PDA

View Full Version : The left aren't bad people, it's just that ...



LWW
08-12-2012, 12:26 PM
... so much of what they know just isn't so.

Those powerful words from Ronald Wison Reagan reminds me of so much that I see posted here ... spoon fed jibba jabba that the poor deceived poster has been told to be te truth.

In the hectic modern world many people trust what they believe to be reliable sources to tell them the truth. Thugocrats realize this and use it too bamboozle those unwilling to go to the source.

The basis concept behind NAZI propaganda was to tell the lie that advanced the agenda, tell it often, tell it loud, and contain a single kernel of undeniable truth ... and never mention anything that would lead anyone to investigate where the real truth resides.

In this thread we ill examine some of these "TRUE" lies that are so commonly accepted.

Soflasnapper
08-12-2012, 01:59 PM
This isn't really a Reagan quote at all. He paraphrased Will Rogers, and now, you have mis-paraphrased him.

Which is perfect for this topic and this author (meaning, you). It would have been still more perfect if it were his quote, as he was among the most confused on facts president and governor and person, ever in history.

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
― Ronald Reagan

(Psst! The key tip off is that he'd never say anything good or neutral about 'the left.' What I recall him saying about 'the left' is "If it's to be a bloodbath, let it be now. Appeasement is not the answer."

On what to do about student disruptions at UC Berkeley, quoted in the Los Angeles Times (8 April 1970).)

Basically, I find it is the right that creates an echo chamber of manufactured 'facts,' and you do a great job of repeating them on this forum. Most of hagiography of Reagan is based on a raft of bogus 'facts,' some of which he himself created.

For instance, is it true that there is no word for 'freedom' in the Russian language? Despite making that claim while he was president, no, that wasn't true at all.

Was it true that all the nuclear waste from a year's operation from a several gigawatt nuclear power plant could easily fit under his desk, as he claimed? Not at all.

LWW
08-12-2012, 03:30 PM
First up we will review the actual "RYAN PLAN" againt the myths told about it.

True to form, the lies are told loud and often ... and the kernel of truth is that the Ryan plan changes MEDICARE to a voucher system.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It preserves the existing Medicare program for those currently enrolled or becoming eligible in the next 10 years (those 55 and older today) - So Americans can receive the benefits they planned for throughout their working lives. *

For those currently under 55 – as they become Medicare-eligible – it creates a Medicare payment, initially averaging $11,000, to be used to purchase a Medicare certified plan.

The payment is adjusted to reflect medical inflation, and pegged to income, with low-income individuals receiving greater support. The plan also provides risk adjustment, so those with greater medical needs receive a higher payment.

The proposal also fully funds Medical Savings Accounts [MSAs] for low-income beneficiaries, while continuing to allow all beneficiaries, regardless of income, to set up tax-free MSAs.

Based on consultation with the Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and using Congressional Budget Office [CBO] these reforms will make Medicare permanently solvent.

Modernizes Medicaid and strengthens the health care safety net by reforming high-risk pools, giving States maximum flexibility to tailor Medicaid programs to the specific needs of their populations. Allows Medicaid recipients to take part in the same variety of options and high-quality care available to everyone through the tax credit option.</div></div>

This is not intended to be an endorsement of the plan, but instead a presentation of the truth.

And now you know ... the rest ... of ... the story. (http://roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=8520)

hondo
08-12-2012, 04:02 PM
Well, you have to admit that Sofla has forced you to pick up your game and no longer respond with simplistic one line barbs.
i have enjoyed some of your reponses. This is who I thought i was getting when I first invited you over.
Not sure if what you said about Ryan was true but I'm looking into it. Trying to sort out the facts.( okiay, TBH, trying to comprehend :))

LWW
08-12-2012, 04:12 PM
I'm encouraged you actually are thinking on your own.

BTW ... I included a link to the ACTUAL plan.

LWW
08-12-2012, 04:26 PM
BTW ... the regime's CMS chief actuary is on the record that he has more faith in the Ryan plan fixing the problem than he has in the Obama plan fixing the problem.

CLICK HERE TO LEARN (http://roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=221709)

Soflasnapper
08-12-2012, 09:26 PM
The payment is adjusted to reflect medical inflation

Reflect, by mirroring at A REDUCED RATE.

Which is why they use the weasel word that is very imprecise, and makes a pretense of fully adjusting the premium support to medical inflation, when it does not.

THAT'S HOW IT SAVES MONEY. By under-adjusting the increasing amount to be less than medical inflation.

Problem: it doesn't bend the cost curve, and simply off-loads the compounding costs onto the seniors, as it covers less and less of what the medical costs grow to.

Are you unaware of that?

Oh, wait! You took a POLITICIAN'S SPIN to be true??? As if no politician has dressed up proposals with misleading descriptions that aren't quite true?

Qtec
08-13-2012, 12:38 AM
RR,great guy!!!!????????
This is the guy who went behind the back of Congress and sold weapons to America's greatest enemy and then used the profit to fund another terrorist army in S America.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>But as most analysts predicted, Reagan's massive $749 billion supply-side tax cuts in 1981 quickly produced even more massive annual budget deficits.</span> Combined with his rapid increase in defense spending, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Reagan delivered not the balanced budgets he promised, but record-setting debt.</span> Even his OMB alchemist David Stockman could not obscure the disaster with his famous "rosy scenarios."

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>Forced to raise taxes 11 times to avert financial catastrophe, the Gipper nonetheless presided over a tripling of the American national debt to nearly $3 trillion. By the time he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan more than equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history.</span> It's no wonder that, three decades after he concluded "the supply-siders have gone too far," former Arthur Laffer acolyte and Reagan budget chief David Stockman lamented:

<span style='font-size: 14pt'> "[The] debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."</span>

When George W. Bush and Dick Cheney ambled in the White House in January 2001, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>they weren't shy about making that same point, albeit with a different spin</span> </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>....and we know how that worked out, don't we?</span>

Spoon fed! Take a look in the mirror.

Q

LWW
08-13-2012, 03:44 AM
I'm aware that you constantly repeat the boiler pate demokrook line ... yet offer nothing to support any of it.

Now ... what plan does Obama have to bend the curve?

How is cutting MEDICAID by $700B now going to help seniors?

Why is your default position always to believe what soeone tells you the plan says instead f actually viewing the plan.

Qtec
08-13-2012, 03:54 AM
Are the GOP/Ryan against these cuts?

Q

Qtec
08-13-2012, 03:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How is cutting MEDICAID by $700B now going to help seniors? </div></div>

The cuts from M go to help implement the ACA which helps the same people.

Q

LWW
08-13-2012, 04:18 AM
So people are both old and young at the same time?

How exactly does that work?

Soflasnapper
08-13-2012, 11:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are the GOP/Ryan against these cuts?

Q </div></div>

No, they incorporated them into the Ryan II plan, if not the Ryan I plan.

The Ryan plan USES these cuts, and then cuts still more, on top of these cuts, to pretend to afford the huge $5 trillion in extra high end tax cuts, on top of keeping all the Bush era rate cuts (another $5 trillion, over 10 years).

These ACA cuts are primarily to get rid of the middle man payment to the Medicare Plus scheme that Bush put in place, which makes sense. Those are pure corporate socialism, giving the carriers that provide them unearned and unwarranted, ineffective monies at a huge cost.

So the REAL position of the GOP about the cuts is, we'll keep THOSE, and double up the cuts, with the inadequately indexed voucher premium supports.

Hard to believe even they think they can get away with it, but obviously, the American people in general have a hard time with numbers, and are subjected to vast propaganda efforts, so perhaps they could be right.

hondo
08-13-2012, 02:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are the GOP/Ryan against these cuts?

Q </div></div>

No, they incorporated them into the Ryan II plan, if not the Ryan I plan.

The Ryan plan USES these cuts, and then cuts still more, on top of these cuts, to pretend to afford the huge $5 trillion in extra high end tax cuts, on top of keeping all the Bush era rate cuts (another $5 trillion, over 10 years).

These ACA cuts are primarily to get rid of the middle man payment to the Medicare Plus scheme that Bush put in place, which makes sense. Those are pure corporate socialism, giving the carriers that provide them unearned and unwarranted, ineffective monies at a huge cost.

So the REAL position of the GOP about the cuts is, we'll keep THOSE, and double up the cuts, with the inadequately indexed voucher premium supports.

Hard to believe even they think they can get away with it, but obviously, the American people in general have a hard time with numbers, and are subjected to vast propaganda efforts, so perhaps they could be right. </div></div>

I appreciate your looking into this. I have been very uneasy about Ryan's every move.

Soflasnapper
08-13-2012, 03:44 PM
I said Medicare Plus when I should have said Medicare ADVANTAGE. ADVANTAGE.

I think the rest is accurate, though.

What is puzzling is that the prior figure discussed was $500 billion, and now it is supposedly $700 billion plus. I do not know where that difference comes from, or if it is correct.

Qtec
08-13-2012, 04:50 PM
It WAS $500 billion! Romney said it himself.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fact-Checking Romney: Does Health Reform Cut Medicare, Levy $500 Billion Tax?

ABC News’ Chris Good and Shushannah Walshe report:

In expressing his opposition to Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling, Mitt Romney provided some jaw-dropping numbers as to why he believes the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is “bad policy” and a “bad law.”

“Let me tell you why I say that. Obamacare raises taxes on the American people by approximately $500 billion,” Romney told reporters. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>“Obamacare cuts Medicare by approximately $500 billion.</span> And even with those cuts, and tax increases, Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt, and pushes those obligations onto coming generations.”

So, where does the Romney campaign come up with those numbers?

They cite a memo written by Richard Foster, chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (part of the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services), that claims the ACA will, says Romney, “cut Medicare by more than $500 billion.”

So does it “cut” Medicare by $500 billion?

<u>Medicare spending will continue to grow,</u> according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), but ACA will slow that growth. According to a report from the Kaiser Family Health Foundation over the next 10 years, the federal government will devote about $500 billion less to Medicare than it would have without ACA.

CMS and the Kaiser Family Foundation tell ABC News that there will be no benefit cuts to Medicare. They say instead of Medicare’s being cut, there will be much more spending at the end of a 10-year window, but it does slow the rate of that growth. This is all unless Congress makes drastic changes to Medicare, for example passing House Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare Plan.

CMS says—and Kaiser agrees—that spending will be reduced by getting rid of fraud and ending overpayments to private insurance companies. It sends a message to those insurance companies: Operate more efficiently.

And instead of cuts, the CMS says they will be able to fund new benefits, including free preventive care and broader prescription coverage, including closing the “doughnut hole” affecting seniors.</div></div> link (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/fact-checking-romney-does-health-reform-cut-medicare-levy-500-billion-tax/)

Its just Mitt lying again.

Q

Soflasnapper
08-13-2012, 06:17 PM
I'm surprised, but I shouldn't be, when these new memes are put out across the board, coming out of thin air.

Not only are they made up out of whole cloth, but the blast fax goes out, and one day, after no one ever mentioned such a thing, the entire rightie Borg mind is singing the same tune.

Astonishing. But now part of the new normal.

Soflasnapper
08-13-2012, 06:19 PM
How is cutting MEDICAID by $700B now going to help seniors?

By closing the doughnut hole of prescription drugs coverage in Medicare D.

That will save seniors thousands of dollars a year. Millions of seniors, thousands of dollars, billions of dollars. Right back in their pocket, from eliminating that co-pay figure in the not-so-sweet spot of the doughnut hole in coverage.

Qtec
08-13-2012, 06:24 PM
Wait till the debates, it will have risen to $9B.

Q

Soflasnapper
08-13-2012, 08:17 PM
Just saw a clip of Dick Morris during the veep pick, cautiously warning against picking Ryan (while lauding him anyway), by saying he also had the $500 billion cut in his plan that Obama had, and that it would be dangerous. So that was the talking point/factoid as it existed then, recently, which had been the only one I've heard until now.

So it ballooned in a week to 10 days, for no obvious reason that I know of. Probably it's what we're guessing, just amped up crap.

Stretch
08-13-2012, 11:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are the GOP/Ryan against these cuts?

Q </div></div>

No, they incorporated them into the Ryan II plan, if not the Ryan I plan.

The Ryan plan USES these cuts, and then cuts still more, on top of these cuts, to pretend to afford the huge $5 trillion in extra high end tax cuts, on top of keeping all the Bush era rate cuts (another $5 trillion, over 10 years).

These ACA cuts are primarily to get rid of the middle man payment to the Medicare Plus scheme that Bush put in place, which makes sense. Those are pure corporate socialism, giving the carriers that provide them unearned and unwarranted, ineffective monies at a huge cost.

So the REAL position of the GOP about the cuts is, we'll keep THOSE, and double up the cuts, with the inadequately indexed voucher premium supports.

Hard to believe even they think they can get away with it, but obviously, the American people in general have a hard time with numbers, and are subjected to vast propaganda efforts, so perhaps they could be right. </div></div>

It's desperation time for the Reps. All their babble now has one underlying message, and that is "trust me, i'm lying". St.

Qtec
08-14-2012, 02:49 AM
You pick a guy who is only know for for his budget,then you disown said budget.

The major qualification for a VP is that he can take over the Presidency if required. Can you see Ryan as POTUS?

Mitt just did a McCain.

Q

LWW
08-14-2012, 04:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are the GOP/Ryan against these cuts?

Q </div></div>

What cuts?

LWW
08-14-2012, 04:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How is cutting MEDICAID by $700B now going to help seniors?

By closing the doughnut hole of prescription drugs coverage in Medicare D.

That will save seniors thousands of dollars a year. Millions of seniors, thousands of dollars, billions of dollars. Right back in their pocket, from eliminating that co-pay figure in the not-so-sweet spot of the doughnut hole in coverage. </div></div>

Holy illogical statement Batman!

LWW
08-14-2012, 04:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I said Medicare Plus when I should have said Medicare ADVANTAGE. ADVANTAGE.

I think the rest is accurate, though.

What is puzzling is that the prior figure discussed was $500 billion, and now it is supposedly $700 billion plus. I do not know where that difference comes from, or if it is correct. </div></div>

From the Obama campaign.

LWW
08-14-2012, 04:31 AM
And there we have it.

The entire cabal ... with the exception of hondo ... completely unwilling to discuss the Ryan plan, and insisting upon merely parroting the regime's talking points.

Ths is truly a sad event.

Qtec
08-14-2012, 04:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are the GOP/Ryan against these cuts?

Q </div></div>

What cuts? </div></div>

LOL. You just confirmed you position as head nutjob/idiot.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm aware that you constantly repeat the boiler pate demokrook line ... yet offer nothing to support any of it.

Now ... what plan does Obama have to bend the curve?

<span style="color: #3333FF">Who said this?</span>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>How is cutting MEDICAID by $700B now going to help seniors?</span>

Why is your default position always to believe what soeone tells you the plan says instead f actually viewing the plan. </div></div>

Those cuts.

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

LWW
08-14-2012, 07:00 AM
So you agree Obama's plan cuts MEDICARE funding while not lowering costs.

Thanks for having my back again.

LWW
08-14-2012, 07:07 AM
JUMPING BUTTERBALLS! (http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/08/3-things-every-voter-needs-to-know-about-paul-ryans-medicare-reform-plan-in-100-words/ )

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In his most excellent post on the Paul Ryan vice presidential pick, AEI’s Andrew Biggs highlights some key facts about Ryan’s approach to saving Medicare. These are clip and save:

1. No one over the age of 55 would be affected in any way.

2. Traditional Medicare fee-for-service would remain available for all. “Premium support”—that is, government funding of private insurance plans chosen by individuals—is an option for those who choose it. No senior would be forced out of the traditional Medicare program against his will.

3. Overall funding for Medicare under the Ryan-Wyden plan is scheduled to grow at the same rate as under President Obama’s proposals. Is this “gutting Medicare” and “ending Medicare as we know it”? In reality, it’s the market giving seniors cheaper, higher quality choices they can take if they wish, with the traditional program remaining an option.</div></div>

The above are some reasons why I can't endrse this part of the plan as is ... but it also eposes as lies the lies which the regime has used as the raw meat of hate to feed to the nutty 25%.

The truth is out there ... you just have to want to find it.

Soflasnapper
08-14-2012, 09:20 AM
This is NOT what Ryan originally proposed, and what the House originally passed.

After the 2011 special election saw a Democrat take a safe red district running solely against the original Ryan plan, a district that had been Republican about 150 years or some ridiculously long time, Ryan backed off his preferences for politically expedient reasons.

That he's disguised his intent by modifying it this way does not take away the fact that he was quite satisfied to force all seniors currently under 55 into the voucherized premium support plan, which he wrote up, pushed for, and got passed by the House.

His philosophy of government is that it should do a whole lot less, including getting OUT of MC and SS, which should be privatized.

The longer term plan, and we've seen the first several salvoes in the war, is to break the system, Cloward/Pivin style.

This new Ryan plan will accomplish that by adverse selection. The private plans will take the healthier seniors, the legacy MC system will get all the sicker ones, blowing up its cost curve to sheer unaffordability (I mean worse than it is now).

He's a cold-eyed Ayn Randian, and his feint to reasonability sounds like it is moderate, but it's still part of his not so well hidden agenda.

Beyond that analysis, which I believe and urge all to take seriously from the prior evidence, Ryan's 10 year savings are no better than Obama's, using his same savings, and with the bonus of hypocritically running slashing attack ads on that savings.

Nice group of guys on that side. Liars, and sociopaths.

LWW
08-14-2012, 09:30 AM
Documented by?

Soflasnapper
08-14-2012, 11:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Documented by? </div></div>

Which part?

If you are asking about: Liars, and sociopaths.,

Res ipso dixit.

Qtec
08-15-2012, 04:56 AM
Actually, I was wrong. There are no actual cuts. The 5b or 7B is a reduction in projected extra spending.

Q

Soflasnapper
08-15-2012, 09:07 AM
Quite so. The spending goes up each year, and by a lot.

Hilariously, I heard Sean Hannity making this point, as to the GOP 'cuts,' just after he'd slammed the Obama administration for making 'real cuts' which are exactly of this same nature.

That guy is very stupid, or quite the liar, and both, to be sure.

LWW
08-31-2012, 02:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This isn't really a Reagan quote at all. He paraphrased Will Rogers, and now, you have mis-paraphrased him.

Which is perfect for this topic and this author (meaning, you). It would have been still more perfect if it were his quote, as he was among the most confused on facts president and governor and person, ever in history.

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
― Ronald Reagan

(Psst! The key tip off is that he'd never say anything good or neutral about 'the left.' What I recall him saying about 'the left' is "If it's to be a bloodbath, let it be now. Appeasement is not the answer."

On what to do about student disruptions at UC Berkeley, quoted in the Los Angeles Times (8 April 1970).)

Basically, I find it is the right that creates an echo chamber of manufactured 'facts,' and you do a great job of repeating them on this forum. Most of hagiography of Reagan is based on a raft of bogus 'facts,' some of which he himself created.

For instance, is it true that there is no word for 'freedom' in the Russian language? Despite making that claim while he was president, no, that wasn't true at all.

Was it true that all the nuclear waste from a year's operation from a several gigawatt nuclear power plant could easily fit under his desk, as he claimed? Not at all. </div></div>

I was being kind ... however if you prefer to be seen as ignorant, I have no objection.

LWW
08-31-2012, 02:25 PM
I apologize for neglecting this thread, and sadly I see the sme folks bitterly refuing to accept that the Ryan plan isn't a voucher plan as they have been spoon fed.

So ... I shall slay yet another myth the regime has told them to believe:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One could imagine my surprise when I recently read an article by an economist named Emmanuel Saez.

Mr. Saez is the E. Morris Cox professor of economics and director of the Center for Equitable Growth at the University of California at Berkeley, no bastion of conservatism. Mr. Saez's field of expertise is public economics. According to Mr. Saez,<span style='font-size: 11pt'> fully 93 percent of the income gains made during the Obama "recovery" in 2010 went to the despised top 1 percent, while the other 99 percent saw only a 0.2 percent growth in real*income.</span>

Embarrassingly, during the Bush years, the top 1 percent gained 65 percent and the income gains during the 2002 to 2007 economic expansion, while the bottom 9 percent saw a real income grow by 6.8*percent.

There is no evidence that tax rate cuts reduce the share of income taxes paid by high income people. When Bush cut the marginal rate by 3.5 percent, the share of total income tax burden borne by the top 1 percent (those earning more than $343,947), actually increased by 6.5 percent by*2007.

Indeed, every tax rate reduction on high earners has resulted in an increase in the share of income taxes paid by high*earners. </div></div>

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS! (http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Sees-rich-getting-even-richer-under-Obama-3485930.php)

Soflasnapper
08-31-2012, 03:11 PM
There's no way to check whether this report of what was said is correct, or whether that report itself is correct.

However, let's start from the beginning.

There is absolutely no mythology on this, and no one has been told to believe anything whatsoever on this, by 'the regime' as you idiotically put it, or by anyone else.

Now COMMON SENSE may have led one to the opposite of this view, I agree, IF ONE HAD THOUGHT OF IT FOR ONE MOMENT. But this is hardly any kind of talking point of anyone.

If it is, who said it, and with what sweeping influence or authority (that the opposite of this report was so)?

You are just making up supposed myths, which no one purports to be true, except you (in reverse).

hondo
08-31-2012, 09:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This isn't really a Reagan quote at all. He paraphrased Will Rogers, and now, you have mis-paraphrased him.

Which is perfect for this topic and this author (meaning, you). It would have been still more perfect if it were his quote, as he was among the most confused on facts president and governor and person, ever in history.

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
― Ronald Reagan

(Psst! The key tip off is that he'd never say anything good or neutral about 'the left.' What I recall him saying about 'the left' is "If it's to be a bloodbath, let it be now. Appeasement is not the answer."

On what to do about student disruptions at UC Berkeley, quoted in the Los Angeles Times (8 April 1970).)

Basically, I find it is the right that creates an echo chamber of manufactured 'facts,' and you do a great job of repeating them on this forum. Most of hagiography of Reagan is based on a raft of bogus 'facts,' some of which he himself created.

For instance, is it true that there is no word for 'freedom' in the Russian language? Despite making that claim while he was president, no, that wasn't true at all.

Was it true that all the nuclear waste from a year's operation from a several gigawatt nuclear power plant could easily fit under his desk, as he claimed? Not at all. </div></div>

I was being kind ... however if you prefer to be seen as ignorant, I have no objection. </div></div>

So now Sofla's ignorant , huh? If he is he hides it well. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

DiabloViejo
09-01-2012, 01:29 AM
LOL! Sofla could give him the orange crush, and LWW still couldn't win.

BTW: This is what Dub thinks of me! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

http://youtu.be/D3Vp9fQ616k

LWW
09-01-2012, 05:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This isn't really a Reagan quote at all. He paraphrased Will Rogers, and now, you have mis-paraphrased him.

Which is perfect for this topic and this author (meaning, you). It would have been still more perfect if it were his quote, as he was among the most confused on facts president and governor and person, ever in history.

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
― Ronald Reagan

(Psst! The key tip off is that he'd never say anything good or neutral about 'the left.' What I recall him saying about 'the left' is "If it's to be a bloodbath, let it be now. Appeasement is not the answer."

On what to do about student disruptions at UC Berkeley, quoted in the Los Angeles Times (8 April 1970).)

Basically, I find it is the right that creates an echo chamber of manufactured 'facts,' and you do a great job of repeating them on this forum. Most of hagiography of Reagan is based on a raft of bogus 'facts,' some of which he himself created.

For instance, is it true that there is no word for 'freedom' in the Russian language? Despite making that claim while he was president, no, that wasn't true at all.

Was it true that all the nuclear waste from a year's operation from a several gigawatt nuclear power plant could easily fit under his desk, as he claimed? Not at all. </div></div>

I was being kind ... however if you prefer to be seen as ignorant, I have no objection. </div></div>

So now Sofla's ignorant , huh? If he is he hides it well. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

It was his call ... don't be hatin on me becuse he made it

hondo
09-01-2012, 07:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This isn't really a Reagan quote at all. He paraphrased Will Rogers, and now, you have mis-paraphrased him.

Which is perfect for this topic and this author (meaning, you). It would have been still more perfect if it were his quote, as he was among the most confused on facts president and governor and person, ever in history.

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
― Ronald Reagan

(Psst! The key tip off is that he'd never say anything good or neutral about 'the left.' What I recall him saying about 'the left' is "If it's to be a bloodbath, let it be now. Appeasement is not the answer."

On what to do about student disruptions at UC Berkeley, quoted in the Los Angeles Times (8 April 1970).)

Basically, I find it is the right that creates an echo chamber of manufactured 'facts,' and you do a great job of repeating them on this forum. Most of hagiography of Reagan is based on a raft of bogus 'facts,' some of which he himself created.

For instance, is it true that there is no word for 'freedom' in the Russian language? Despite making that claim while he was president, no, that wasn't true at all.

Was it true that all the nuclear waste from a year's operation from a several gigawatt nuclear power plant could easily fit under his desk, as he claimed? Not at all. </div></div>

I was being kind ... however if you prefer to be seen as ignorant, I have no objection. </div></div>

So now Sofla's ignorant , huh? If he is he hides it well. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

It was his call ... don't be hatin on me becuse he made it </div></div>

Not hating at all. Just amazed that you would play that card.
To most of us , Sofla Usually makes you look bad and often you don't respond to him or simply toss out a flip remark.
The ignorant remark was another flip comment that left me increduous since he beats you so badly on here.
He's our Memikey. Little wonder that you feel intimidated by those 2.

LWW
09-01-2012, 10:14 AM
That was precious.

LWW
09-01-2012, 10:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I apologize for neglecting this thread, and sadly I see the sme folks bitterly refuing to accept that the Ryan plan isn't a voucher plan as they have been spoon fed.

So ... I shall slay yet another myth the regime has told them to believe:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One could imagine my surprise when I recently read an article by an economist named Emmanuel Saez.

Mr. Saez is the E. Morris Cox professor of economics and director of the Center for Equitable Growth at the University of California at Berkeley, no bastion of conservatism. Mr. Saez's field of expertise is public economics. According to Mr. Saez,<span style='font-size: 11pt'> fully 93 percent of the income gains made during the Obama "recovery" in 2010 went to the despised top 1 percent, while the other 99 percent saw only a 0.2 percent growth in real*income.</span>

Embarrassingly, during the Bush years, the top 1 percent gained 65 percent and the income gains during the 2002 to 2007 economic expansion, while the bottom 9 percent saw a real income grow by 6.8*percent.

There is no evidence that tax rate cuts reduce the share of income taxes paid by high income people. When Bush cut the marginal rate by 3.5 percent, the share of total income tax burden borne by the top 1 percent (those earning more than $343,947), actually increased by 6.5 percent by*2007.

Indeed, every tax rate reduction on high earners has resulted in an increase in the share of income taxes paid by high*earners. </div></div>

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS! (http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Sees-rich-getting-even-richer-under-Obama-3485930.php) </div></div>

To get back on topic ... not a single leftist wants to do discuss reality.

Imagine that.

Soflasnapper
09-01-2012, 11:19 AM
There is nothing really to discuss unless you link to that piece. Not the piece that allegedly describes the study, but doesn't supply a link to the study. A link to the study.

And I've already disputed that anyone thinks this way, and that it is a myth of any widespread credence.

What is the supposed contradiction here?

What claim, whose claim, is being shown false, assuming this report which we cannot see and which you will not man up to find but nonetheless call out others to do your work for you is even properly characterized here?

Is it surprising to hear that the main economic gains in 2010 went to the upper income earners?

Why would that be surprising, and who do you claim is surprised?

Other than the author you link to, I mean.

hondo
09-01-2012, 09:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That was precious. </div></div>

Be more specific. What did I say that you disagree with?
I felt my comments were dead on, Larry.

LWW
09-02-2012, 02:11 AM
That was even more precious.

LWW
09-02-2012, 02:15 AM
Watching you try to act impartial is one of life's small pleasures.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In 2010, as the nation continued to recover from the recession, a dizzying 93 percent of the additional income created in the country that year, compared to 2009 — $288 billion — went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers, those with at least $352,000 in income. That delivered an average single-year pay increase of 11.6 percent to each of these households.

Still more astonishing was the extent to which the super rich got rich faster than the merely rich. In 2010,*37 percent of these additional earnings went to just the top 0.01 percent, a teaspoon-size collection of about 15,000 households with average incomes of $23.8 million. These fortunate few saw their incomes rise by 21.5 percent.

The bottom 99 percent received a microscopic $80 increase in pay per person in 2010, after adjusting for inflation. The top 1 percent, whose average income is $1,019,089, had an 11.6 percent increase in income.</div></div>

This is where you claim the NYT is a part of the VRWC! (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/the-rich-get-even-richer.html)

hondo
09-02-2012, 09:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That was even more precious. </div></div>

How can Sofla and Q and Gayle and Fats and I rise to your heights of intellect, O Great One, if all you ever say was "That was just precious" ?
It appears to us laymen that you are left speechless.
Why do you feel that is an appropriate response to questions and accusations?

More meat, less dressing, Larry.

Soflasnapper
09-02-2012, 11:25 AM
I wasn't calling anything the VRWC by pointing out that there wasn't anything factual to discuss in the way the first man merely summarized the alleged findings, without a referring link.

This new source you cite provides a bit more information, and still fails to either link to the study or really show what these number mean.

The study used tax returns? That's news relative to the prior article, and there's a problem with that. Studies routinely show the lower income brackets spending more money than they allegedly have in income, and I'm not referring to running up a credit card balance. There is a cash economy that tax returns fails to fully reflect.

But as to stated wages from tax returns-- don't you realize that the high unemployment rate of 2010 created an over-supply of labor relative to available jobs? In such a glut of workers relative to demand for them, what happens to the PRICE of workers (wages)? When there is an over-supply of anything, the price goes down, relatively speaking. So it is no wonder that for people working for a living, there were vanishingly small increases in their income in the year 2010.

Here are the UE-3 numbers for 2010, by month:

9.7 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4

From the BLS, here (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000)

So this startling news you present, which is so surprising that EVERYONE believes the opposite as a myth, you claim, is that when the (stated) UE-3 starts a year at 9.7% and RISES TO 9.9%, people don't see increases in their wages??? Uh, no, of course, they would not.

This is macroeconomics 101, supply and demand, and no surprise to anyone, let alone against some myth that would say the opposite.

You have an incoherent story here, and one that is cherry picked at the worst year of this presidential term and recovery. And still you fail to make any point, given all that latitude.

LWW
09-02-2012, 07:58 PM
Simply because y'all are cuter than a June bug when you try to act smart ... or informed ... or objective ... or impartial ... or like anything other than bots.

hondo
09-02-2012, 08:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Simply because y'all are cuter than a June bug when you try to act smart ... or informed ... or objective ... or impartial ... or like anything other than bots. </div></div>

Why thank you, honey. You sure know how to make a country boy blush!

LWW
09-04-2012, 07:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Simply because y'all are cuter than a June bug when you try to act smart ... or informed ... or objective ... or impartial ... or like anything other than bots. </div></div>

Why thank you, honey. You sure know how to make a country boy blush! </div></div>

Please put your homerotic fantasies back in the closet.

hondo
09-04-2012, 08:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Simply because y'all are cuter than a June bug when you try to act smart ... or informed ... or objective ... or impartial ... or like anything other than bots. </div></div>

Why thank you, honey. You sure know how to make a country boy blush! </div></div>

Please put your homerotic fantasies back in the closet. </div></div>

Remind me, Larry. Who said this to me?

"Simply because y'all are cuter than a June bug."

LWW
09-05-2012, 10:59 AM
And what dd you solicit from JohnnyD?

Stretch
09-05-2012, 01:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Simply because y'all are cuter than a June bug when you try to act smart ... or informed ... or objective ... or impartial ... or like anything other than bots. </div></div>

Why thank you, honey. You sure know how to make a country boy blush! </div></div>

Please put your homerotic fantasies back in the closet. </div></div>

Remind me, Larry. Who said this to me?

"Simply because y'all are cuter than a June bug." </div></div>

Larry is such a flirt! And we all know how Johnny feels about him. Perhaps he should play with himself more often and leave us straights alone. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif St.

hondo
09-05-2012, 02:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And what dd you solicit from JohnnyD? </div></div>

I solicited nothing from you. What I told your alter ego was a very common insult heard in most saloons around the U.S.
You feel that it is to your advantage , Larry, to pretend like I was soliciting you.
You have played this homo-erotic card over and over with many male posters and it does get old. Plus, it tends to cast some strong doubts about you, my friend.
The male posters on here simply roll our eyes and think NOT AGAIN
when you play the homo-erotic card with us.
I really wish you would come up with some new expressions and insults. You're pretty boring these days, Larry.
Have a nice evening. And watch your pal, Ed. He's even more cranky than usual these days. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

LWW
09-05-2012, 02:44 PM
Yet you are like a moth drawn to te flame.

hondo
09-05-2012, 02:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Simply because y'all are cuter than a June bug when you try to act smart ... or informed ... or objective ... or impartial ... or like anything other than bots. </div></div>

Why thank you, honey. You sure know how to make a country boy blush! </div></div>

Please put your homerotic fantasies back in the closet. </div></div>

Remind me, Larry. Who said this to me?

"Simply because y'all are cuter than a June bug." </div></div>

Larry is such a flirt! And we all know how Johnny feels about him. Perhaps he should play with himself more often and leave us straights alone. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif St. </div></div>

It does seem that every time we respond to him he cries out about homo-eroticism. Methinks he doth protest too much, Stretch.
I shudder to think how he would react if a man passing him on the street might smile and nod at him.

For a while Larry/johnny d. was flooding my PMs telling me how his preacher was praying for me. All the while on NPR calling me a pervert, child molestor, atheist, and liar.
I finally got one"Jesus loves you and we're praying you change your evil ways " too many from Larry/johnny and told him to suck my d**k.
Of course this was what he was hoping for and he swears that meant I was soliciting him for sex. That poor guy needs a date! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

hondo
09-05-2012, 02:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yet you are like a moth drawn to te flame. </div></div>

You should write a book of sayings.
Oh, wait a minute! Most of your expressions came from Limberger.
Better hold off. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

BTW, if you are only going to respond to my masterful writing with your tired old one line cliches, this moth is going to put less effort into responding, darn it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Stretch
09-05-2012, 04:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yet you are like a moth drawn to te flame. </div></div>

You should write a book of sayings.
Oh, wait a minute! Most of your expressions came from Limberger.
Better hold off. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

BTW, if you are only going to respond to my masterful writing with your tired old one line cliches, this moth is going to put less effort into responding, darn it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif </div></div>

Larry is just a revolving door of BS. We should be gratefull that his is just one voice of many. He likes to think being a douche bag sets him apart, and i must admit, it does. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif St.