Political Jokes

[OneArm]

Originally Posted by dumbass

The Kool-Aid that you're drinking won't rot your teeth. I rots your brain.

I'll be okay, I stopped watching fox news and taking them seriously a long time ago. Now I just watched him when I need a good laugh.

[madmax]

Originally Posted by Stevomeo

He clearly demonstrated the definition of insanity; doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. I guess a trillion dollars worth of deficits each year for the past 4 years is ok. Why would anyone expect a successful businessman to do a better job governing than a left wing ideologue who has taken lying to a new level? Is it still a lie if you believe your own lie?

WTF???
The entire Romney platform was the Bush years replayed... only cranked up to 11. So your insanity definition applies to the Romney campaign!

The government isn't business. The presidency does not require a businessman, that's why there are cabinet positions for Commerce, Treasury, and Labor. This is where you employ people with business experience.

Funny - your hero TR had zero business experience, was a progressive, was "anti-business" for much of the same reasons Obama is cited for the same label.

Lying, Steve? Just sour grapes ramblings or something specific?

It seems we will never get an honest discussion of deficits if we cling to tag lines and talking points. The Bush tax cuts are what started us back into deficit spending. Obama, not the GOP, is the one trying to reverse that trend. Absolutely ludicrous that Boehner would send us over the cliff before returning tax levels to those of our most fiscally successful period. And hilarious that the Romney plan would have been even worse from a deficit standpoint! - increasing defense spending by $2 TRILLION! Cutting taxes further! That is insanity to the 3rd power.

Here is an interesting analysis on why the deficits/debt are where they are, and the factors that caused this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...7fQ_story.html

This really should be in a thread of its own instead this one, so I'll start one.

[Stevomeo]

Originally Posted by dumbass

A lesson that our founding fathers hoped would never have to be learned is that no entity nor enemy can ever control an armed populous. Thank God for their wisdom.

Well said.

[Stevomeo]

Originally Posted by madmax

WTF???
The entire Romney platform was the Bush years replayed... only cranked up to 11. So your insanity definition applies to the Romney campaign!

The government isn't business. The presidency does not require a businessman, that's why there are cabinet positions for Commerce, Treasury, and Labor. This is where you employ people with business experience.

Funny - your hero TR had zero business experience, was a progressive, was "anti-business" for much of the same reasons Obama is cited for the same label.

Lying, Steve? Just sour grapes ramblings or something specific?

It seems we will never get an honest discussion of deficits if we cling to tag lines and talking points. The Bush tax cuts are what started us back into deficit spending. Obama, not the GOP, is the one trying to reverse that trend. Absolutely ludicrous that Boehner would send us over the cliff before returning tax levels to those of our most fiscally successful period. And hilarious that the Romney plan would have been even worse from a deficit standpoint! - increasing defense spending by $2 TRILLION! Cutting taxes further! That is insanity to the 3rd power.

Here is an interesting analysis on why the deficits/debt are where they are, and the factors that caused this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...7fQ_story.html

This really should be in a thread of its own instead this one, so I'll start one.

I don't think growing government was on the Romney menu, but I could be wrong. There were economists on both sides of his plan approving and disapproving. I'm not qualified to make that judgment, but continuing along the same path doesn't seem like a very brilliant idea IMHO.

No we agree, government isn't business per say. However, experience in business and commerce seem like better assets to have than just being a community organizer and Harvard Grad. Don't get me wrong, I thought that Romney was a flawed candidate from the beginning right along with Gingrich. Knowledgeable and capable but flawed in their own way none the less.

I wouldn't say that TR was anti-business. His intervention in the coal strike was for the benefit and survival of the nation and its people. Comparing the presidency in TR's time with today is a little futile. The country was a whole different animal then, and if I'm not mistaken I think the Model A was probably a state of the art commodity at the time.

Lying, come on Max, all political leanings aside, you cannot tell me this President has been truthful. For brevity's sake lets just look at the "transparency" promise. Has he been the most transparent President in history as he promised?

As far as tax rates are concerned I believe they should stay where they are. I think we can agree that the code needs to be simplified and many of the deductions that the wealthy enjoy need to be eliminated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the expiration of those cuts will impact the middle class as well as the wealthy.

Interesting article, but also perplexing at the same time. It would have been nice if he had listed the actual numbers he was talking about. I'm a show me kind of person and I fail to understand how the Affordable Care Act is going to save the government money. More hospitals than not are non-profits, which is just more hokey math. Somehow the figures just don't add up from either side of the political spectrum. All I see are deficits piling up and a Senate that cannot even produce a budget. The dysfunction is sickening.

[Stevomeo]

Originally Posted by dumbass

A lesson that our founding fathers hoped would never have to be learned is that no entity nor enemy can ever control an armed populous. Thank God for their wisdom.

I've been a real pain in the ass since I found the grave of my ancestor who came here from Europe in the early 1770s. When I found out that he served in Washington's army not only did my pride swell but also a grander sense of responsibility grew inside of me. As I pondered over his resting place I considered that he didn't have any government guarantees or programs to entice him into fighting for the liberties that we all enjoy. I can't imagine what he and his contemporaries would think of the society and government that is now present in this nation. Now, every time I see the politicians whittling away at our freedoms and trashing the Constitution I take it more personally than ever.

[madmax]

Originally Posted by Stevomeo

I've been a real pain in the ass since I found the grave of my ancestor who came here from Europe in the early 1770s. When I found out that he served in Washington's army not only did my pride swell but also a grander sense of responsibility grew inside of me. As I pondered over his resting place I considered that he didn't have any government guarantees or programs to entice him into fighting for the liberties that we all enjoy. I can't imagine what he and his contemporaries would think of the society and government that is now present in this nation. Now, every time I see the politicians whittling away at our freedoms and trashing the Constitution I take it more personally than ever.

This "trashing the Constitution" talking point has me perplexed. No one has ever been able to really specifically say what they mean by that.
While we're at it: what freedoms have been "whittled away"?

[madmax]

Originally Posted by Stevomeo

I don't think growing government was on the Romney menu, but I could be wrong. There were economists on both sides of his plan approving and disapproving. I'm not qualified to make that judgment, but continuing along the same path doesn't seem like a very brilliant idea IMHO.

Well, growing government spending was, at least with respect to military spending. Simple arithmetic and common sense says a $2 trillion increase in spending and a 20% tax cut equals BIGGER deficits.

Originally Posted by Stevomeo

No we agree, government isn't business per say. However, experience in business and commerce seem like better assets to have than just being a community organizer and Harvard Grad. Don't get me wrong, I thought that Romney was a flawed candidate from the beginning right along with Gingrich. Knowledgeable and capable but flawed in their own way none the less.

Ah, the old "community organizer" slam...
Both Romney and Obama have Harvard law degrees. Somehow being a vulture capitalist does not seem like a great resume for the job of president. Looking out for the interests of the people does, IMHO.

Originally Posted by Stevomeo

I wouldn't say that TR was anti-business. His intervention in the coal strike was for the benefit and survival of the nation and its people. Comparing the presidency in TR's time with today is a little futile. The country was a whole different animal then, and if I'm not mistaken I think the Model A was probably a state of the art commodity at the time.

Principles are timeless. From a guy that quotes the founders and the timeless nature of the Constitution I would think this would be obvious.
You wouldn't say TR was anti-business? I would think that the trust busting and regulations he put in place are the very thing that ultra conservatives have been moaning about for the past 4 years.

Originally Posted by Stevomeo

Lying, come on Max, all political leanings aside, you cannot tell me this President has been truthful. For brevity's sake lets just look at the "transparency" promise. Has he been the most transparent President in history as he promised?

I think, on a relative scale, this president has been more transparent and truthful than most of his predecessors in the past 50 years.

Originally Posted by Stevomeo

As far as tax rates are concerned I believe they should stay where they are. I think we can agree that the code needs to be simplified and many of the deductions that the wealthy enjoy need to be eliminated. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the expiration of those cuts will impact the middle class as well as the wealthy.

So what is your point? Obama wants to keep the cuts in place for the middle class. At some point, probably after economic recovery, the rates on the middle class may have to go up a bit. We have to get the debt under control. As was pointed out during the campaign, there aren't enough deductions to eliminate to make up for the proposed 20% cut.
Simpson-Bowles made it clear that we need a combination of spending cuts AND tax increases.

Originally Posted by Stevomeo

Interesting article, but also perplexing at the same time. It would have been nice if he had listed the actual numbers he was talking about. I'm a show me kind of person and I fail to understand how the Affordable Care Act is going to save the government money. More hospitals than not are non-profits, which is just more hokey math. Somehow the figures just don't add up from either side of the political spectrum. All I see are deficits piling up and a Senate that cannot even produce a budget. The dysfunction is sickening.

The budget is not the product of the Senate. They have input, but they don't own the process. Here is how it works:
http://results.techriver.net/website...le.asp?id=2747

[Stevomeo]

Originally Posted by madmax

This "trashing the Constitution" talking point has me perplexed. No one has ever been able to really specifically say what they mean by that.
While we're at it: what freedoms have been "whittled away"?

Without getting into a long dissertation, I think the health care mandate is a huge infringement on our liberties and clearly flies in the face of Constitutional language. The government's job is simple....... protect Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Many are unhappy (including myself) with the mandate and it requires that I spend money on a product or be taxed/fined. So it effects and infringes upon one's pursuit of happiness and interferes with the proceeds of one's toil by confiscating a piece of those proceeds as a punishment for not purchasing something from a private entity. Pretty damn unconstitutional in my book. The Commerce Clause has been so stretched and perverted from its original intent that it flies in the face of common sense, and that's been going on for quite some time.

[Stevomeo]

Originally Posted by madmax

Well, growing government spending was, at least with respect to military spending. Simple arithmetic and common sense says a $2 trillion increase in spending and a 20% tax cut equals BIGGER deficits.


Ah, the old "community organizer" slam...
Both Romney and Obama have Harvard law degrees. Somehow being a vulture capitalist does not seem like a great resume for the job of president. Looking out for the interests of the people does, IMHO.


Principles are timeless. From a guy that quotes the founders and the timeless nature of the Constitution I would think this would be obvious.
You wouldn't say TR was anti-business? I would think that the trust busting and regulations he put in place are the very thing that ultra conservatives have been moaning about for the past 4 years.


I think, on a relative scale, this president has been more transparent and truthful than most of his predecessors in the past 50 years.


So what is your point? Obama wants to keep the cuts in place for the middle class. At some point, probably after economic recovery, the rates on the middle class may have to go up a bit. We have to get the debt under control. As was pointed out during the campaign, there aren't enough deductions to eliminate to make up for the proposed 20% cut.
Simpson-Bowles made it clear that we need a combination of spending cuts AND tax increases.


The budget is not the product of the Senate. They have input, but they don't own the process. Here is how it works:
http://results.techriver.net/website...le.asp?id=2747

Max, as you know I'm a strange animal in the political jungle. I am staunchly conservative about certain issues and moderate about others. I was a Ron Paul voter, not a Ron Paul nut job. His approach to domestic policy, IMHO, was spot on. I will not beat the drum for a party that doesn't hold true to it's core principles, especially those that I hold dear. Being a political hybrid I am devoutly constitutional, I am pro-business to a point, pro-labor to a point, and a lover of the natural environment. So, we'll agree to disagree on some of this stuff, but hasn't the Senate held up the budget for the past 2 years? And if Obama were so transparent why has he been so elusive? and why has the left stream media covered for him? If you're transparent, you make yourself available and give straight answers. I'm not trying to beat the guy up because he's a Democrat, makes no difference to me. I'd expect no less from a Republican, Libertarian, or Independent.

[OneArm]

Originally Posted by Stevomeo

Without getting into a long dissertation, I think the health care mandate is a huge infringement on our liberties and clearly flies in the face of Constitutional language. The government's job is simple....... protect Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Many are unhappy (including myself) with the mandate and it requires that I spend money on a product or be taxed/fined. So it effects and infringes upon one's pursuit of happiness and interferes with the proceeds of one's toil by confiscating a piece of those proceeds as a punishment for not purchasing something from a private entity. Pretty damn unconstitutional in my book. The Commerce Clause has been so stretched and perverted from its original intent that it flies in the face of common sense, and that's been going on for quite some time.

So you are against car insurance as well? You think it's ok for people to drive around, uninsured, have accidents, then make the person they ran into pay for the damage they caused? In the end, causing that person's insurance rates to go up. Screwing them over. Kinda like people who have no health insurance that wait till their respective illness is so bad that they need emergency care, which they can't afford, so then health care premiums go up for the people that do have insurance, to cover the ones without it.

Sounds selfish to me.