Sounds great. Will do.

actually, trienniums are getting quite popular now

Get your own thread Rancher. No one cares about this one.

No sweat, I'll check back in 3 years

Subsidies we can cut tomorrow.
$6 Billion for ethanol. Axe it!
The mortgage deduction needs to change. It subsidizes wealthy homeowners.
Put a cap on the property value eligible for mortgage deduction.

agreed with the very last statement ... but the deduction in great large part subsidizes lower middle and middle class homeowners, with a side effect of helping wealthy homeowners too

2011 statistics say the average Medicare recipient will have paid in $130,000 during their working lifetime and will have receive over $350,000 in benefits.
No wonder the program will fail in 2016 unless the rosiest economic growth occurs.
Five years left.

Are politicians more interested in their political party and the next election than the future of the country?

Today's federal budget in 2011 is over twice the size of the federal budget in 2001.
Scary.

Medicare Part D. No one has ever paid a penny in tax to pay for this program, and beneficiaries complain about the donut hole.
Unbelievable.

Of all of the public borrowing done by the federal government since the beginning of the calendar year, 90% was from the federal reserve and only 10% was from private American citizens and foreign nations.
Who will we borrow from after July 1?

If the United States has to raise interest on bonds just 2% to sell them if means an additional $300 Billion per year just to service the debt.
How do we convince the international money lenders that we will address the debt problems so that they will keep lending us money?
The only realistic solution is to down-size the federal government extensively and rapidly.
If we don't address this problem I won't suffer.
The poor will suffer. The elderly will suffer.
The cradle to grave big government socialism is fiscally unsustainable and has victimized the poor and elderly by making them dependent on programs that will become bankrupt in the next 5-10 years, Medicare and Medicaid.
We've absolutely destroyed cash and carry medical payments with government subsidies and third party insurance in the process.
When you hear big government politicians- Pelosi-Clyburn-etc.- talk about immorality remember that taking away an individuals independence, making them dependent, and then destroying the program you made them dependent on is the most immoral act of all.

Do you EVER shtui the fuck up????

Bonds....fuck...if yhou do NOT raise the debt limit, then you can'[t sell any more bonds. Fucking retard pretend conservative.

^troll

I wonder why Krellin is bothered at all by what I post?
I'm a retard, a fucktard, a pretend conservative.
The answer of course is a total lack of confidence in his own viewpoint.
Intellectual insecurity is a terrible thing to behold.

Like ☺ I am not a fan of your viewpoints, but I simply cannot stand to see someone making a fool of themselves by using slang and harassing comments.

Why don't you just get a Twitter?

Speaking of government default.
The United States government failed to make treasury bill maturity payments to individual investments for three consecutive payment dates from April 26 through May 10, 1979.
The world did not come to an end.
It was Democratic Congress that did it to a Democratic President.
Could you imagine the 24 news cycle today being in a total tizzy fit for three weeks.
Good golly Miss Molly.

Or a blog. Seriously. I have to say smiley face, it kinda defeats the purpose of getting him his own thread if he's going to keep posting all his inane, ill conceived, teabagger crap here and keeping this thread on the home page.

"Are politicians more interested in their political party and the next election than the future of the country?"

Yes that is essentially how the political system works in any democracy. In an autocracy, they focus on trying to suppress revolutions by either giving the people what they want, or by scaring the shit out of them. So while you make a good point, I'm sure everyone is aware of the situation and is also aware that it cannot be changed.

The worse part is these do not even have a context,and then he follows them up with some stupid phrase.

^Do you mean one like this? "Good golly Miss Molly."

@ Mafia: Well if everyone would do like they're supposed to and ignore him, it might drop off. Or at least we could just pass by it...

I actually get a pretty good chuckle from the fact that he's actually commenting here.

Big government socialists like Robert Reick like to talk about "income inequality" in the United States. They speak about how much of the nation's wealth the top 1% have and How the bottom 10% control only 1% of the nation's wealth.

The huge problem with arguments of "social justice" like Reich's is the assumption that people rise economically in American society. People who were in the bottom 20% last decade have risen to the next quintile or even two quintiles. The opposite is true too. Individuals in the top 20% fall to the next lower quintile as well.

There is considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy over the
1996 through 2005 period. More than half of taxpayers (56 percent by one measure
and 55 percent by another measure) moved to a different income quintile between
1996 and 2005. About half (58 percent by one measure and 45 percent by another
measure) of those in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved to a higher income
group by 2005.

The composition of the very top income groups changes dramatically over time. Less
than half (40 percent or 43 percent depending on the measure) of those in the top 1
percent in 1996 were still in the top 1 percent in 2005. Only about 25 percent of the
individuals in the top 1/100th percent in 1996 remained in the top 1/100th percent in 2005.



Income Mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

One of the most important items in the United State's Constitution is the requirement to take a census every decade.

The economy of the country increased by almost 300% from 1980-2011.

Here are some statistics of what it means to live in "poverty" in the richest country in the world during the dramatic economic growth. All of the following stats refer to the real poor who live below the poverty line, not just the bottom 20%

1984 95.8% owned a refrigerator, 2005 99.3% have a refrigerator.
1984 58% owned a washer, 2005 84% a washer.
1984 38% owned a dryer, 2005 81% a dryer.
1984 95% owned a stove. 2005 98.8% a stove.
1984 70.3% owned a color TV. 2005 98.9 a color TV.
1994 60% owned a microwave TV. 2005 96.4 a microwave.
1984 71% owned a telephone. 2005 90% a telephone (land line)
2003 38% owned a cellphone. 2005 71% a cell phone.
1984 42% owned an air conditioner. 2005 85% an air conditioner.
2003 36% owned a computer. 2005 67% a computer.
2003 75% owned a DVD player. 92% a DVD player.

Speaking from experience, growing up in poverty is tough, but growing up in poverty in America isn't like growing up impoverished in the rest of the globe.

Link for the census data.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/extended-05.html

I've come to the conclusion that Tettleton just uses StumbleUpon to go through blogs and copy/pastes random sections completely out of context and pastes them here.

The picture of Chinese economic progress is quite misunderstood.
The island of Malta has a land area of 122 square miles with a population of slightly under 400,000
The Chinese province of Tibet has a land area of 965,000 square miles with a population of 2.62 million people.
Malta's 400,000 people produce a GDP of $7.7 Billion.
Tibet's 2.62 million people produce a GDP of $7.6 Billion.

The poverty in Tibet is almost unimaginable to an American.

Shanghai has a population of 23 million and produces a GDP of $250 Billion.
Finland has a population of 5.4 million and produces a GDP of $239 Billion.

China's most densely populated province, Jiangsu, has a population of 75 million people and a GDP of $596 Billion.
Switzerland has a population 7.8 people and a GDP of $528 Billion.

China's aggregate economic success is impressive, but China's per capita standard of living is 100 years behind the West's at the least.

Carter's HEW secretary and Reagan's Secretary of Education published an article in the Wall Street Journal today arguing that if the war on drugs ended and legalization followed that needle parks would shoot up all over the United States.

Let's contrast the "potential" of needle parks with the reality of the war on drugs.
The economic engine of gang violence is illegal drug sales.
Which is worse, needle parks or innocent children killed by gang members in drive by shootings.
During Prohibition bootleggers armed themselves to the teeth whenever they drove trucks to deliver booze.
Do beer truck drivers arm themselves today?
Did prohibition make law breakers out of average Americans who drank in spite of an amendment to the Constitution?
Is there more respect for drinking laws today that regulate where you can drink and what you can do after drinking like driving a car?

Did Prohibition corrupt law enforcement across the country?
Do we see law enforcement using civil asset forfeiture laws to fund their departments in these troubled economic times without any conviction of the accussed individual?
The assumption of civil asset forfeiture laws is that the individual is guilty until proven innocent.
Georgia alone seized $38 million dollars in supposed assets derived from drug activity in 2003.
Georgia law allows the agency that seized the asset to keep 33% of the property without any conviction necessary.
This is a recipe for government corruption.
We can see what the huge profits of illegal drugs has done to civil society in Mexico.
The lucrative Canadian drug trade has led to increase corruption north of the US border as well.

Alternatively needle parks publicly display the lost lives of heroin addicts to all to see.
Police know where to look for a drug addict who commits a crime, a needle park.
Supporters of the drug war claim that "good intentions" motivate them, but the reality is that the war on drugs keeps the suffering concentrated in poor neighborhoods where "do-gooders" rarely tread, like the authors of the piece.
What about the quality of illegal drugs that are cut with dangerous poisons.
Legalization would regulate quality as well and prevent needless deaths and suffering.
Portugal decriminalized drugs and saw a drop in the rate of addiction.

The crime and violence of Prohibition and the Drug War provides empirical and irrefutable evidence that destroys any theoretical or philosophical argument against the decriminalization of drug use.
The disrespect for the law fostered by Prohibition and the Drug War damage civil society as well.
We already have crime, we already have law enforcement corruption, we already have individuals criminalized, convicted, and incarcerated to the point our prisons are fiscally unsustainable and overcrowded.
Do-gooders say that legalizing drugs would destroy society yet they ignore the devastation taking place around them every single day.

Tibet is not a province of China, it's an "Autonomous Region." Without going into a super amount of detail, I can say with certainty that comparing Tibet and China's governing for it with the way any other part of China is dealt with is foolish. Similarly, using it as a comparison between China and the outside world is foolish. And Finland and Switzerland have high standards of living even among other western nations, so they're not a very fair comparison either.

PLUS FINLAND HAS SO MUCH ZOMG SOCIALISM ZOMG.

Minimum Wage Hike Could Boost Economy is the headline.
Speaking of insane socialism.
The economic think tank that advises the Obama White House, The Center for American Progress, just lost its collective mind.
Of course this insanity if based on the old idea that raising the minimum wage does not increase unemployment.
The dream attempts to argue that employers will reduce their profits to pay higher wages.
Of course no rational reason is ever given to explain what would motivate employers to do so. (If employers don't care about profits why do you need to raise the minimum wage to get employers to pay more in the first place?)
Common Sense and logic are definitely on vacation at the C4AP.
So the argument is that raising the cost of employing a new hire will motivate employers to bring on new labor even though there is little if any hiring before the wage hike.

If this is true then why be gruding with the minimum wage increase?
Why raise the minimum wage to only $8.25 an hour?
Why not raise it to $10 or $12 an hour since employers don't think about labor costs when they hire new workers.
No wonder the Obama administration missed its target of 8% inflation with ideas like this in the policy pipeline.

http://www.americanprogress.org/pressroom/releases/2011/06/minimum_wage_hike_econ.html

Thank You Jeffrey Lacker.
The Federal Reserve should focus on keeping prices under control, leaving the government to try to boost the U.S. economy and jobs, Richmond Federal Reserve Bank President Jeffrey Lacker said in an interview Friday.
There is someone in authority left in the United States who understands the role of a central bank in an era of floating currency.

Oh cool! All Tettleton's posts have disappeared! Love this mute feature!

Draugnar +1, I've also muted Tettleton

Nah Draugnar, I like to see his posts. They make me feel smart.

I hate to see them. They're misinformed, and very numerous

Yep. Tettleton is all gone! :-)

lol.