When Will Fox and the Right-wingers Stop Politicizing the Deaths of 4 Americans?

Fox News, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and our resident Fox News parrots have continued the steady drumbeat of a Benghazi conspiracy theory after Patraeus himself said that there was no cover-up. This overt partisan nonsense keeps getting slapped down time after time but they just refuse to let this crazy insanity go. They are so determined to bring this president down and latching onto anything to achieve this goal that they have ventured into the Twi-Right Zone where intelligence fears to tread. STOP DESECRATING THE MEMORIES OF 4 BRAVE AMERICANS!!!

 

They can't stop, they've already gone "all-in" on it. They go "all-in" for lots of idiotic stuff. Right or wrong, they are passionate about their fears.

The-Right-being-Wrong party.

 

View attachment 799

 

You would think that they would have learned their lesson from the fast and furious non-story but alas, they just need to be wrong about something else.

 

THE WINNERS (2008 and 2012):

 

"We didn't win!"

"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!"

 

I guess I thought I knew what you were doing early on and it was kind of funny.

But, as the photo above show, the more it goes on the more I think what you are doing has dredged down into the sports team realm of politics which is one of the things that I think has contributed to the downfall of our political system.

 

You are correct, sir...it is indeed partisanship that drives these posts (to a point, of course, as no one, here or anywhere, can claim TRUE neutrality without lying through their ass), but I have another reason for posting those images that should be obvious.

But, don't worry, I'm nearly done. I just need to find some images of really really stupid looking kids and write a caption that they must be from Oklahoma City.

As for politics...I'll be celebrating my ass off when both Democrats and Republicans actually sit their asses down and compromise. Let me know when that happens and I'll find a place to put my ass after it falls off.

BUT, if it helps you any, I will say Obama occasionally pisses me off too...just far far less than the Republican politicians like Mitch McConnell. As for Boehner (definitely pronounced wrong in the media, not to be a @#$%, but it's spelled with an "o", not an "a") I actually believe that, outside of politics, I would like the guy.

 

Hehehehe.. yeah, there are plenty of stupid looking kids around here, but most have migrated from the northern states (my apologies to all the folks in northern states except Michigan).

View attachment 804

 

"Polly want a victory?"

 

I am far from neutral when it come to policies. It is just that, since 911 - when things like the Patriot Act, Unlimited Debt and Never Ending War became the norm for this country - both parties have left me behind.

Now, to me, our political system has become little more than the partys buying demographics and splitting power while, what I believe are the the most important issues, continue to remain the same.

 

Sorry, wasn't trying to say you were claiming neutrality....I was saying that I myself can't claim it, and am therefore partisan.

I agree that it's worse than it used to be.

IMO, "Citizen's United" was a big blow to our political system. Unlimited money flowing into both the major parties, with limited ability to find out who donated what, has put the reins of control (or at least influence) firmly into the hands of the richest among us.

I'd prefer the amount of money that can be given to an individual politician (or political hopeful) be limited to something like $10,000...like the "gift" threshold (you can give someone up to that amount without extra taxes kicking in) AND every cent given should be traceable/transparent.

I can agree with you on the Patriot Act, but the other two are far too complicated for me to say I couldn't support either of them. Yeah, I know how that sounds, but for me it's not as simple as saying "We should lower our debt" or "We shouldn't use our military in this way or that". IMO, our two-party system makes both of those things unmanageable...kind of like having a thousand people having control over your personal checkbook...where every purchase proposal must first be run through a committee: "I'd like to buy some coffee" = 90 days of pointless arguing later and you still don't have any @#$%^&* coffee lol

 

Maybe it used to be like that but for a long time now it has been a lot more like this:

Husband: I want a 70 inch big screen tv.
Wife: We can't afford a 70 inch big screen.
Husband: I'll just use our credit card.
Wife: Great idea! Let's go to Best Buy.

 

I remember credit card debt. I hope everyone here isn't either desperate enough or dumb enough to fall onto that trap. Or at least I keep telling my wife that.

 

Good point, if you don't consider the reasons why Credit is necessary. The 70 inch in your example isn't, but does that equate to things like Social Security, Medicaid, and the like, or Military, subsidies, and the like, or both?

it doesn't really matter what your answer is, as what you personally see as unnecessary spending is bound to be different than half the country, and that's one of the problems. But it's not the only one.

Republicans typically want rock bottom spending...except for the military, and Democrats typically want spending for social programs. Republicans managed to get the smaller tax rates they wanted, and refuse to consider raising them to previous levels, while Democrats have refused to let social programs die. Together, their bitching has strained "available" resources and we borrow as a result.

Worse, companies are allowed to outsource jobs to foreign lands, meaning less jobs available here. What that does is lower the amount of taxes that can be collected at the new, lower rate. That in turn means more borrowing, or reduction in spending.

That shit is all great for Republicans in the short run...they got their lower taxes, they got higher revenue for companies, but it is unsustainable. "Personal responsibility", or "You're on your own", isn't going to work. Those policies championed by Republicans are making some select rich people even more wealthy, and in their view that's going to make America richer. I believe the opposite. To me, those policies CAUSE more people to need assistance (due to job outsourcing), with the double whammy of less assistance available.

Now, I get why you don't want us to increase our debt...I don't want it either. To me, the problem lies with policies that allow companies to get away with outsourcing. Yes, preventing those companies from setting up shop in foreign lands hurts those workers in foreign lands, and causes prices to go up here, but with more jobs available here, we could handle that increase, and have fewer people needing assistance...and our need to have that Credit would lessen or disappear.

I'm all for paying back that debt and shredding that @#$%^&* Credit card (I did that myself after building my home), but that CAN'T happen under the current system unless Republicans and Democrats work together to stop the outsourcing of jobs. They do that ONE thing, and I guarantee you our lives will improve, and quickly.

It's not solely spending that is the issue, or borrowing, or the tax-rate, or the jobs available, or outsourcing, etc...it's all tied together. Republicans have @#$%^& it up pretty good, and if we can't get those jobs back, we're all @#$%^&.

IMO lol

 

Necessary spending does not have to mean debt. The debt part is a choice. Although, the politicians sure try make people believe it isn't.

 

Why Democrats want to borrow is under dispute here. I've outlined my beliefs on why we got to this point, and the outsourcing of jobs is, IMO, the primary reason why we are in this pickle.

IMO, companies going to foreign lands and hiring is absolutely their right. I have no problem with them producing and selling their products in those countries. I draw the line when those companies are allowed sell those products to us while avoiding having to pay taxes into the system as a result of them being produced in another country.

This isn't new, it's been going on for a long time, and it isn't sustainable. Eventually, those companies are going to go bankrupt because we will be unable to buy their products anymore. We need jobs to pay for them, but the jobs are not HERE, they are THERE.

It's a bit more complicated than that, especially when factoring in trade treaties, but the basic math says it all. Without jobs, products can't be purchased.

Republicans believe they have the answer, but they ignore the basic math, focusing on the rights of companies to profit (believing it creates jobs) instead of the rights of people to have those jobs.

Debt can be driven down, but only if jobs are returned to America. The only way to do that is to make it less profitable for companies based in America to outsource jobs to foreign lands and sell products here. In addition, products coming in must cost more than products manufactured here, otherwise those companies will lose business.

Walmart and Apple are two prime examples of what went wrong with our policies. In both cases (and many many more, of course) they are allowed to hire cheap labor in foreign lands and sell the product here at a cheaper price than what those same products cost when manufactured here. In some cases, it IS union wages that cause those extra expenses here, and I could support caps on those wages if they were done in a reasonable manner.

Take teacher's pay for example: I'm in the extreme minority when I say teachers are paid too damn much. I remember a kid in high school asking one teacher about how he felt he was paid (this was around 1982 or so)...he smiled and said he was very happy. Ten years later I found information about a married couple, both teachers, detailing their raises. Both received $2,500 raise each year over a five year period and were fast approaching six-figures. That's insane to me...and that was before the inflated costs of insurance came into contract negotiations. At that time, insurance for both of them was around $5,000 a year, paid for by the State. Today, that number is $20,000+ EACH, again paid for by the State after the teachers went on Strike a few times. It simply isn't reasonable that we pay that amount, IMO...but again, most people support those wages and benefits...I don't.

Before any of you Republicans here jump with joy over that, you should consider the fact that by limiting wages, you are promoting Socialism. I personally don't have an issue with it, but you nuts do.

 

Look at the numbers without regard to the parties in power in either branch and tell me that anything we have done since 2001 is even remotely sustainable or the fault of lost revenue from outsourced jobs. I just don't see it. I see a 20 to 25% increase in revenue but a 200% increase in spending.

2000 - Government took in 2.025 trillion and only spent 1.789 trillion
2001 - Government took in 1.991 trillion and only spent 1.862 trillion
2002 - Government took in 1.853 trillion but spent 2.010 trillion
2003 - Government took in 1.782 trillion but spent 2.159 trillion
2004 - Government took in 1.880 trillion but spent 2.292 trillion
2005 - Government took in 2.153 trillion but spent 2.472 trillion
2006 - Government took in 2.406 trillion but spent 2.655 trillion
2007 - Government took in 2.568 trillion but spent 2.728 trillion
2008 - Government took in 2.524 trillion but spent 2.982 trillion
2009 - Government took in 2.105 trillion but spent 3.517 trillion
2010 - Government took in 2.162 trillion but spent 3.456 trillion
2011 - Government took in 2.303 trillion but spent 3.603 trillion
2012 - Government took in 2.468 trillion but spent 3.795 trillion


Source http://www.usgovernmentspending.com

 

The killing of millions & millions of babies over the years has reduced the number of potential taxpayers a far greater amount than jobs moving overseas.

 

I agree, it isn't anywhere near sustainable, and a major economic downturn, worse than when the housing bubble burst, is probably coming very soon that is highly unlikely to be avoidable given the political climate. I hinted at that to Andy a while back, btw. My previous comments to you in this thread is what I was referring to back then to Andy.

As I said before, this is a long time coming, and predictable.

IMO, Reagan really got the ball rolling with intensified partisanship and his economic policies, Clinton added the Housing Bubble, and Jr. intensified it all. The result of those mistakes are now known to be true, but it was predicted by many back in the mid 90s or so.

Today, the political climate is such that compromise is nearly unattainable. Even with a compromise, the rift between the parties is such that it is highly likely that nothing can be done to stop it from happening. More and more companies will close, more and more people will be out of work, and the Economy is likely to crash spectacularly.

My advice to rich people is for them to hoard their valuable commodities, such as gold and silver, or at least enough for them to buy themselves time. In time, a New Economy will establish itself and, with valuable commodities in hand, they can start the bs process all over again.

But, your point is centered on the nation's debt. I've already explained my view on how and why we've got to this point, but I'll go a bit further to say that, without an increase in debt, what I said above will happen. That's why I don't mind the debt so much. I don't like it, but it's necessary at this point, IMO.

And don't forget that the invasions and occupations of both Afghanistan and Iraq were major contributors to that debt, as well as the Republican's successful attempts to lower taxes over the last few decades. Trickle-down has failed, but they don't see it that way, and that is a major major problem if we are to reverse this and make America's economics viable for the future.

...and no, I'm not Tom lol