit is cool in my book.

I'm going to throw in the towel now because we've obviously played this one out, hitting the "no, it isn't" "yes, it is" stage.

Keep your épée ready for next time.

Fino al più tardi.

[Three months later, Richard de-friended me. I know it’s difficult and stressful refuting facts all the time. I, however, enjoy giving them. I was being honest about him making me think. I get to learn all the things Republicans are claiming Democrats are saying, which I then investigate. And learn.]

Bill and Richard, I always enjoy reading your points of view on things. Since college I have been on the conservative bus, but a lot of things in the past few years have disappointed me. I am not sure who's side I am on anymore. I tend to not agree with the policies of the Democrats, yet the Republicans continually fail to impress me with a definitive move towards any real policy that makes any sense. Continual filibustering or arguing over abortion issues in a budget bill is not getting the job done. I wish they would spend more time (on both sides of the aisle) hashing out a plan and getting their JOB done than lambasting each other over trivial issues.

Bill Mancuso
Too true, Brian. [Although, I would not consider both sides equal in their trivial issues.]

I want to see a Bill-Richard cage fight! Or at least hang out with you guys, have too many beers and shoot the shit.

I enjoy our talks. [Not so much, apparently.] I like Bill, and whether we ever agree or not doesn't matter. It's an intellectual/ideological sparring session, and I enjoy it. There is my side of things, Bill's side, and then there is the reality somewhere in the middle. [Am I a dick for believing the reality is much closer to my side? And am I also a dick for believing intellect has little bearing on Richard’s ideology?]

Regardless of what links and things we reference, the average person probably knows less than 20% of what really goes on behind closed doors in politics. We know, for the most part, what they want us to know.

I hope you know I am just teasing! I like to read a good debate.

Aaand Scene.


No comments:

Post a Comment