25 entertaining, even thought-provoking, quotes many RSBers will enjoy

25 entertaining, even thought-provoking, quotes many RSBers will enjoy

Post by Ron Shepar » Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:20:04




Quote:
> Its now almost assured that Al
> Franken would not be a senator if you take away all of the felon vote he was
> allowed to get.

Actually it was the military ballots that gave him his advantage as
the absentee ballots were counted.  As you know, Franken was an
entertainer before he was elected, and he spent a lot of time in
military bases during that time.

$.02 -Ron Shepard

 
 
 

25 entertaining, even thought-provoking, quotes many RSBers will enjoy

Post by Ron Shepar » Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:25:06



Quote:
> And they
> don't change the fact that Romney would have made a far better president than
> Obama
> especially where the economy is concerned.

That is not a fact, it is just your opinion.  I personally think the
country dodged a metaphorical bullet in the last election, and not
only did the best candidate win, but Romney would have been a
disaster in many ways.  This is my opinion, which I do not try to
claim as a fact.

$.02 -Ron Shepard

 
 
 

25 entertaining, even thought-provoking, quotes many RSBers will enjoy

Post by Ron Shepar » Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:43:25



Quote:



> > Here is just one of the recent articles on this.

> > http://SportToday.org/
> > s_n_2192802.html

> Florida was my home for over 15 years and during that entire time we didn't
> have early voting
> at all.  How we ever managed to have an election, I'll never know.  Early
> voting didn't exist
> for almost all of Florida's history and now any change to the arbitrary
> number of days that
> they have early voting represents "voter suppression".  And that suppression
> applies mostly
> to democrats even though everyone is under the same rules.  The whole thing
> is absurd on its
> face.

Did you have to stand in line for eight hours to vote?  If not, then
things have somehow changed there haven't they? If you follow the
above link you can see how and why they have changed.

Quote:

> > You have the timing backwards.  Romney had already released his 2010
> > returns and an estimate of his 2011 returns when Reid made his
> > claim.  If it were a false claim, then all that Romney would have
> > had to do was release his returns and Reid's political career would
> > have been finished.  Reid put his neck in the noose, and all Romney
> > had to do was to slap the horse.  But he could not do it because he
> > had something to hide.  I don't know what it was, and none of
> > probably ever will, but he was hiding something and Reid knew it.

> Reid said Romney didn't pay income taxes for the past ten years.

No, you added the word "past" to his claim.

  The past

Quote:
> ten years include
> 2011 and 2010 in which Romney paid millions of dollars in taxes.  Regardless,
> do you actually
> beleive that he paid millions a year in 10 and 11 but didn't pay anything at
> all in 09, 08,
> 07, etc.??  And that somehow the IRS would not have noticed that and be all
> over him?  Its
> complete idiocy!  I am stunned that this ***works.

Obama release his tax returns.  All other presidential candidates
for the past 50 years have released their tax returns. All Romney
had to do was to release his tax returns and this issue would not
only have been settled, but Reid's political career would have been
over.

Quote:
> LOL, good job illustrating exactly why Romney did not release his earlier tax
> returns.  They
> would oh so fairly be scrutinized.

When his father ran for president in 1967 he released 12 years of
tax returns saying, "One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for
show, and what mattered in personal finance was how a man conducted
himself over the long haul."

$.02 -Ron Shepard

 
 
 

25 entertaining, even thought-provoking, quotes many RSBers will enjoy

Post by Mark » Fri, 30 Nov 2012 02:50:36


snip

Quote:

> s/spend/invest/

Not clear what you mean with these slashes...

Quote:

> That's how we've always done it, and it is how it must be done now.

> > --> Mark0 <-- asking a serious question

Really it was a serious question.  And I think what you are saying is that
the government should be the entity doing the investing.  The investing I
see the govt doing is keeping people home instead of putting them to work.
 And those people will have a vested interest in continuing a government
that will support them instead of them supporting themselves...  How can
this be good for America and how can this be good for people individually?
 Getting money for making illegitimate babies has done more harm to the
"family unit" than anything I can think of offhand.

--> Mark0 <-- really wasn't trying to SSS (for a change maybe, but truly was
wondering how you can spend your way out of debt...

Get: Secrets to a Perfect Pool Table Recovering Job
http://www.mccauleyweb.com/secrets.htm
$15 for RSB-ers

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill
the world with fools." -Herbert Spencer

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 
 
 

25 entertaining, even thought-provoking, quotes many RSBers will enjoy

Post by John Blac » Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:23:31


Quote:
> wondering how you can spend your way out of debt...

Its even worse than that.  Its people who think they can borrow their way out of debt.

John Black

 
 
 

25 entertaining, even thought-provoking, quotes many RSBers will enjoy

Post by John Blac » Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:23:42



Quote:



> > Its now almost assured that Al
> > Franken would not be a senator if you take away all of the felon vote he was
> > allowed to get.

> Actually it was the military ballots that gave him his advantage as
> the absentee ballots were counted.  As you know, Franken was an
> entertainer before he was elected, and he spent a lot of time in
> military bases during that time.

1099 felons were allowed to vote in that election which Franken won by 312 votes.  It is
known that when felons are allowed to vote, they favor democrats.  I'll try not to wonder why
that is.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-...
ballots/article/2504163#.ULaNWtd1sdA

John Black

 
 
 

25 entertaining, even thought-provoking, quotes many RSBers will enjoy

Post by John Blac » Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:24:03



Quote:


> > Reid said Romney didn't pay income taxes for the past ten years.

> No, you added the word "past" to his claim.

Oh I see.  Reid didn't say which 10 years.  So if Romney did release a bunch more returns,
Reid could just say that was not the 10 years he was talking about.  I still think its not
even a plausible claim even though its apparent Romeny had some other reason for not wanting
to release his returns.

Here is how maddning this issue is.  Almost 50% of the people in this country do not pay any
income taxes at all.  Many of them are the very Obama voters jumping up and down srceaming
that a guy who pays millions of dollars a year is not paying **his** fair share.  They, who
pay nothing are paying **their** fair share but the people who pay most of the taxes are not
paying their fair share.  This is what amounts to logic in the democrat party.

John Black

 
 
 

25 entertaining, even thought-provoking, quotes many RSBers will enjoy

Post by John Blac » Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:24:14



Quote:



> > > More people have been hired in the past three years than in all
> > > eight years of the Bush administration.

> > This stat is too absurd to even check.  We've lost 3 million jobs since Obama
> > took over.

> Here is the employment data.

> http://www.deptofnumbers.com/employment/us/

> There are about 600K more people employed now than in January 2009.  
> As you can see, employment peaked in December 2007, and we are not
> back up to that value.  But Obama was not president until a year
> later, January 2009, and at that time we were losing 750K jobs per
> month.

> You can also see that employment has been rising fairly steadily
> since September 2009, which was the low point of the employment.

Since over 100,000 new jobs a month are needed just to keep up with population growth, having
600K more jobs now than in Jan 2009 means we are way worse off than we should be if we were
even just treading water.

Quote:
> > > > Obama promised to cut the deficit in half - instead he's doubled it,
> > > > running up a
> > > > staggering $5 trillion in debt with very little to show for it.

> > > The deficit was $1.4 trillion in fy2009, the last year of Bush. That
> > > included TARP, but it did ***not*** include funding for the wars in
> > > Iraq and Afghanistan (which Bush did not include in the budgets).

> > Bush's average deficit was about $350 billion.  Too high but not
> > catestrophic.  

> As I pointed out before, that does not include Iraq and Afganistan
> war funding.  That funding increased the public debt, but it did not
> count as part of the budget deficit because it was not part of the
> budget.  The current numbers do include war funding.

This article compares different presidents and their deficits as a percentage of GDP.  Bush
average was 2.7%.  Obama: 8.9%  He's exploded the deficit and made this level of spending the
baseline norm which is reckless beyond words.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/07/11/the-facts-about-...
presidents-truly-rank/

Look at the author comment at the end too:

"Mr. Skipper is dead wrong in his contention that my deficit-to-GDP and spending-to-GDP
ratios omit costs of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is true that some of those costs
were included in supplementals ? a time-honored tradition ? but ALL government expenses are
subsumed under the heading ?outlays,? and these are the figures I used, from Table B-79 of
the Economic Report of the President from 2012. In other words, in figuring deficits, I used
the dollars the government actually spent and received."

Quote:
> > We cannot run
> > trillion plus dollar deficits indefinitely.  We can't even do it for very
> > long.  

> I agree with all of this, but the fact is that Obama did not double
> the deficit, he has reduced it.

Absurd.  The 09 TARP bailout was a one time deal.  Only a lunatic would expand government to
make that level of unsustainable spending the new baseline budget going forward.  I don't
think Hillary or Bill Clinton for example would have been even in the ballpark of that kind
of fiscal irresponsibility.

John Black

 
 
 

25 entertaining, even thought-provoking, quotes many RSBers will enjoy

Post by Ron Shepar » Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:34:56



Quote:




> > > > More people have been hired in the past three years than in all
> > > > eight years of the Bush administration.

> > > This stat is too absurd to even check.  We've lost 3 million jobs since
> > > Obama
> > > took over.

> > Here is the employment data.

> > http://www.deptofnumbers.com/employment/us/

> > There are about 600K more people employed now than in January 2009.  
> > As you can see, employment peaked in December 2007, and we are not
> > back up to that value.  But Obama was not president until a year
> > later, January 2009, and at that time we were losing 750K jobs per
> > month.

> > You can also see that employment has been rising fairly steadily
> > since September 2009, which was the low point of the employment.

> Since over 100,000 new jobs a month are needed just to keep up with
> population growth, having
> 600K more jobs now than in Jan 2009 means we are way worse off than we should
> be if we were
> even just treading water.

Yes, but this still does not mean that "We've lost 3 million jobs
since Obama took over."  We have added jobs, not lost them.

And we were not "just treading water" during 2008 and the first few
months of 2009.  In January 2009 when Obama took the oath we were
losing about 750K jobs per month. It took several months before the
stimulus spending of 2009 reversed that.

Quote:
> > > We cannot run
> > > trillion plus dollar deficits indefinitely.  We can't even do it for very
> > > long.  

> > I agree with all of this, but the fact is that Obama did not double
> > the deficit, he has reduced it.

> Absurd.  The 09 TARP bailout was a one time deal.

You have the date wrong.  TARP was signed into law October 3, 2008.  
Not only was GW Bush president at that time, this was a month before
the election and over three months before Obama took office.

I'm not a fan of the TARP bailout.  I do think the government needed
to act, but it spent the money in exactly the wrong place.  Instead
of injecting it at the top of the pyramid, where it stayed and
didn't do much good, it should have been injected at the bottom.  
Then as the money worked its way up through the economy, everyone
would have benefited.

In February 2009 (yes, this was after Obama took over), the senate
had to vote to prohibit Wall Street firms from using TARP funds to
pay bonuses to their upper management. These were the people who
caused the collapse in the first place. Also that month, $50 billion
of TARP was redirected towards foreclosure mitigation.  That was a
useful way to spend money (i.e. at the bottom), but it was only $50
billion out of the $900 billion total.

$.02 -Ron Shepard