Stimulus? More Like Wealth Redistribution
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in Economy, TaxesJustin gave us the details. Now here’s my take.
What we have here is a nice little wealth redistribution plan. If these kinds of tax rebates actually stimulate the economy, then we could debate the appropriateness of excluding wealthier households. But the problem is, rebates don’t work. Historically, people use the rebates to pay down personal debt or they put the money into savings. They don’t put the funds back into the economy. That means, by limiting who gets money from the stimulus package, our government is taking money away from a small group to help a large group pay off their credit cards.
If the point of this legislation is to infuse the economy with money, what does it matter how much you make? Are people who make over $75,000 a year less likely to spend a rebate? Certainly not. Would giving a rebate to these households (they make up just 5% of U.S. households) significantly increase the expense? No. But these people are “rich†or at least “not poor†so I suppose it would be unseemly for the government to be padding their wallets.
And yet, $300 checks are going out to those who pay no taxes at all. On one end of the income scale we have a full-on handout and on the other end we have what amounts to a tax penalty. All I can figure is that President Bush was so desperate to get this showpiece of a bill passed that he let the Democrats dictate the terms. And Democrats are too often more interested in symbolic shows of supporting the less fortunate (and marginalizing the well off) than they are in making substantive reforms.
Of course, I’m not turning down my check. It’ll help pay off some debt. That will help my finances but not the economy.
This entry was posted on Thursday, January 24th, 2008 and is filed under Economy, Taxes. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 24th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Okay but wait–why doesn’t paying off personal debt stimulate the economy? I can spend my $300 on candy or lamps or whatever, or I can send it to Capital One, and they can spend it on candy or lamps or whatever. Either way, the dough gets used for buying stuff.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
ASC,
Good post, I appreciate the point about the unfairness issues. To add injury to insult, and it must be especially difficult to accept coming from a conservative admin, CNBC today went thru a scenario showing how much damage may have actually been done here.
It seems the stock price of some of the most recently battered sub-prime lending Co’s soared yesterday after news of the ‘bailout’ hit the market. This action may have kept perspective private equity firms from investing in these Co’s since their price wasn’t as attractive. So not only does the stimulate package not help, it may have prevented the market from working as it naturally could have to help with the needed money infusion
January 25th, 2008 at 4:49 am
Hmmmm….. I’m getting a bit tired of the greedy America bankrupting scum that reaped the benefits of Bush’s disaterous tax policies whining about “people who don’t pay any taxes” getting part of this ridicules fiscal nightmare rebate program. Bush has stolen every penny that “people who don’t pay any taxes” paid into SS, so they do pay taxes. That is beside the point though, the real point is that your idiot hero W has destroyed America. Step up and take the blame, you dispicable cowards.
January 25th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Yes. And Bush eats babies.
January 25th, 2008 at 9:03 am
What an intelegent comeback. You are obviously way too smart for some lowly American with a brain to debate. Who cares that your hero has run up $10 trillion in debt? Debt is good, right? You most certainly do fit my final description though. What a dispicable little America destroying coward you are! Now, how about you actually try to defend the blithering moron that you elected twice, huh?
January 25th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Very snappy comeback, Skippy. Small wonder America is bankrupt with voters like you.
January 25th, 2008 at 11:25 am
It’s kinda odd to object to “wealth redistribution” in this particular case.
What would you call the tax breaks and various other incentives for the upper tax brackets and corporations (whose profits have overwhelmingly and increasingly been directed into skyrocketing CEO and other high level executive compensation)?
Over the past several decades, US GDP has grown significantly, even after adjusting for inflation. Ever wonder why middle- and lower class wages have comparatively hardly budged after adjusting for inflation? Has anyone considered that economic policies enacted from a “trickle down” philosophy hasn’t actually resulted in much wealth trickling down? If that isn’t wealth redistribution, I’m not sure what you’d call it.
January 25th, 2008 at 11:47 am
ACS, well said!
I read your thread after Justin’s and replying in there.
I have been trying, unsuccessfully, to post one more comment there and it doesn’t. I’ll try here.
Ken writes in “Bipartisan Economic StimulusPlan..thread: So the plan is on the right track with giving it to those who don’t pay taxes and those with kids. However the $600 part for those who pay taxes and $1200 for working couples seems like, depending on the details, not all that money is going to get spent and some of that will get saved in checking accounts (for fear of unemployment reasons), or into financial investments e.g. stocks, bonds, cds, other assets. This is where a problem is.
The problem – from my vantage point – is that it’s none of the government’s business what people do with their own income, or tax-rebates. Neither is yours.
It’s socialistic mentality that aims at taking from those that work hard to give to many that already bleed the system. If liberals want to donate their own income, it’s fine by me. However, stop telling the rest of us what you plan to do with OUR OWN money!
I give to charities I choose and because I so determine. It’s not your job to direct my money or anyone else’s, for that matter, where “you see fit!”
January 25th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Timothy: that’s a complicated question with a long answer. Without getting into macro-economics (which isn’t really my best subject), just know that money used to pay off debt does not impact the economy as directly or as profoundly as money spent on goods and services.
David: woah, there. No one’s claimed Bush as a hero. And I certainly haven’t reaped the benefits of the Bush tax cuts any more than other middle income types, so I’m not sure who you’re calling a coward.
Doug: I’m not sure anyone is paying for the previous tax cuts that helped the wealthy (and everyone else too, albeit less dramatically). I think the Koreans and other nations financed a lot of that through their loans to us, so there really hasn’t been wealth redistribution. But, yeah, I imagine the middle classes will disproportiontately pay for those tax cuts in the end. Mind you, the problem isn’t the cuts, it’s the failure to balance them with spending cuts.
January 25th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Lets remember though, whatever they call it, this is nothing more or less than your tax refund in advance. Of course if you plan your taxes so that you don’t get a refund, (hate making free loans to anyone), then you’re going to wind up paying the right back to the IRS come the following tax day.
January 25th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
DougL, if you understand the meaning of *wealth redistribution* you wouldn’t make such a comparison.
The ‘higher’ income bracket earners should get a *tax cut* on the basise that they pay taxes. Unlike the non-filers to whom “tax-rebates” are bestowed upon.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not totally opposed to offering people specific help for a determined amount of time, but let’s stop redefining words. It’s free money. Not a tax-cut or a tax-rebate.
Universally, rebates are given AFTER a purchase has occurred. I highly doubt TurboTax would be mailing me a rebate UNLESS I first purchase the program, mail them the receipt along with the “Proof of Purchase.†If that makes sense everywhere else, why not when it comes to returning some of the taxes people and corporations pay in? Further, why should people that pay taxes and get some of it back be looked down on?
January 25th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
David:
Well, if you blame Bush for the debt, than that must mean you are giving him credit for what the country has earned as well, which is about $14.2 trillion dollars in GDP, also an unprecidented number. The debt was about $9 trillion during Clinton’s final year, with a debt of about 6 trillion – about the same ratio.
At least you are giving credit where credit is due.
January 25th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
*correction: the GDP was about $9 trillion during Clinton’s last year.
January 26th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Alan Stewart Carl, says
quote
Are people who make over $75,000 a year less likely to spend a rebate?
end quote
Actually, yes they are less likely to spend it on consumption, because their marginal propensity to consume per $1 decreases as their income rises. To simply put it the more you make the less you spend on consumption as a percent of your income and you save more.
There is also autonomous consumption, which is spending you do regardless of how much income you have, even if your income is $0. This is similar to cost of living, and to put it in simple terms “people gotta eat pay for other necessaries of life.” You will go in debt for food for your family, before letting them strave.
The lower income has a higher percentage of their income going to autonomous consumption. This is why their marginal propensity to consume is higher, and more of each dollar they get is more likely to get spent.
Timothy
Paying off your personal debt does stimulate the economy a little, but no where close as much as if you to spend it. Assuming that your paying off your capital one credit card debt. (Mortgages are another issue, way too far complex to explain here).
Your not demanding more goods & services form the economy. Thus not creating more jobs or higher pay for those jobs, thus limiting the potential for those workers and shareowners to demand goods & services. Also the cost of capital for credit card companies is very small, so not much demand for intermediate goods and services (raw materials, inventory, etc.) is being created.
As for the national debt issue. Bill Clinton was great for fiscal responsibility and the economy, even through I disagree with him on other matters. He was no saint but he took office national debt as 66% of GDP (thanks to Reagan and HW Bush increasing from 33%) and left with 57.4%.
To sum it up sometimes a partisan approach is best (left or right), not always the middle route. Moderate liberalism is much better for the macroeconomy as demonstrated through history and economic theory.
PS Thanks Elisabetta for taking my words out of context. How about linking my whole argument next time?
http://donklephant.com/2008/01/24/bi-partisan-economic-stimulus-plan-solidified/#comment-389576
January 28th, 2008 at 5:54 am
A couple points Jimmy: The GDP in Clinton’s last year (2000) was over $9.8 trillion, almost ten and the debt didn’t reach $6 trillion until 2002. So in your fudging of numbers you cheated about a trillion, of course to a Bushy, a trillion doesn’t mean squat, just run over to the Saudis and the communists and beg a little, right? It would sure be refreshing if you were ever even remotely honest, but then, you’re a republican. Second, sure, I’ll give Bush credit, it’s all he has used to prop up his fake economy. Tell you what, I’ll borrow half a trillion a year and I’ll look like I’m doing pretty good too.
January 28th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Alan, sorry if I lumped you in with the greedy scum that are actively destroying America. Perhaps you shouldn’t parrot their talking points if you don’t want to take responsibility for their disasters. You didn’t address the real point though. Since SS withholding is all stolen and used in the general fund, everyone who works pays taxes.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
You said the national debt was 10 trillion. Well, as of the 2nd week of 1008 the debt is actually 9.2 trillion. Who is fudging the numbers?
The GDP is 14.2 trillion, slightly higher than my estimate above. but the difference is roughly what was left out when I gave the GDP of 1999 (the equivalent last year of Clinton, as the numbers quoted for Bush describe 2007 – since this is Janurary, get it?) about 9.2 trillion. And the debt was about 5.8 trillion so perhaps I should leave in at least one decimal point to satisfy you. But who cares about inconvenient numbers.
January 28th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Talking about FAKE economy, wasn’t the “great economic time” under Clinton, correctly named the “Bubble”?
Clinton’s advocates are so economical with the truth.
The Clinton’s years have been touted by liberals and their cohorts, the MSM, as “a time where the economy boomed — deficits turned into surplus — and more than 22 million jobs were created and we enjoyed peace.”
Is that true? Let’s address the deficit/surplus.
Liberals assert Clinton paid down the “national deficit.” Moreover, that he left office with a “surplus.”
Nothing could be farther from he truth. But, liberals won’t let the truth stand in the way of their falsity.
That is why many people believe the canard and the MSM is not about to correct it, so not to lose face and support for liberalism.
THE MYTH OF THE CLINTON’S SURPLUS http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
From the link:
“Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton’s. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush’s tax refunds which were not part of Clinton’s last budget, that still means that Clinton’s last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 – 38 = $95.29 billion.”
Therefore, one must conclude that not only Clinton didn’t pay the National deficit down but THERE is NO TRUTH to the claim he left a surplus to President Bush.
What Clinton did was borrow from intergovernmental holdings (i.e. S.S.) and that maneuver put us more into debt.
The national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:
Fiscal
Year Year Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
Yeah.. the Clinton years were “prosperous… and”
January 30th, 2008 at 6:15 am
Jimmy, the debt will be around $10 trillion when your moron hero leaves office, thanks for bankrupting America genius. 1999 was not Clinton’s last year, 2000 was and the debt wasn’t 5.8 trillion, as your fellow brainwashed sheep Elsabetta just pointed out in her meaningless post. Never mind, there is no point in ever expecting you to be even remotely honest. Bush is the best president ever and he and Reagan are the most fiscally conservative ever! Does that make you happy?
January 30th, 2008 at 6:20 am
Elsabetta, if you were talking to me…
A. I’m most certainly not a liberal, obviously (as I have pointed out before) you have no idea what true conservatives stand for. Here’s a hint, it’s pretty much the exact opposite of everything your idiot hero Bush has done.
B. Show me where I ever said Clinton paid down the debt. The fact is, by your own numbers, he was at least twice as fiscally responsible as the blithering moron you blindly worship though. In many ways, he was way more conservative than Bush but you would need to not be brainwashed to understand that. BTW, he was and is also a lying scumbag.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:21 pm
David, I was not talking to you per se, but if the shoe fits, wear it.
I was clarifying for the “unawares” that keep repeating the mantra that Clinton paid down the deficit and left a surplus for Bush that neither was true.
Now, if you want to act as a lunatic, everytime someone disagrees with you or others, go ahead, you are good for comedic relief.
Otoh, if you can follow logic, President Bush inherited a FAKE economy from Clinton (not to mention a host of other problems). That, coupled with Clinton’s “fudging” the way he borrowed money is more to blame for S.S. present situation than President Bush. That was your contention, once we sift through the hogwash.
Clinton was NOT fiscally responsible. In fact, I can’t think of a single instance where he acted responsible, at all. But, he was a master manipulator. That I give him credit for.
As for who is a conservative and who is not, your opinion counts zilch. Don’t forget to take a chill pill.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:49 pm
David in a choleric fit spouts to Jimmy:
“… 1999 was not Clinton’s last year, 2000 was and the debt wasn’t 5.8 trillion, as your fellow brainwashed sheep Elsabetta just pointed out in her meaningless post. ”
Well, Jimmy was off with the year, but he was correct on the 5.8 trillion figure. To be more precise, $5.807463!
Clinton’s last year
Fiscal Year 2001
Year Ending 09/28/2001
National Debt $5.807463 trillion
Deficit $133.29 billion
January 31st, 2008 at 1:52 pm
David in a choleric fit spouts to Jimmy:
“… 1999 was not Clinton’s last year, 2000 was and the debt wasn’t 5.8 trillion, as your fellow brainwashed sheep Elsabetta just pointed out in her meaningless post. ”
Well, Jimmy was off with the year, and so were you, YET he was correct on the 5.8 trillion figure. To be more precise, $5.807463!
Clinton’s last year
Fiscal Year 2001
Year Ending 09/28/2001
National Debt $5.807463 trillion
Deficit $133.29 billion
January 31st, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Sorry. 5.7 – not 5.8. My bad.
2007 is not Bush’s last year either. 2008 will be. We have to wait until this year is over for me to quote the debt/GDP ratio equivalent to 2000. Oh well, semantics.
Anyhoo, since the debt when Clinton left office was around 5.7 Trillion dollars, thats still a big scary number!! So I guess we were already bankrupt back then. Thanks for taking a break from begging for change in order to tell me this. Think about the grandchildren!
January 31st, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Angry David spouts to Jimmy:
“… 1999 was not Clinton’s last year, 2000 was and the debt wasn’t 5.8 trillion, as your fellow… Elsabetta just pointed out… ”
Well, Jimmy was off with the year. Ahem, so were you!
HOWEVER, Jimmy was correct on the 5.8 trillion figure. To be more precise, $5.807463.
Clinton’s last year
Fiscal Year 2001
Year Ending 09/28/2001
National Debt $5.807463 trillion
Deficit $133.29 billion
Got anything better than empty rhetoric and aspersions to offer?
January 31st, 2008 at 3:02 pm
About 2 hours ago my comments disappeared into thin air twice.
So I waited to retry. Now, on my 3rd attempt to repost all 3 display with message: your comment is awaiting moderation. What’s up??
And if someone can read them before they post, how about posting just the last one, with time stamp of 2:56?
February 1st, 2008 at 4:51 am
Jimmy, show me where I ever did the “begging for change” thing. Oh yeah, you can only parrot moronic talking points, I forgot. Yes, we were already bankrupt when Clinton left office, as we were when he took office, thanks to your god, Reagan. Now, care to explain to me why you fully support making it even worse by trillions ?
February 1st, 2008 at 4:55 am
Elisabetta, you bet I’m angry, every American should be! We are destroying the country that my kids have to live in. You however seem to think that’s just fine as longs as you can argue over dates and a trillion here and a trillion there. As long as you don’t have to pay any taxes, you couldn’t care less how much we borrow or what the consequence may be. Dispicable!
February 1st, 2008 at 8:52 am
Well, since the economy is so dog-gone bad, I only assumed you had to beg for change to make a living, or to pay your broadband internet fees, or to make payments on your dual-core XPS or whatever it is you are typing on right now..
Because it has actually been made better by even more trillions. Clinton didn’t mismanage the economy, nor did Bush. Its not how much money you are in debt, its what you get for the money that matters. Raising the GDP of this country (the total amount of wealth) by over 40% is what you got for the money under both administrations, respectively. We are constantly paying off old debt and taking out new loans of higher value, thus increasing the net amount of debt, because we are growing economically.
Would you rather live in a 15 trillion dollar economy with a 10 trillion dollar debt, or in a 15 billion dollar economy with a 10 billion dollar debt?
February 1st, 2008 at 9:05 am
David, be angry all you want but stop putting words in my mouth.
What I think it’s fine and how your construe my words are not one and the same.
Also, it was you that initiated the discussion on figures and years.
Moreover, it was you that beat up on Jimmy for incorrect dates and amounts.
Yet, when someone points out your faulty argument you get outraged, get off on other tangents and dismiss the initial argument you began as irrelevant. There is a term for that: deflecting.
Last but not least, I have never advocated paying no taxes as you continue to allege, deceptively. I am against being OVER-TAXED or taxed for the wrong reasons.
Can’t imagine any sane or informed person would support taxation under those conditions.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:02 am
Elisabetta, actually Jimmy used figures, I just pointed out that they were wrong. Whatever your delusional tax ideas, either you fully support running up trillions in debt or you are a liar. Just because I point out your desire to bankrupt and destroy America doesn’t make it my fault. Either support fiscal responsibility or shut up with your fake conservative BS.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:14 pm
David, as for who did what first, Jimmy used figures because you keep throwing around that 10 trillion debt out of context. He did admit to a minor error. You never admit to your glaring flaws.
As a rule, I choose not to answer your insensate comments when I run across them, except when you attack or trash me because “you believe†your stances are better than mine.
Here are a few reasons why YOU should keep quiet.
1. An inability to listen and discuss an opposite viewpoint without getting personal and nasty – mildly put. (See this thread)
2. A regular pattern of misquoting people and lying about what they said. Without once retracting your falsehoods. Do I need to remind you it’s all in b/w on this blog? (See this thread and all the ones you have responded to me).
3. A knee-jerk reaction of spewing vitriol when addressing someone who believes differently than you. (see this thread)
3. Ad nauseam broken record of bashing President Bush and anyone that may remotely speak positively of him. Hardly a difference between you and the nut jobs on KOS et al. (see most threads where you comments)
Let’s not forget that the more you caterwaul your “conservativismâ€, while disparaging Tom Dick and Harry’s, the less convincing you sound.
Hence, don’t twist my comments, don’t misquote me, keep your ranting to yourself and I won’t have to waste my time rectifying your malarkey.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Gee Jimmy and Elisabetta, you win. You’re right, running up huge debt is conservative and the best thing to do for America. BTW Elisabetta, you do exactly the same stuff that you accuse me of. You really are pathetic. Also, Kos is left wing, like you and your idiot hero W. You know, big government, huge spending on medicare and subsidies, sucking up to communist and terrorist nations, nation building, all that left wing stuff you love so much. Learn what a conservatives is before claiming to be one, genius.
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Elisabetta, I posted this on the “Fake Conservative” board. It applies perfectly to you and Jimmy. Go team, rah, rah!
The problem is that most people now choose their politics the same way they choose a sports team to root for. Their team (party) is always good and right and the other is always bad and wrong. It is very easy to test this. If a democrat had started 2 wars without any exit plans and run up trillions in debt the republicans would be howling blood murder (as they should) but since one of their team did it, they are all for it. It’s the same as when democrats acted like it was just fine for Clinton to screw around in the oval office and lie about it.
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:32 am
David, I feel sorry for you. Not only you don’t get it, but you continue ranting in the same vein and accuse me of being left-wing like KOS. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Your comments, regardless of the topic at hand, can be summed up as follows, ” Bush idiot, you brainwashed, you scum, you … (fill in with inanity and insults) blah, blah… I hate you because you don’t think like me and only those that think like me are smart (paraphrased).”
Yeah, very intelligent debating skills. Look in the mirror for pathetic and crazy.
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:33 am
test
February 4th, 2008 at 5:51 am
Elisabetta, not surprisingly, you don’t understand anything that is said to you. Not just by me, but everyone who has ever answered you, it truly is a waste of time so this will be the last time I do. It has nothing to do with whether you think like me or not. Facts are facts whether you like them or not. The fact is huge debts are bad for our economy and our country, borrowing hundreds of billions from communists and terrorist sympathysers is a huge security risk. Playing World police and nation building will destroy America just like it has many other countries before no matter what your opinion is of it. Growing the government to it’s largest size ever is NOT conservative no matter how many times you claim it is. Your boy Bush just turned in the biggest budget ever, way to go! You think that makes him a great fiscally responsible conservative, YOU’RE WRONG!!!!!!! See, sometimes people are just plain wrong, it’s not a matter of opinion! Some things are just facts, not opinions. The trouble is, you have no idea what is real and what isn’t. You acccuse me of “Hardly a difference between you and the nut jobs on KOS” and think that is civil discourse but when I point out that your views are way more big government and liberal than mine, I’m being mean and nasty? Whatever. I’ll await your ridicules reply that completely ignores everything I said just so you can whine about what a big meanie I am. Thanks.
February 4th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
David, Get a job.
February 4th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Dear John, err…David:
(Hope you’ll enjoy it as much as I did.) Cheers!
It’s so predictable that you begin your response by hiding behind “others” to obfuscate the matter at hand, claiming: “you don’t understand anything that is said to you. Not just by me, but everyone who has ever answered you.”
Don’t mind me if I point out that you alone have responded to me. Hence, unless you possess more than one personality, let’s leave others out of this. Besides, I am still waiting to be dazzled by you. Though, I am very mindful of your proclivity for smoke and mirrors.
Next, comes the promulgation, “Facts are facts.” Really?
Here are some questions that need to be answered.
Do the ‘facts’ reflect reality (not your own) or are they part and parcel of your conclusions? Are you taking in all the facts or just the ones that fit in with your pre-established prejudices?
Strong opinions don’t automatically translate into accurate information.
Typically, reasonable individuals with equally opposing views who have come to an impasse choose to agree to disagree. It happens all the time, even on this blog.
Keep this in mind because it’ll help you with the next idea.
About “understanding.â€
What will it take for you to comprehend that without honesty and respect exchanges are not possible? Ergo, I am NOT interested in talking with you, no matter the subject.
You see the MESSAGE is as important as the MEANS used to communicate it and vice versa.
All your comments are crafted heavily on rhetoric, condescension and ad homs.
Throwing a jab here and there in the middle of a debate is one thing. Harassing people is quite another.
Shall we rehash?
To ACS, based on the initial post.
“Hmmmm….. I’m getting a bit tired of the greedy America bankrupting scum…the real point is that your idiot hero W has destroyed America. Step up and take the blame, you dispicable cowards.
Later to Jimmy:
…What a dispicable little America destroying coward you are! Now, how about you actually try to defend the blithering moron…â€
Again to Jimmy:
“Jimmy, the debt will be around $10 trillion when your moron hero leaves office, thanks for bankrupting America genius. 1999 was not Clinton’s last year, 2000 was and the debt wasn’t 5.8 trillion, as your fellow brainwashed sheep Elsabetta just pointed out ..â€
To me:
“.,,you have no idea what true conservatives stand for. Here’s a hint, it’s pretty much the exact opposite of everything your idiot hero Bush has done.… you would need to not be brainwashed to understand that.â€
On and On… So tiring. That is the bulk of your “facts†A better word would be casting aspersions and engaging in offensive remarks.
Consequently, it’s totally ludicrous for you accuse me of incivility for comparing you to the nut jobs at KOS, for 2 reasons:
1. You verbally assaulted 3 different people in this thread alone.
2. Your own behavior was the reason for the affinity with the left-wing extremists.
Apparently, truth matters little to you from what I observed, first hand. Your latest fabrication is that I view you as mean and nasty because I can’t accept that we dissent on certain issues.
What an egregious confabulation!
Reality check – The truth is that anyone that differs with your viewpoints becomes the target of your attacks.
Repeatedly, with no provocation, you protest that you are NO liberal but a true conservative, whereas some of us are not. No sirree.
But, then you go and blat to Jimmy:
“It would sure be refreshing if you were ever even remotely honest, but then, you’re a republican.â€
Enlighten us. Was it the liberal or the conservative in you that uttered that claptrap?
David final (for the day) condescending thought: “I’ll await your ridicules reply that completely ignores everything I said just so you can whine about what a big meanie I am.â€
Anytime now, David, it would be a good time to quit… I am rooting for ya!
February 5th, 2008 at 4:13 am
Tom, I see you’ve employed your massive intellect to deduce that anyone who is upset by the bankrupting America and selling her off to the Saudis and the communists must be unemployed. Very impressive, thanks.
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:29 am
Obama’s first, second, and third priority is to get elected. If that means pandering to large numbers of unemployed, under employed, those on welfare, illegal aliens, and malcontents, he’ll be happy to throw them a few crumbs as a way to get their votes. He will also turn democracy and capitalism on it’s head, and villainize the affluent and successful in our society, in order to rally the masses behind him. With evangelical zeal Obama will convince his followers to replace reason with hope and belief … to blindly follow him … never challenge him … and embrace his words as gospel. In the real, and unforgiving world of economics however, when you immediately gratify everyone by feasting on the goose that lays the golden eggs, the economy looses it’s ability to continue generating growth and wealth. Obama is promising everyone a piece of the pie, whether they helped bake it, or not … but, only in a socialistic, or communist state do the non-contributors demand to share equally in the property that belongs to others. Immediate gratification is like a drug to the malcontents, but in the big picture, every farmer knows that you never eat your seed crop. If Obama gets elected, America will turn into a third world country, with massive government welfare programs, unable to generate jobs for it’s citizens, and unable to compete in the global markets. Keep America safe, free and strong … elect McCain/Palin on November 4th.