advertisement

J. KARL MILLER: Blaming '1 percenters' for all of nation's problems is unhealthy

Wednesday, May 30, 2012 | 6:00 a.m. CDT; updated 10:02 a.m. CDT, Thursday, May 31, 2012

Editor's note: This column originally ran in May 2008. It has been updated to reflect changes since the 2008 election.

"Gloom, despair and agony on me, deep dark depression, excessive misery — if it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all." That refrain from the 1969-1992 "Hee Haw" TV show appears to have affected the psyche of the majority of political commentators, candidates for elected office, columnists — both syndicated and local — and much of the general public with a malaise last seen during the Carter administration.

This continued blaming of former presidents, corporations, private equity, lobbyists, tax breaks for the wealthy, big oil and "the 1 percenters" for all of the real or imagined ills of the day is not only unhealthy, it also stretches the truth beyond the parameters of logic and reason. In my lifetime, the U.S. has  recovered from a Great Depression and several recessions of differing magnitudes, triumphed in a World War, traveled in space, all but cured small pox and other infectious diseases, overcome the evil, incompetent and dishonest administrations of whichever party happened to be in power, and have survived such entertainment fare as "American Idol," "Dancing with the Stars" and the never ending "Survivor" series.

Admittedly, the quadrennial presidential race is a major contributor to this rhetorical overkill inasmuch as the pending election is the opportunity for the out-of-power party to fault the other for everything from fear, famine, pestilence and death. While this is the natural fodder of political campaigns, the underlying message that the country is going to hell in a hand basket, that the working poor and the middle class are endangered species, and that the sole solution rests in creating more and bigger government entitlement programs is hardly more than pandering to the proponents of class envy and social engineers.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, the rumors of the death of the middle class have been greatly exaggerated, and should be obvious to anyone who frequents shopping malls, restaurants, sporting events and other entertainment events. They find parking lots filled with late-model automobiles, often wait to be seated for meals and endure long lines of shoppers and traffic jams. I doubt seriously if these are “the wealthiest one percent” but are in actuality members of the middle class.

The plight of the working poor is real — the Department of Labor has standardized a range of 5 to 6 percent unemployed as full employment — current unemployment stands at 8.3  percent, fluctuating between 8 and 10 percent for the past three and a half years. The promised  "green jobs" revolution of 5 million plus jobs has yet to materialize; despite government subsidies, wind and solar power provide less than 5 percent of energy needs.

The earnings of the working poor will always lag behind those of the middle and upper echelons, simply because as the poor move up to middle class, they are replaced by entry level minimum wage earners — a natural progression. However, during periods of recession, there is little upward mobility as that path is blocked by those on the way down.

The national angst over rising fuel, grocery and energy costs is understood; nevertheless, we have faced crises before and have managed to overcome them.  Contrary to the prevailing opinions, Vietnam did not bankrupt the economy, petroleum deposits did not dry up in the '70s, the predicted world famine and ice age did not occur, and we avoided a nuclear holocaust with the USSR.

There will ever be whiners, malcontents and free-riders, but I continue to have faith in the spirit, perseverance, optimism and pride that has made America the inspiration as well as the breadbasket of the world. To the pessimists, those who blame America first, and other purveyors of hopelessness, I ask: If the United States is such a world pariah, why do more people emigrate to the U.S. each year than any other nation in the world?

Many of us can remember when gasoline sold for as little as 14 cents per gallon and the going minimum wage was 40 to 50 cents an hour. A rising cost of goods always triggers a commensurate increase in wages, though it is not always immediate — the market will eventually correct itself. History shows that every recession is succeeded by a period of prosperity that is engineered by private enterprise rather than government.

The mission of government in ending an economic slowdown is to provide opportunity for continued job growth through private enterprise rather than by the promise of cradle to grave entitlement.  Those who promise free health care, college educations, et al. should be viewed with suspicion — after all, the government cannot give a dollar to anyone without first taking it from the one who earned it.  

The November 2012 election may be the most crucial in our lifetimes. If we, as the electorate, sanction the seating of yet another executive and legislative branch dedicated to merely kicking the entitlement can down the road for the next administration to fix, we may get to emulate "there is trouble in River City."

As voters, the ball is in our court — remember, we get the government we deserve rather than the one for which we wish.

J. Karl Miller retired as a colonel in the Marine Corps. He is a Columbia resident and can be reached via email at JKarlUSMC@aol.com. Questions? Contact Opinion editor Elizabeth Conner.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Rich C. May 30, 2012 | 9:15 a.m.

"kicking the entitlement can down the road for the next administration to fix"

You could be referring to either Obama or Bush with this line.

One could argue corporations now feel entitled to huge tax breaks and write-offs because of the tax breaks that were initiated under Bush and extended under Obama.

"Trickle down" has not and will not work. Just because the company's have more cash to spend doesn't mean they will hire. There must be demand.

Socialized healthcare can be viewed in many ways. In effect, we were already paying for the healthcare of those without. People getting treatment without insurance is what (along with other factors I'm sure) raises insurance premiums that you and I pay. The new law will help hold them accountable.

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote May 30, 2012 | 10:06 a.m.

It is interesting that as examples of our country's resilience, Mr Miller has recalled mainly government endeavors, i.e. the space program, biomedical advances funded by the NIH, Roosevelt's Keynesianism to address the Great Depression, and our military's victory in WWII. It also seems a bit rich for Mr. Miller to condemn the notions of universal health care and access to higher education. As a career military person, Mr. Miller has been afforded the opportunity for free college education (the GI Bill) as well as a life-time of free health care, all paid for on the taxpayer's dime. Here's a question for Mr. Miller, in all your years working for the government, did you ever purchase health insurance from the private sector? And a follow-up to that question would be, have you ever purchased private health insurance for yourself at any time in your 70+ years on this planet? The reason I ask, is that it would appear that you have enjoyed the benefits of the very government policies you profess to disdain.

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum May 30, 2012 | 10:48 a.m.

Can the student body vote to have this guy's insipid trash omitted from our paper?

(Report Comment)
mike mentor May 30, 2012 | 11:01 a.m.

Louis, I don't know if you are referring to Rich or Christopher, but the paper's policy on commentor's and what will and won't get them ommitted are out there for you to see. Seems like the entitlement bug has bitten you to think that you should be able to comment with your views, but Rich or Christopher shouldn't be able to voice theirs.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams May 30, 2012 | 11:11 a.m.

MikeMentor: Thanks a lot. Root beer just came outa my nose.

Thanks for the bestest, heartiest laff I will prolly get all day.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 30, 2012 | 11:13 a.m.

That actually was quite funny Mike. +1 for you old chap.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm May 30, 2012 | 11:40 a.m.

"Blaming '1 percenters' for all of nation's problems is unhealthy"

How about:

"Blaming progressives/liberals/democrats for all of nation's problems is unhealthy"?

This is just another example of inconsistent logic and hypocritical rants from Karl.

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum May 30, 2012 | 11:40 a.m.

LOL.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 30, 2012 | 12:01 p.m.

Other posts have been humorous here as well.

To kick the "entitlement can, down the road", refers to every Administration that has watched the entitlements grow and multiply with unbelievable waste and theft, but left to stagnate and decay, while Democrats bray about the good for our poor and aged, then kill any and all effort toward correction.

Trickle down has and always will "work"! Every business leader in U.S. as does every economist (only liberals will not admit) that an economy, like human beings, must grow or it will die. Business companies "with cash to spend" Invest it in expansion and new projects. Tho not specifically that intent, somehow it seems jobs and hiring are created, better than any gov't Jobs program so far devised.

The "socialized healthcare" comment was funny, but too nonsensical to warrant discussion.

Not funny was the critical reference of one partaking of free health care for G.I.'s and veterans, while the prez the writer so admires had to be talked out of removal of this benefit for veterans (let their insurance take care of it) and save 800M$ for Government. American Legion president and other Vet Org's finally convinced him of the PR problem that move would create.

This may be another of those "days".

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 30, 2012 | 1:33 p.m.

Ironically, I work closely with economists every single day. A majority of them agree that Trickle Down does not work.

But keep putting words in their mouth Frank. You're quite good at that.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith May 30, 2012 | 2:05 p.m.

There HAS to be someone to blame! If there were literally no one to blame, someone or some group would need to be invented to take the blame.

It's one of the least attractive aspects of humans.

You northern Missouri flatlanders can come up with your impressive words (some with two or more syllables!) to blame this and blame that, but we'll stick with down home southern Missouri reasoning and call this whole blaming thing exactly what it is: THE FAR SIDE OF STUPID!

Don't have time for this nonsense; besides, it's my turn to look after the still. (Only still in the country designed, built and operated strictly by PhDs in Chemical Engineering.)

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum May 30, 2012 | 2:10 p.m.

Sorry, I live in Central Missouri -- it's not flat. It's accentuated with large riverine systems, caves, forested land, and karst topography.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 30, 2012 | 2:21 p.m.

You, put these Wikipedia words about "trickle down economics" in your economists mouths, "Proponents of these policies claim that if the top income earners are taxed less that they will invest more into the business infrastructure and equity markets, it will in turn lead to more goods at lower prices, and create more jobs for middle and lower class individuals", then name for us, the one that denies them.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 30, 2012 | 2:33 p.m.

Great economist, Congressman, Richard Armey, has stated, paraphrase: "The only thing government can do to quell recession is reduce the amount of money taken from it's citizens."

You will be handing us Paul Krugman.

(Report Comment)
Kevin Gamble May 30, 2012 | 2:40 p.m.

The issue doesn't seem to be framed correctly here. I don't think anyone is blaming the "1%" for all of society's ills; framing it that way will of course create an easy target for rhetorical deflation.

The real concern is that excesses, practices and policy related to the most powerful of the economic elite are creating systematic problems with our economy and, as a result, our culture and the well-being of many people. To discuss the particulars of where that may and may not be the case is how this gets worked out. To deny the possibility of any problems, or the potential for catastrophic problems, is unwise.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 30, 2012 | 3:21 p.m.

"The real concern is that excesses, practices and policy related to the most powerful of the economic elite are creating systematic problems with our economy and, as a result, our culture and the well-being of many people."

Talk about "incorrect framing"? Yours takes the cake!

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller May 30, 2012 | 7:33 p.m.

Two questions for you Mr Foote:

When and where have I ever "condemned access to higher education?"

Where did you ever get the notion that "as a career military officer I was afforded a free military education via the GI Bill?" I paid my own way through the University by working during the summer and for the Athletic Department and by coaching wrestling at Kemper Military Academy during the school year. By the time I retired, I had no G I Bill entitlement remaining.

And, as for my retirement benefits--I EARNED every one of them and I have the scars to prove it.

Sometimes it might be better to think before one posts.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller May 30, 2012 | 7:46 p.m.

LOLOL Mr Mentor, I believe Mr Schneebaum was referring to me in "getting this guy's insipid trash removed from our newspaper." I fear Louis is not aware that the First Amendment applies to those with whom he disagrees as well as to him.

I do wish Mr Schneebaumn would just one time be specific as to that which he finds repugnant--"The Column is trash" or "Sucks" or the "writer is obviously not intelligent" leaves a lot ot be desired.

As a "compassionate Conservative," I would be only too happy to author something he can understand and comment on with a modicum of intelligence.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush May 30, 2012 | 8:26 p.m.

I love the weekly
Bircher Jamboree - dangers
Of hypoxia.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith May 30, 2012 | 9:08 p.m.

Perhaps a valid argument CAN be made against some folks receiving a higher education. Probably hinges heavily on what one does with it. :)

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 31, 2012 | 12:44 a.m.

Why would you expect an intelligent comment on an entire article filled with not-so-intelligent thoughts?

Suppose you feel "entitled" to that?

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm May 31, 2012 | 7:29 a.m.

Karl,

The first amendment does not apply here. Louis is not the government and you have no constitutional right to be published in this paper or to be able to comment in it (a man of your age should understand this basic civic concept). However, Louis is a customer of the Missourian newspaper who, like the rest of us, has every right to demand a better product than the substandard drivel that you provide.

I thought you were a supporter of the free market and capitalism? Well, Louis's comment is the free market in action (why am I not surprised by more hypocritical statements from Karl?)

This article itself has enough hypocritical rhetoric for one man for a week; try to at least keep your comments from adding to the landslide of illogical and hypocritical mess of ideological Fox news propaganda that is your writing.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 31, 2012 | 8:36 a.m.

"adding to the landslide of illogical and hypocritical mess of ideological Fox news propaganda that is your writing."

Harvey Golub, former CEO of American Express, said, last night that the Dodd Frank Reform bill is a bigger threat to our economy than Obamacare. He said it on Fox Business Channel so you have to believe it was a lie.

Rush Limbaugh discussed the Emanuel Cleaver story of calling black ministers together to discuss new voter ID laws and the limits of their non-profit status while promoting B. Obama at election time. A story previously posted here, by M. Williams.

According to your constricted ideological reasoning, everyone mentioned here must be lying propagandists, producing, hypocritical rhetoric, because they are now connected with Rush Limbaugh, or Fox Broadcasting.

As previously stated, an affliction like this can cause one to become miserable.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 31, 2012 | 8:59 a.m.

Wow colonel. 14 cents a gallon? Earliest I remember it was much higher. 19 cents a gallon if there was a gas war on. Normal was 21 cents for regular and 23 cents for high test. My dad also started me out digging ditches at 25 cents an hour...because that's all he could afford. I took a huge pay cut though when I went in the Marines, because I was all the way up to $2 an hour. Funny though, through all of that I never felt rich people owed me anything or should somehow be the source of fixing any economic want that I or anybody else had. If they decided to, that was strictly up to them.

Again, you need only go back and read the works of a former slave, Booker T. Washington, who warned time after time that it was the rich who so much benefited society through their charity, often when nobody knew of it. It was the rich who created jobs and wealth for others to share. Washington warned specifically against those who would try to infringe upon the rich and the damage that would do to society as a whole.

Washington also warned about the religious ministers, poverty pimps (my words), and politicians who would use the poor for their own self-gain. Washington warned against those who would vote for a person strictly based on their color and not the content of their character.

Small wonder as early as nine years of age that Washington was a person who I thought was deserving of admiration by all peoples. Of course he had his detractors. Most of them had negligible success in furthering the causes of curing poverty compared to Washington.

One hundred and ten years ago, by a former slave. Common sense is what Washington had that the left so glaringly lack today.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 31, 2012 | 9:07 a.m.

"Rush Limbaugh discussed the Emanuel Cleaver story of calling black ministers together to discuss new voter ID laws and the limits of their non-profit status while promoting B. Obama at election time."

Just as a counterpoint to that: I am Catholic. No more than two consecutive months go by without the Church strongly "hinting" that I should vote Republican. This is not so different than what Emanuel Cleaver is doing.

But please keep updating us all on the daily ramblings of Rush Limbaugh. That way, we can identify the ignorant fools in here.

Why do you believe what the former CEO of American Express has to say about the Dodd-Frank Reform but disagree with anything Buffet says about raising taxes on the wealthy?
Perhaps because you are not interested in considering anything that doesn't perfectly align with what you "think" you know?

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 31, 2012 | 9:19 a.m.

As was pointed out in an earlier article, FDR's economic policies did nothing to pull us out of the depression. Under FDR's plan, the economy improved from catastrophic to terrible for a couple of years, then went right back down in 1937-38. FDR's success in WW2 was because industrialists who were mostly Republican came forward and offered their services to the government. FDR wisely let them control getting industry onto a wartime footing. Had he not, we would be reading this in German or Japanese now.

However, for those who would sneer at the Colonel's op/eds, again, he consistently generates more commentary than any other columnist for this journal, and oft times more than all the rest combined. This has been recognized by the managers of the Missourian. So complain and cry all you want about his writing. But you show your true colors when you try to kill his ability to post his thoughts and ideas. I am sure too that the editorial staff of this journal must at least apply standards of writing before any article is posted. But they don't try to quash the content.

Such ideas are typical of the left. They strongly believe in free speech....as long as it's speech they agree with. That is the difference. Colonel Miller fought for your right to free speech, even when he might not agree with it. And today he would still defend that right for you. Liberals however, would be much more likely to put a boot on your neck and a bayonet in your back to stop conservatives from expressing their ideas, and certainly would not put their life in harms way to defend us.

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote May 31, 2012 | 9:23 a.m.

@Mr. Miller,
I specifically wrote that you were afforded the opportunity. That you did not use it, does not mean that you were not afforded the opportunity. I will assume your lack of an answer on health insurance means that you have lived your entire adult life covered by a federal health insurance plan. I would also note that someone retiring today would have paid in (or "earned" in your parlance) roughly $100,000 in taxes to medicare. The average beneficiary will actually consume $355,000 in services. You have a curious definition of earned if your earnings cover only 1/3 of your benefits. Now I certainly don't begrudge you your federally subsidized health care in your old-age (I just don't think it should be limited to one class of people, i.e. old people). What I take exception to is your penning of columns railing against the perniciousness of government subsidized health insurance/health care, while enjoying those very benefits yourself.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 31, 2012 | 9:35 a.m.

That I have considered and studied both of these men and their advice cannot be allowed in your leftist tunnel view. It hampers the image of "the ignorant fools in here".

I know that Dodd-Frank will next for repeal after Obamacare. It is my understanding that the law being promoted for Buffet, as the our only hope of "reducing the deficit" has nothing in it about restricting the money to deficit reduction. Only an ignorant fool would consider those points. Right, lefty?

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 31, 2012 | 9:49 a.m.

Christopher, were you not aware that the military pays SS and Medicare taxes too? Also, the Colonel earned that medical coverage as part of a contract the government made with him that, on YOUR BEHALF, when they asked, he would put his physical being in harms way. This involved being shot at, rocketed, mortared, moved all over hell's half acre away from his family, required to occasionally live in a mud hole, sometimes with no food, being expected to perform combat operations while suffering from various diseases, jungle rot, malaria, dysentery, bloodied, blistered feet, or in heat over 120 degrees or in sub zero temperatures with no heating, sometimes going for days without sleep while ruining all your joints and your back from combat loads you were carrying in excess of 80 lbs.

Now if you can show me another job that requires such sacrifice on what is really minimal pay, and has you do that in your 40s and even 50s like the Colonel did, please state so here. The medical care the Colonel gets was earned. It wasn't just given to him. And it was earned at great cost to the Colonel. I would suggest that you owe him and other veterans who did likewise a debt you will never be able to repay.

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote May 31, 2012 | 10:11 a.m.

@Don,
As I mentioned earlier, the amount of money paid-in to medicare, via payroll taxes, is about 1/3 of the costs the average beneficiary will accrue using the services provided by medicare. It is government subsidized health insurance, and far more expensive than what is legislated under the ACA. Perhaps you and your ilk should forego the subsidized portion of medicare once your costs are equal to what you paid into the system...or do your political principles only apply to others and not your own government benefits?

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 31, 2012 | 10:29 a.m.

Like I said Christopher, EARNED at great sacrifice. A concept you seem to have a great deal of difficulty grasping. Again when you come up with anybody else asked to make a similar sacrifice for the taxpayer at the expense of their own physical well being, you let me know.

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum May 31, 2012 | 10:47 a.m.

C. Foote asks a legitimate question. Don. M, again, fails to even comprehend it.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller May 31, 2012 | 10:48 a.m.

Mr Cookley,

In response to your "Why would you expect an intelligent comment on an entire article filled with not-so-intelligent thoughts?" I do not thus, your comments don't disappoint me.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 31, 2012 | 10:51 a.m.

No, C. Foote asks an inane question. He can not compare apples to oranges because there is no comparison in any other walk of life involving government service outside of the military. Louis also seems to fail at basic reader comprehension in spite of a substantial vocabulary. This proves the point again that a liberal education, even if one excels at it, is no comparison for basic common sense.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller May 31, 2012 | 10:55 a.m.

Mr Foote,

It is obvious to anyone who has served that you don't understand the concept of the G I Bill..that one has to have actually served to be eligible for the benefits. Inasmuch as I went to school first, paid for it out of my own pocket and then went into the service--the benefits are not applicable. What is so hard to understand about that?

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 31, 2012 | 11:07 a.m.

Don, you have employed "patriotism" to bolster your argument with the leftist hard heads. Love of ones flag, or country must not be considered when discussing the well being of, or benefits from GOVERNMENT. People are the providers of fuel for Government. They are all considered "same" and are all equally dispensable in the vision of these people.

That Obama, in his first months had planned to discontinue veterans health care as we know it and place them in the confines of his "Affordable Health Care Act" with all the rest, for the savings to Government, should be considered, typical.

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum May 31, 2012 | 11:15 a.m.

It really wouldn't make any difference to me if we still flew the Union Jack or the French Flag over this real-estate. Why get killed over rich white-man problems?

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 31, 2012 | 11:20 a.m.

Frank, while there is patriotism, it's still the pragmatic reality that the veteran earned his benefits. They were not just given to him.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 31, 2012 | 11:24 a.m.

Louis, proving that Booker T. Washington was far smarter than you. The door is open. Don't let it hit you in the fanny on the way out. I'm sure too we could collect sufficient funds to purchase you a one way ticket to any socialist/communist haven of your choosing.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 31, 2012 | 11:25 a.m.

Jack, Christopher, Louis, I must ask you to take to heart the request made by General Honoré to the reporter in the general's press conference in New Orleans with Mayor Nagin on September 20, 2005, regarding Hurricane Rita.

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum May 31, 2012 | 11:55 a.m.

Don -- Why would I want to leave? I was born here. If I were born elsewhere, then that's where I'd live. Trivia -- what's the oldest continuously occupied city in the conterminous U.S.? Hint -- it's not on the east coast and they don't give a crap about a white person's flag.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 31, 2012 | 12:56 p.m.

So Louis, are you quite comfortable portraying yourself as a racist?

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 31, 2012 | 1:18 p.m.

Not sure how what Louis said can be portrayed as racism. Leave it to Don/Frank to twist words.

I'm taking a big stab in the dark but I'd bet Louis is referring to a city first occupied by Latinos.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 31, 2012 | 1:43 p.m.

Rich, I'd bet it's native American transplanted Orientals. You know they were the first on the North American continent to wipe out entire species of animals. They took slaves and committed mass atrocities thousands of years before the white man arrived. But never mind all of that. It's only the white man who is evil.

Actually I've traced the roots of where racism began. It all started when the single celled protozoa started thinking they were better than the amino acids.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop May 31, 2012 | 1:48 p.m.

Louis Schneebaum May 31, 2012 | 11:15 a.m.
Why get killed over rich white-man problems?

Louis Schneebaum May 31, 2012 | 11:55 a.m.
Hint -- it's not on the east coast and they don't give a crap about a white person's flag.

Rich, you don't see a pattern here? If you don't, you can join the Jack, Christopher, Louis regarding General Honoré's observations.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons May 31, 2012 | 2:18 p.m.

“Liberals however, would be much more likely to put a boot on your neck and a bayonet in your back to stop conservatives from expressing their ideas, and certainly would not put their life in harm’s way to defend us.”

Don Milsop is absolutely right! The armed services should only be open to those who profess a right-wing outlook on life and are therefore, by definition, patriotic. I hadn’t considered this before but it is clear to me now that this is an absolute necessity to the future of this nation. And then I had a vision……………………

…………Vice President Dick Cheney, who “had other priorities in the 60's than military service" charging to the summit of Mount Suribachi, proudly planting the Stars and Stripes amid withering machine gun fire…..Rush Limbaugh overcoming his pilonidal cyst to single-handedly take on the “yellow menace”, boring the Viet Cong to death with his bombastic boasting, his “talent on loan from God”, covering them with cigar-soaked spittle as he foams on and on about himself…..Sean Hannity surfing ashore on Omaha beach, head held high as “Let Freedom Reign” blasts from the landing craft…but wait, what’s that golden streak? Why it’s Ted Nugent’s hair! Just watch as the “Nuge” battles ashore to save the day, brand new pickups and strings on his trusty axe and a freshly laundered pair of crisp white underpants.

Meanwhile….where’s John Kerry? A hopelessly washed up white flag waver, the victim of too many purple hearts…………..of course the lamestream media would have you believe he actually won purple heart medals….but the “new alternative” media told me it was really drugs that gave him that hangdog look and flat voice. Max Cleland? An overweight amputee who lost his limbs due to complications arising from diabetes and scoffing too many MacFlurries…..never even went near Viet Nam. Jimmy Carter? Skulking in his “yellow submarine” many fathoms down, out of harm’s way while the Hannitys and Limbaughs and Cheneys and Nugents save the world.

To those who served, and to those who actually fought, eternal gratitude, whether you’re right-wing, left-wing, middle-of-the-road or whatever. To those who could have served but had “other priorities”, all the while urging others to go and do the dirty work, eternal disdain.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 31, 2012 | 3:28 p.m.

Steve S. - Your lengthy dissertation should be entitled, "Much Ado About Nothing". We wouldn't tell William.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 31, 2012 | 3:50 p.m.

"Much Ado About Nothing"

That's been trending on Karl's articles for quite some time.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 31, 2012 | 3:55 p.m.

Frank, can you point out any factual inaccuracies in Steve's post?

Or is this the Republican "selective knowledge" kicking in again?

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons May 31, 2012 | 4:20 p.m.

Frank c, Much Ado About Nothing? I'm afraid your response is way over my head. Is that some new Toby Keith song? Talking of Toby, there's another "hero" who bravely writes songs about sticking footwear up the derrieres (that's French) of those whom he dislikes........from the safe distance of a recording studio. America will surely be safe as long as we have singers and songs like that to frighten away our enemies! Now where's my Dixie Chicks CD? Oh I forgot, I burned it along with all those commie Beatles albums.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 31, 2012 | 5:42 p.m.

steve s. - Unlike yourself, I knew that my post was asinine. Perhaps I should have just written that your senseless soliloquy was not impressive, but was quite meaningless. Next time include some applicable information. Maybe mention that ultra-wealthy, married to a billionaire, John Kerry, in a little different light. A liberal Senator elected by the MA people, to scream for more money for Everyone (pay their fair share,etc) who in paying State taxes which have blanks giving option to those who may be more able to afford it, a higher rate or a lower rate. John is reported to always choose the lower. He docked his huge new sailboat in a different State to avoid MA sales tax. You might also mention the number of liberals heard proclaiming "I don't blame him at all! I'd do the same thing."

Figure out something to say about J.E. Carter, who, sent to Venezuela to oversee suspected election fraud. while dozens of complaints were still being submitted, signed off, giving the election to communist Hugo Chavez. Later he finally stated, they showed me the government tallies, I saw nothing wrong, so I signed them! That country and it's people have suffered ever since. Give us something with some substance.

This is all I have time for now, but if you need more assistance, I can certainly help.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons May 31, 2012 | 6:05 p.m.

Frank c - I'm glad you recognize that your post was asinine. Your last post was way off topic. I used satire (ask Rush Limbaugh...he uses it to insult girls by calling them prostitutes and sluts) to try in my own little way to illustrate the difference between chickenhawk conservatives and liberals who served and fought for their country. What has the docking location of John Kerry's sailboat got to do with his service in Viet Nam? What has Jimmy Carter's "relationship" with Hugo Chavez got to do with his military service? Please try to answer a point with something remotely related to that point. I don't have much time right now but please let me know if you require further assistance with staying on topic.

As Colonel Miller might say..........have a nice day.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 31, 2012 | 7:19 p.m.

Not all Repubs respect military service:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/...

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 31, 2012 | 8:28 p.m.

steve - No, I believe I understand perfectly, as anyone would. On a thread about liberals blaming our richest for Their created woes, you pick a comment from one of our military to make a political point. We are supposed to wonder why every one of the "chickenhawk conservatives and liberals" are now involved in politics? Your simplistic identifications have enthralled at least one of your own, my guess, no one else.

If you would consider a conversation, rather than a literary sojourn, I suggest, "Please try to answer a point with something remotely related to" the subject of the column, or even the veterans whose names you have written about. Not holding my breath.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons May 31, 2012 | 9:15 p.m.

Frank c - did Mr Milsop make the following statement or not?

Such ideas are typical of the left. They strongly believe in free speech....as long as it's speech they agree with. That is the difference. Colonel Miller fought for your right to free speech, even when he might not agree with it. And today he would still defend that right for you. Liberals however, would be much more likely to put a boot on your neck and a bayonet in your back to stop conservatives from expressing their ideas, and certainly would not put their life in harms way to defend us.

If you agree with me that the answer is in fact "yes" then what does Mr Milsop's comment above (which I find obscene) have to do with the subject of the column? And why did you not castigate HIM for making a comment that had NOTHING to do with the subject of this column? Quite apart from denigrating every democrat/liberal who stormed ashore at Omaha Beach, Iwo Jima etc etc!! Or are we to believe that ONLY conservatives fought in the World Wars, Viet Nam, Korea, Iraq.....................

I made the point that I honor ALL those who serve and fight, not just those who agree with me politically. And please........don't hold your breath.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. May 31, 2012 | 9:19 p.m.

"Can the student body vote to have this guy's insipid trash omitted from our paper?"

There's a letter to the President on the Missourian's main website...Perhaps we can do as Republicans do and wrap up a little extra something in there and see if we can get it pushed through.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith June 1, 2012 | 7:21 a.m.

"Can the student body vote to have this guy's incipient trash omitted from our paper?"

As verified by Editor Tom Warhover* very recently, in response to a post by me, this newspaper has nothing directly (that is, legally) to do with the MU student body or, in fact, MU itself. Perhaps Tom will again explain who owns this newspaper.

This isn't something "new;" it's been around for years.

That said, we might seriously consider OMITTING ALL INCIPIENT TRASH FROM THIS WEB SITE. What a bundle of trash that would be!

Anyone serious about posting their views on a site like this might want to know who actually owns the site, but maybe not.

*-Thanks Tom.

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 1, 2012 | 7:32 a.m.

steve s - Your first paragraph may have indicated that you thought his remark obscene and was a fair comment.

My response has been about your "satire", has it not? These silly generalizations had nothing, even, to do with Milsop's "obscene" comment.

Liberals seem to love to throw out unsubstantiated claims and accusations, drive on by, then become outraged when someone disputes their "opinion". Imo, your "vision" was another of these. Of value, only to start a few liberals nodding Yes and giggling.

Milsop, as you have shown, "They strongly believe in free speech....as long as it's speech they agree with. That is the difference."

Would not the Cookley comment of 9:19 last night lend credence to Milsop? Just wonderin'.

(Report Comment)
Tom Warhover June 1, 2012 | 7:45 a.m.

I'm happy to explain the Missourian's relationship to the university. The newspaper is a 501c3 not-for-profit owned by the Missourian Publishing Association. It has an affiliation arrangement with the university. That's the legal aspect.

As a practical matter, the editorial content is managed by professionals who also serve as faculty on the j-school. The newspaper is written, photographed, designed, etc. by students enrolled in staff classes. The faculty hold the students to professional standards while providing the extra guidance to help get them there -- known worldwide as "The Missouri Method."

Probably more than you wanted, but there it is.

Tom Warhover
executive editor and associate professor

(Report Comment)
Rich C. June 1, 2012 | 8:02 a.m.

I'm totally accepting of free speech.

It allows the likes of Rush Limbaugh to openly prove how ridiculously stupid he is. It helps weed out the intelligent folk from the ignorant ones. It provides the rest of the world with a bit of humor.

I'm by no means trying to classify the "left" or "right" as ignorant. I have many friends who are intelligent Republicans and I have some liberal friends who I think are ignorant.

I do enjoy you calling out what Steve said as "unsubstantiated". Perhaps we could get together and make a drinking game out of listening to Rush Limbaugh. We google every claim he makes and take a shot every time he makes an "unsubstantiated claim".

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons June 1, 2012 | 8:42 a.m.

Frank s - I strongly suspect that "El Rushbo's" silly generalizations do just that for you and other conservatives.....make you nod "Yes" and giggle. You didn't dispute the fact of prominent liberals serving while these prominent gung-ho conservatives "had other priorities" though did you? Liberals who "certainly would not put their life in harms way to defend us."

Rich..count me in on the Limbaugh drinking game...but PLEASE arrange for an emergency response team to be present to treat those of us who succumb to acute alcohol poisoning!

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 1, 2012 | 9:11 a.m.

"There's a letter to the President on the Missourian's main website...Perhaps we can do as Republicans do and wrap up a little extra something in there and see if we can get it pushed through."

Has been tough to determine what you are saying here, but thot it was about the removal of Col. Millers column from this newspaper.

Now we are given Rush Limbaugh? You put yourself on the "ignorant" list of the liberals I know, with these Rush related comments. No one else would refer to Rush as "ridiculously stupid"! What claims? More ignorance? He has claimed from his beginning that he reads "seven or eight" newspapers daily. The items that interest him make up his discussions each day. His immense audience (20% liberal) know this and do not from an imaginary seat on high, proclaim "how ridiculously stupid he is."

Though not an "excessive", when I do drink, I like to drink. In your scenario we would both leave, "bone dry".

(Report Comment)
Rich C. June 1, 2012 | 9:37 a.m.

And there is shot #1.

Keep them coming frank. It's Friday after all.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor June 1, 2012 | 10:02 a.m.

Happy Friday Drinking Game !

Libs vs Cons

We can divide up even teams depending on how many of our panalists show up. One table will have the libs and one table the cons. We listen to randomly generated clips of Owebama speeches and Rushbo's radio show. When Rush makes an unsubstantiated claim the cons drink. When Owebama refuses to take responsibility for what has happened under his watch and places blame elsewhere the libs drink.

Last one standing without losing their "lunch" wins!!!!

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 1, 2012 | 11:13 a.m.

ss - "You didn't dispute the fact of prominent liberals serving while these prominent gung-ho conservatives "had other priorities" though did you?"

What's to dispute? Another generalization derived from a single sentence uttered in an interview by one so hated by progressive, liberals that they have championed Patrick Leahy, who, after taking chair of Senate Judiciary Committee has apparently done little but waste his time and taxpayer money trying to *prosecute* Cheney and W. Bush for their successful efforts to stop terrorists from killing Americans on their home soil?

"I strongly suspect that "El Rushbo's" silly generalizations do just that for you and other conservatives..." You "suspect", but you don't know the total ignorance that this statement displays. It becomes clear that these comments represent the totality of the liberal defense of the socialistic lie they try to sell.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons June 1, 2012 | 12:27 p.m.

Frankc and Mike Mentor, here is one of your hero's "facts";

Styrofoam and plastic milk jugs are biodegradable! Do you know what isn't biodegradable? Paper! The Rush Limbaugh Show, 15 June 1991, quoted in Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (1995-05-01). The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error. New Press. p. 19.

I would say that in any drinking contest that one alone should have the "cons" each drinking a bottle of Jack Daniels.

Frankc-your childish comment, "It becomes clear that these comments represent the totality of the liberal defense of the socialistic lie they try to sell" is meaningless hyperbole. You really must try harder.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith June 1, 2012 | 1:25 p.m.

@ mike mentor:

As with some of your other suggestions, Mike, this sounds intriguing, but I have a prior engagement.

Members our our alumni and an equal number of alumni from Georgia Institute of Technology (aka Georgia Tech) meet weekly to ponder a range of topics. (If you know the lyrics to Georgia Tech's [in]famous school song, you know they drink their whiskey "clear.") Sorry, what is discussed is not open to the public, but I can tell you that little time and liquor are wasted on either O'Bummer or Rush Limbaugh. :)

(Report Comment)
mike mentor June 1, 2012 | 1:46 p.m.

@Steve
In case you didn't catch my use of Rushbo, I leave off the EL and just go with Rushbo as a short for Rushbo the Clown, I am not a fan. I did post that I think he qualifies as a famous Missourian, but I think that's probably the only time I have posted about him. I can't stand most of the pundits from either side. I can tolorate Hannity and O'Reilly in doses...

@Ellis
Trying to lighten the mood a little on Friday, but I would have considered such an event back in the day ;-)

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 1, 2012 | 3:35 p.m.

Gosh, it takes awhile for liberals to gather their earth shattering evidence that "Limbaugh lies all the time!" I googled the question with no names and only got Rush's comment, in 1991? One listed 12 inaccuracies thru 1995 and another "slacktory", blamed the statement on Gandhi. Rush admits to being wrong somewhere around 1% of the time, but hey! This would be enough to convince any liberal that R. L. is only a big fat liar! Incidentally -

http://www.paperonweb.com/A1048.htm

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons June 1, 2012 | 4:43 p.m.

I never realized what a hoot posting here could be! I should have done it long ago. I never said "Limbaugh lies all the time". I certainly can't be bothered to google away all day to search out every inaccuracy he might have made over the 200 years or so of his illustrious radio career (well, it SEEMS that long to us pinkos). I don't even say he is a big fat liar, and I do agree with Mike Mentor that he IS a famous Missourian. Having listened to him over the years though what I DO think he is is a self-centered, pompous, egotistical, unpleasant master of misinformation. I don't say he dispenses outright lies for the most part, but twisted, poor logic designed to rally a partisan following into despising everything he despises. I would love to see him take on liberals one-on-one for in-depth discussions of the political, scientific and ethical issues in which he is so expert and see how he does. Funnily enough I can't remember it happening within living memory. Why is he never on talk shows? Maybe there is no liberal with a talk show who has the guts to take him on......yes that MUST be it.

Incidentally;

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...

By the way, I am very curious as to what Rush was supposed to say that was actually said by Gandhi. It's sort of like mistakenly attributing something uttered by Mother Teresa to Lady Gaga! Or vice-versa.

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 1, 2012 | 6:19 p.m.

steve - More generalized nonsense. My comment was "for liberals" and "any liberal", then you decide I was writing about You?

Herein lies the liberal problem, which they don't dare change or cure. When you hear the truth, you must assay it as "twisted, poor logic designed to rally a partisan following into despising everything he despises.", because it so seldom fits the progressive liberal version.

I suggest that if you had listened as often as you state, you would know that every caller that disagrees is immediately moved to the front of the caller line. Liberals have tried every trick in the book to con him into error. He had a name "seminar callers", for those who were from groups trained to get on the air and try to screw him up. They no longer try but were welcomed with open arms tho he always noted their devious attempts. "Funnily enough I can't remember it happening within living memory." Another indicator of how often you have actually listened. "Maybe there is no liberal with a talk show who has the guts to take him on......yes that MUST be it." You had better believe, that IS it.

Lazy liberals. I knew no one would look for themselves. Slacktory had a cute quiz. Who said it, Gandhi or Rush? The styrofoam statement was their #5. Somehow they attributed #5 to Gandhi. One Hopes it was a typo!

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons June 1, 2012 | 8:42 p.m.

Frankc-I have heard the liberals he "allows" past his call screener with the stupid name. They are almost without fail pitiful and therefore welcomed with open arms by the Great Man. As a "well-trained radio personality" he is able to quite often tie them up in knots and therefore convince his listeners that this is what represents liberalism. Have you ever called a hostile radio host and argued live on air? I have, and however confident one is in one's position it is easy to become tongue-tied and make a mess of it. Try it sometime...I don't mean calling your hero and saying "mega dittos Rush" so all the dittoheads can nod and smile. I mean someone who is actually hostile to your views.

As for Rush taking on a big-name liberal....he hasn't got the guts. He is a bloviating coward who is only comfortable hiding behind his "golden EIB microphone".

In conclusion, for anyone who has any doubts about Limbaugh's lack of class and general boorishness, take a look at the following;

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics...

What do you think, Frankc, of your hero picking on little girls?

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 1, 2012 | 10:57 p.m.

ss - You have reduced your comments to OO credibility! "I have heard"? That is the fault daily discussed about liberals. Sarge, I have listened, as anyone should, that plans to denigrate every word another utters. "They are almost without fail pitiful and therefore welcomed". I believe I can safely say the one you "heard" that one from is lying!

"Have you ever called a hostile radio host and argued live on air? I have" This sounds nearly as amateurish as Shawn Hannity in first years told ultra liberal Mike Ferrell, he had written a book. Entitled liberal, Simon Rose of KFRU and I wore the waves thin. I kidded him about applying for citizenship while Clinton was President because it had been announced his INS was swearing new citizens in 50,000 at a time in Yankee Stadium. I told Simon that he probably would not even have to take a test. We now know, that was exactly what was happening in NYC, Miami, Chicago and L.A. in an effort to get algore elected. I have questioned H. Volkmer a MO Lt. Governor, and several others. A problem was, many of the liberal guests, STL Post Dispatch, (a head of that newspaper, intentionally? mispronounced R.L's name while informing we sheep all about him) and a program pitting R' & D' discussions, etc. required legal name, etc. before being allowed contact. (Watch him pounce on that!)

"As for Rush taking on a big-name liberal....he hasn't got the guts. He is a bloviating coward who is only comfortable hiding behind his "golden EIB microphone"." Why on earth, would one trying to logically prove their point, make a silly, unsubstantiated statement, or claim such as that?

"What do you think, Frankc, of your hero picking on little girls?" Yeah, Rush made a mistake there. Chelsea, in case no one noticed, had great legs in her teens.

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 1, 2012 | 11:16 p.m.

I just thought, I should have written "designated" liberal, Simon Rose. They all think they are entitled.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking June 2, 2012 | 5:13 a.m.

Steve Simmons wrote:

"I don't say he dispenses outright lies for the most part, but twisted, poor logic designed to rally a partisan following into despising everything he despises."

That's because he's an entertainer first. It's all about ratings, and unfortunately, making extreme statements, or making them in an extreme manner, keeps people tuning in and keeps them listening to his advertisers.

We have lost the center ground in political discourse today (although we have at other times in our history also), and it makes it very difficult to practically deal with our problems. Few issues in government or society are strictly the fault of one group, and we need to recognize that before we can move forward.

DK

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons June 2, 2012 | 6:34 a.m.

frankc-I'm sorry, I had no idea you were the arbiter of who and what's credible on here. I stand corrected!

I notice you have a curious way of "picking apart" your opponents words and ascribing your own meanings to them. What's wrong with me writing "I have heard" when referring to Rush's show? It means simply that I have listened to and noted something. Talking of "planning to denigrate every word another utters", isn't that what these columns often degenerate into? And I am not saying it's all on your part either.

As for taking on so-called "entitled" liberals I'm sure you "gave 'em hell" Frank. Sadly I didn't hear any of it. Your point(s) about R'L's name, the Post Dispatch and sheep are utterly lost on me.

I think Mark has it partly right. Rush is an entertainer, a "shock jock" even, and it's a role he conveniently hides behind when the controversies arise. However, it is glaringly apparent that he sees himself as something far more than being merely an entertainer, and many in the Republican party clearly regard him that way too since they are all so scared to offend his eminency.

It's a crying shame that despite her "great legs" Chelsea Clinton will likely never be a "Rush babe".

Anyway I have to work now so have a pleasant weekend Frank.

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 2, 2012 | 9:50 a.m.

s. simmons - "What's wrong with me writing "I have heard" when referring to Rush's show?". I owe an apology here! I suppose, because as previously noted, nearly every liberal comment about the "conservative" media is explained from a liberal source that they heard, or read. I miss-read you. I did mentally read "I have heard Of the liberals"...

In late 80's thru 90's my business desk supported a radio where I most often had lunch and heard R.L. most week days, start to finish and I vehemently disagree with your assessment of the liberal callers. Eery liberal in the country was trying to denigrate his speech. I have noted the seminar callers and as we know, the intellectual superiority of your everyday liberal, reduces the "pitiful" callers to the level of few or none. Though he did, "quite often tie them up in knots", he has always been respectful and tolerant. I also understand that this my opinion v yours.

The Post Dispatch "expert" came to KFRU explain how we should view Limbaugh and all the faults we should know. To mispronounce his name by detractors was great fun then. Limbo was most common. The brilliant PD guest, chose Limbough (branch of a tree). Had I not had to advertise my name, I would have asked why he thought he could explain a subject when he couldn't even pronounce the name.

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 2, 2012 | 10:20 a.m.

This exchange has brought back example of what we had before Rush.

A female on KFRU had a P.M. hour on which she would throw out a subject for caller discussion. They were all like "Did Nancy Reagan Just Say No drug program for minors, really work? The conservative caller was cut off as soon as she could make that determination. The liberal caller, always on the NO side, was allowed to talk 'til they ran out of breath. This is no over statement! (Well, maybe the breath part?) The truth was and is that the program most certainly did "work". Governmental figures showed distinct drops in drug first time use in every category of youth, from primary thru college. Prez Clinton discarded the whole thing, in favor of better rehabilitation centers. I ceased advertising with KFRU because of the female announcer. She left the station after Rush "arrived".

The hosts, hired after Rush was "born", to be "liberal" v those to be "conservative" is another story.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle June 2, 2012 | 12:08 p.m.

Headline about "blaming the 1%ers," then complaining about the government "...first taking it from the one who earned it."

That's ironically hilarious, considering the 1%ers take more money out of our economy - about 20% - than the government does - about 17%. The difference, of course, is that the rich take the money and keep it (it's theirs, they earned it, they should get to keep it, right?), instead of redistributing it into the economy (however inappropriately) like the government does.

The wealthiest 1% taking 20% out of our economy at every turn - and keeping it instead of putting it back in - is a much greater drag on our economy than the 17% the government merely redistributes. Before anyone starts chanting, "JOB CREATORS" I'll shut you down: That's a BOLDFACE LIE.

For the last 30 years, as the 1% have gotten all the tax breaks, gotten disproportionately wealthier, and pulled away from the rest of society financially, job creation has consistently gotten worse and worse, and worse, and now... absolutely horrible.

The "Job Creators" mantra is a boldface lie. Those people are NOT investing any of their money in this country, they are not creating jobs, they are not helping our economy in any way, shape, or form. They are taking money OUT of our economy, causing a debilitating economic drag.

Colonel Klink, and many of you posters, are happy blame the people involved in the government's circulation and redistribution of money for our financial problems, then idolize the thieves who actually steal and hoard from you and almost everyone else. That's dumb, dumber, and dumbest.

The idea that the 1% are "Job Creators" is a stupid, false idea. Rather than repeating this lie, I think it's about time we SHOULD start blaming them for hoarding and hiding their money, instead of creating jobs with it.

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 2, 2012 | 5:20 p.m.

OMG, he is at it again!. Another lame attempt to make socialism sound attractive, without of course, ever mentioning the word.

The world he is describing this time, contains 1%ers, a group apart and not considered connected with any of we others. They are the evil. There must always be vilified groups to make the masses glad that those are being robbed. The writer cannot mention that 1%ers are only the first to be targeted as gov't needs more and more to help we others, the threat moves down the financial chain. Now those earning $200,000 annually are also targeted and on and on until we are helped so much that gov't owns it all!

Writer has been corrected so often about the job creation aspect that one wonders if he doesn't know who is actually telling the "bold faced lie". In fact, his last three paragraphs are close to a "bold faced lie"!

The 1% and those below them are not fixtures to be separated from others and they are not permanent. Our government has been at work for nearly four years almost exactly as writer demands. 5T$ not taken from 1%ers, merely borrowed. We have nothing but negative results from the debt. Would the result have different if our wealthy had sprung for the money? Maybe writer can answer. Please- not "dumb, dumber, and dumbest"!

(Report Comment)
Rich C. June 2, 2012 | 8:32 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
frank christian June 2, 2012 | 9:33 p.m.

Better stay our of the "sauce", rc. The only thing you got right about me was your first sentence after the introduction. The little redundancy with Rush, was about the only thing notable about your Personal Attack. All in all the post was about in line with your rest. Meaningless and worthless!

(Report Comment)
Rich C. June 2, 2012 | 10:28 p.m.

"Bobble bobble"

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle June 2, 2012 | 11:04 p.m.

Pointing out that the wealthy are stealing more money from you than the government is not exactly "making socialism attractive." The wealthy are taking 20% of all income, and we are not seeing any job growth for it. That's fact. Get a grip on it.

And while I don't usually engage you directly Frank, I will recommend that you take a week off. I've done it, just did, check my profile. I've done it more than once. I've taken whole months off the discussion boards.

I can testify that you won't really miss anything. When you come back, it will mostly be the same people, making the same comments, under the same articles. You'll be able to jump right back in like it was yesterday. I promise.

I really wish I had annual and lifetime aggregate word counts from everyone who posts here. Eds?

Anyway, a week off. I'll do it again too. How about it?

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking June 3, 2012 | 5:40 a.m.

Derrick Fogle wrote:

"The wealthiest 1% taking 20% out of our economy at every turn"

Well, most of that has been created in derivatives markets, and it's really, fundamentally worth little more than the thin air it was created out of. However, since we need more revenue to balance trhe federal budget, they're really the only practical place to turn for it. There's no practical way to cut the budget enough to balance it.

Jobs aren't created because the nature of our economy has shifted away from manufacturing. Now we produce money for people that have money. That's not to say that the middle class can't benefit from that (pension funds, for example), but they're not getting $30/hr factory jobs for life for that money like 40 years ago.

I'm not sure how to solve that. Expensive oil will bring jobs back to the country (by making it expensive to move goods from Asia), but expensive oil is a drag on the economy also. And wealthy investors are loath to invest in expensive production of goods when they can invest overseas and get a better return.

DK

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith June 3, 2012 | 6:08 a.m.

@ Derrick Fogle:

Taking a "sabbatical" as it were seems a good idea, but there is at least one other option: don't read posts by those whose views you disagree with.

The format used here puts the poster's name squarely at the top of their post.

I too would be interested in a summary of all the posts, the voluminous (and often turgid) verbiage, etc. but there's something else I'd be far more interested in. In all that time and with all those words has ANYONE changed anyone's opinion about anything? Obviously, the newspaper couldn't have those statistics.

After more than 20 years of viewing comments in both local newspapers I suspect that little has changed except the passage of time, regardless of the amount of huffing and puffing, which is prodigious.

Here's a recreational exercise you might try. I enjoy it. I pretend, on reading and digesting all those scintillating comments, that I'm the late Margaret Meade, anthropologist, studying the rituals of primitive cultures.

Happy reading. And keep in mind that old Ozark admonition that we take care not to find ourselves on the far side of stupid.

PS: Has it occurred to you nice folks that bombarding Frank Christian's posts is akin to tossing raw steaks to a hungry tiger? Both the tiger and Frank will continue to enjoy the feast.

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 3, 2012 | 9:31 a.m.

df - You take a week, then come back with this? I have been gone nearly four days of every other week, since end of April. No one missed me. Did not expect any different result. Without posts such as appear here, this morning, you might not even see my name and probably not recognize it when you did.

In your zeal to blame our wealthy for problems created by our central government, you have had to go so far as to change the definition of the word "steal"and except for one accusatory sentence, have had to omit the word earn from this rant.

"The wealthy are taking 20% of all income, and we are not seeing any job growth for it." Reports on effects of central government, including the "jobs created report" just released have eliminated more wealth from my coffers and those of most Americans, than any 1%ers have Earned! Our stock market is in the tank , again! Our wealthy are not assisting in job growth (job growth not their primary intent in any case, earning more money and wealth Is. Great job growth is a happy by-product.), because the ever increasing yolk of regulation and taxation makes elsewhere more attractive. But wait! I'm not financial expert, but aren't we now being told that equity market money is ever increasingly flowing into Gov't Bonds? You should show us a happy face! You are promoting socialism, but to admit it destroys the whole facade, doesn't it?

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 3, 2012 | 10:00 a.m.

Mark F. - "There's no practical way to cut the budget enough to balance it."

Tho you continue to spray us with this tripe, I will spray You again. The "practical" way to balance the Federal Budget is for you and those of the Party in control for most of last 60+ years to change you image of the Federal Gov't as a giant bonfire that must be fed more and more fuel at whatever rate It seems to require. Rather than reduce the fuel and control the fire, yours is, "Both parties do it, it doesn't matter who is in charge!" And are content with the continued destruction of our way of life. (This will bring forth a tirade on our waste of energy.) Please!

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking June 3, 2012 | 2:47 p.m.

Then what would you cut, Frank? Specifically? Remember, it has to add up to about $1.2 trillion (or the amount of the projected deficit for this fiscal year). I hear lots of general talk, but few specific suggestions.

"Across the board" doesn't count. I'm talking about specific, passable budget cuts. I'm waiting...

DK

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum June 3, 2012 | 3:08 p.m.

Frank, are you bedridden or what? Get outside and get a bit of son, your perpetual blathering must be boring even to yourself.

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 3, 2012 | 3:27 p.m.

You'll be waiting 'til next Jan, longer if elections don't rid us of these liberal gluttons. "passable budget cuts" will be impossible if Democrats control our central gov't in any Dept. "I hear lots of general talk, but few specific suggestions." That seems to be your problem. You hear only from your left. Has your "right" ear been damaged? Just kidding, I hope not.

Cato Institute published this specific plan,more than a year ago, with the cuts listed and totaled: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/bala...

You haven't heard of Cut, Cap and Balance? This story from last March: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/27/house-...

These are the people that will balance our budget, not you, me and certainly none of the leftists that love to discuss it as an impossibility around here.

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/bala...

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 3, 2012 | 3:42 p.m.

Schneebaum - Read Ellis of 6:o8A. He is right. The attacks indicate to me, not boredom, but interest and such concern that you don't want to read more. Remember, liberals don't like Fox News and Limbaugh, not because they lie but,because they tell them things, they don't want to hear.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking June 3, 2012 | 3:44 p.m.

frank christian wrote:

"Cato Institute published this specific plan,more than a year ago, with the cuts listed and totaled:"

"Passable" is the key word here, Frank. The most bitter partisan battle in Congress last spring was over a mere $30 billion difference in cuts. $1.1 trillion will never happen. Not even in a Republican controlled gov't.

You might also ask why our gov't has been controlled to a large part by Democrats. Is it because the voters want them there? Who's fault is this anyway?

I'm a pretty non-partisan guy, believe it or not. I simply want things that work. Practicality beats ideology for me every time.

DK

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 3, 2012 | 5:36 p.m.

MF - "Passable" is the key word here, Frank." Previously, "I'm talking

about specific, passable budget cuts." Why do you repeat yourself? Did you read, "passable budget cuts" will be impossible if Democrats control our central gov't in any Dept."? If you cannot consider a government with no Democrat control, then you will be correct, a balanced budget is impossible and so is the future of our republic.

"You might also ask why our gov't has been controlled to a large part by Democrats." How many times have you heard, "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."? Everyone understands this except our progressive liberals. But, wait! Could it be that they understand the old adage, written by an Uncle of British socialism, G.B. Shaw, Perfectly? You, being so non-partisan, probably would have little input here.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. June 3, 2012 | 9:23 p.m.

Frank Christian:

All for democracy..... Unless the majority has differing views from him.

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 3, 2012 | 9:35 p.m.

Another brilliant post. What majority? We are governed under a representative republic, not the collective consensus of anyone from anywhere, whom decides to vote on a given day.

(Report Comment)
Louis Schneebaum June 3, 2012 | 10:01 p.m.

Frank is repeating the history lesson I gave him the other day, after he said we lived in a Democracy. Frank, that is TOO cute.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. June 3, 2012 | 10:48 p.m.

And here I thought the office was given to the person voted into office by the majority.

Boy, guess I was wrong?

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking June 4, 2012 | 5:05 a.m.

frank christian wrote:

" How many times have you heard, "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."? "

Rxcept the people who are being paid are not a large number. Surveys have also shown that low income people are less likely to vote than higher income people, and they're as likely to consider themselves independents as one or the other. There is no "welfocracy" keeping Democrats in power.

DK

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt June 4, 2012 | 5:58 a.m.

frank said: "Remember, liberals don't like Fox News and Limbaugh, not because they lie but,because they tell them things, they don't want to hear."

It's even easier: Some people just don't like garbage.

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 4, 2012 | 7:39 a.m.

The other paper, on Sat, has as an entertainment Frame Games. Words are arranged in a framework and one is supposed to guess what old adage is referred to.

These guys now provide the same excited pleasure nearly every day and they are much easier to decipher.

I understood the difference between a pure democracy and representative republic probably before Schneebaum was born and can't imagine when he thinks he instructed me.

Now. Cookley says he meant, because Obama was elected by a majority, one should placidly accept the destruction he and his party are foisting upon our country. Yeah, Right!

Mark - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05...

It was reported during Bush 1 term that nearly 1/2 of American families were receiving benefits from our central government. Republicans may have helped reduce that number with Welfare reform in 90's that you would like to attribute to Clinton, but it has continued up since.

Democrats spend millions ranting about changes to social security, medicare and every other program that they have established to benefit some one of our minorities and their rants are always "don't change them! Every election day,they put ACORN and the Democrat supported union members in buses, with an employer paid day off, to round up the low incomes, that are less likely to vote, haul them to the polls, showing them which boxes to mark on the way. These efforts are for the "welfocracy", that you prefer to believe, does not exist.

Another not knowing what to write, writes "garbage". I bet he pronounces it garb-aaage.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons June 4, 2012 | 8:28 a.m.

Frankc-I agree with you that the number of Americans receiving some sort of Government assistance is troubling. Are you proposing the abolition of such programs to help balance the budget? If so, whoever pushes through such legislation (and Mark is right, even with R controlled White House, Senate and Congress it would never pass) will quickly relinquish that power because it's not just democrats who are a part of the "welfocracy". I'm sure you'll agree with me that not all Americans are as self-sufficient and fiscally responsible as you have obviously been, and depend upon programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. That goes for both Republicans and Democrats.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm June 4, 2012 | 8:39 a.m.

"I'm sure you'll agree with me that not all Americans are as self-sufficient and fiscally responsible as you have obviously been"

lol, Isn't Frank still living off his monthly government disability check? Frank is just another one of the pots calling the kettle black

(Report Comment)
Rich C. June 4, 2012 | 9:09 a.m.

"DON'T STEAL MY MEDICARE TO SUPPORT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!"

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle June 4, 2012 | 9:29 a.m.

Almost EVERYONE that vomits all over the discussion boards with conservative tripe about too many people receiving too much government assistance, is retired or disabled, and receiving government assistance. Irony Defined.

Self Haters Much? But not enough to act on it, of course. You don't see any of them redirecting their government-funded deposits back to the US Treasury, do you?

No. *They* worked for that. *They* paid in. *They* deserve their payments. It's only everyone *else* that doesn't deserve anything. These selfish-righteous turds and their even less empathetic children are the ones that are, and have been, in charge of running our country for the last 30 years. Look where that's gotten us.

If there's any group that should lose their government benefits first (because - seriously! - look at our economy as a result of their "leadership") I think it's the retirees.

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote June 4, 2012 | 11:38 a.m.

@h4,
Case in point: It would appear that Mr. Miller, in his 70+ years of existence, has never purchased health insurance from the private sector. I wonder why his federal health care benefits (subsidized with taxpayer dollars) do not put us on the road to serfdom, but a paltry fraction of those benefits extended to those less fortunate, via the ACA legislation, is socialism embraced?

(Report Comment)
mike mentor June 4, 2012 | 12:08 p.m.

You libs are going to have to have a meeting. Do you hate the 1 percenters or the retirees on social security and medicare?

If you hate everyone, it just makes you look bad!

"If there's any group that should lose their government benefits first (because - seriously! - look at our economy as a result of their "leadership") I think it's the retirees."

So, you want old people to lose their benefits before you do. Hmmm, says a lot about the selfishness of liberals. Give me my benefits and screw everybody else!

Hmmm, I am not retired and yet I feel strongly that as we promise more and more from the fed government we get less and less out of our people. I would also rather give up my benefits and work to replace them with the fruits of my own labor than have a retired liberal lose theirs right now.

According to those that have commented before me, there is no way I could be conservative, but here I sit...

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 4, 2012 | 12:27 p.m.

One mention of truth produces, as T. Eagleton used to write, an "outpouring" of fanatical hysterics. I used Huf Post rather than Fox or Rush, but to no avail.

simmons gives us "even with R controlled White House, Senate and Congress it would never pass", tho enough voted with Reagan and with Gingrich in the Welfare reform which put happy recipients to work rather have to watch for mailman every month even tho Democrats, at every turn, screamed louder than Cookley about the unfairness of it all.

"I'm sure you'll agree with me that not all Americans are as self-sufficient and fiscally responsible as you have obviously been,". I will agree that a majority of Americans have achieved a greater level of wealth than wife and I. As previously stated, our fault! Is lack of fiscal responsibility of some,reason to destroy livelihood of the rest? Mr. Hamm has been told time and again that my government "assistance comes from my Social Security "gifts". I do not participate in the pres. drug program,tho my co-pay increases every year I abstain. He and every poster for miles around have been told time and again that none of these programs are to be discontinued, only corrected to provide sustainability as every household in the world has to do. I would be ashamed if I had to turn to the easily proven falsehoods that liberal Democrats have done in every case, since I became an adult with a family, around 1960.

Derrick Fogle, who decided to try to "kill me with kindness" earlier, now coughs up a disgusting, vulgar "oyster" that could easily be produced by any ingrate who for some reason, like all these others, prefer to watch our country destroyed and condemn loudly, those that would save it.

Their ideology is destroying Europe and U.K. as well as this country, yet no one mentions that and only Scream, Don't Change programs!, that cause the problems. Again, What A Bunch!

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle June 4, 2012 | 1:38 p.m.

If you look back at what "socialist" projects and programs the US government has undertaken in the last 60 years, Colonel Klink and the rest of the elderly crew have been the main beneficiaries of those socialist programs and projects.

Yet, they despise and denigrate the very source of their past economic success and current financial support. The irony - it burns! It looks like a classic case of suppressed self-loathing to me.

Or, perhaps, they are just supremely selfish-righteous, and just want to keep all that glory for themselves?

Either way (I think it's actually plenty of BOTH), we need to get these stuck-in-the-mud turds out of the way, so our country and economy can move forward and do things for the future, instead of doing things for the past.

I can't think of any better way to do that than cutting THEM off government support, just like they want to do to everyone else.

Well, *almost* everyone else. They inexplicably still want to hand $Billions more welfare dollars to the already wealthy. Go figure. And... WHY?

History of job creation in the US since the advent of "trickle-down" economic policies stinks. I mean, it really, really, really STINKS.

Here's the graph of us handing all our money to the already wealthy:
http://fogles.net/mostuff/real_income_pe...

And here's the job creation we've gotten as a result:
http://www.fogles.net/mostuff/10-year-em...

To whit: the extremely wealthy are simply taking and keeping the money, NOT creating the jobs we expect for it. Instead, they are actually destroying domestic jobs (but still keeping the money for it).

So, actually, YES - they DO deserve plenty of blame for our current economic problems.

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 4, 2012 | 2:34 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Steve Simmons June 4, 2012 | 2:52 p.m.

Whoah Frankc! That was meant as a compliment and you snarl back in my face!

The thinking behind the following comments leave me slack-jawed! "I will agree that a majority of Americans have achieved a greater level of wealth than wife and I. (fair enough). As previously stated, our fault! (fair enough again) Is lack of fiscal responsibility of some,reason to destroy livelihood of the rest?" WHAT THE HELL????? So you're saying that you didn't make as much as a majority of Americans and that it was your fault but then, if I'm understanding you correctly, that the financial irresponsibility of some (do you mean YOU?) is no reason to destroy the livelihood of other Americans? I think you're saying you and anyone else who hasn't budgeted well throughout their working lives shouldn't collect govt checks. Am I right?

On a completely different topic, if you were listening to Rush Limbaugh around 1.30 today and heard his tirade against "liberal scientists" who want to control what you eat, please take his comments about salt intake, hypertension and heart disease with a HUGE grain of salt!

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons June 4, 2012 | 3:25 p.m.

I would like to follow up what I just wrote by saying that I believe that a civilized nation such as the USA should have the capacity and the will to ensure that those like you, Frank, are able to enjoy at least a modicum of security and comfort during your retirement years. I think you and many like you, by simply working 40, 50 or more years, have earned that right, whether or not you've been able to salt away sufficient resources to fund yourself entirely throughout those "golden years" without government help. If that means that the Romneys of this world ultimately have a few million less, or that my wife and I retire with a little less than we would have had if taxes/SS payments had been lower, then so be it. We're doing ok and I daresay Mr Romney will do ok too.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor June 4, 2012 | 3:40 p.m.

I heard about the great liberal diet plan.

40oz soda; You better check yourself before you wreck yourself!

40oz beer; Make that a Colt and I vote your way, so we good, right?

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith June 4, 2012 | 3:56 p.m.

Mike Mentor said, "According to those who have commented before me there's no way I could be a conservative, but here I sit..."

Don't worry, Mike, we have a marvelous 12-step recovery program. You'll be particularly pleased with the physical therapy, where a Japanese lady, wearing only a skimpy loin cloth, tap dances on your back. Did wonders for me!

We will also put you on a high fat diet - pork, in particular.

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 4, 2012 | 5:00 p.m.

s s - "Is lack of fiscal responsibility of some,reason to destroy livelihood of the rest?", has nothing to do with the fact that I and mine did not put our noses to the stone (further education and yes longer hours at work, only after we became self employed!). We are quite content and are blaming no one but ourselves for whatever lack of additional enjoyment we are missing during these years. (That this needs to be part of the discussion disgusts me.) The sentence that upsets you, was not understood, as I stated, because you or no liberal is able to entertain even a thought about the condition into which our country has fallen, after Democrats Yes! since FDR!,have extracted these trillions of dollars to "help our aged and our poor. The blame goes to them, not for the attempts, but for their refusal to correct or discontinue those that have not worked. The liberal stance has always been just spend more money! The rest are tired of this waste, while ever increasing numbers of needed victims are found by their D' saviours. You gave the now traditional liberal response to my comment about program changes, "Are you proposing the abolition of such programs to help balance the budget?" NO ONE has suggested elimination of ANY of the big 3 entitlements, but this the first thing brought by every liberal in the discussion. Then of course, some one such as Fogle and you must bring the rich in for blame. You pick Romney. Look up the money that Obama's staff and cabinet members "are simply taking and keeping", as they leave his employ.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons June 4, 2012 | 6:25 p.m.

Frankc-I'm confused (cue the snide remarks about liberals). I made no derogatory remarks about you, your work ethic, the hard work I assumed you'd put in during your work career or anything whatsoever that would warrant your comment "That this needs to be part of the discussion disgusts me." Yet you respond in such a hostile manner that clearly I've touched a nerve that you do a very poor job of explaining. Are you or are you not in favor of government sponsored programs to help anyone, including the elderly? A libertarian would say no, but I am not sure what your stance is. You berate FDR for instituting such a program, and presumably LBJ for his programs, yet you seem outraged when anyone even hints at the notion that you might like to repeal them. I understand that you blame Democrats solely for your perception of the poor administration of such programs, while Republicans seemingly can do no wrong (unless they ever dare compromise with a Democrat). For me to use Mitt Romney alone was a clumsy choice; I am sure Obama, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, the Hollywood "elite" etc etc would also not miss a few millions if it were for the betterment of the lot of deserving retirees. I sincerely wish you the happiest retirement you can achieve, and I hope you don't take these comments in the wrong way as some sort of cheap attack against you. They are not meant that way.

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 4, 2012 | 8:38 p.m.

I thought about adding more, after my last,but then this thread is "black and blue"

Try this - "Is lack of fiscal responsibility of some" is for the programs and their cost. "reason to destroy livelihood of the rest?" is the destruction of our economy and culture, while Democrats, in control of our Congress, FDR 'til 1994, continually, with money splashing far beyond the limits of their legally obtained revenues. Kennedy cut taxes to increase those revenues, Johnson "borrowed" for the first from our S.S. Fund to pay for Vietnam War, both of his useless Great Society and War on Poverty. Carter and his Congress printed all they needed, causing stagflation that crippled the economy and if continued, would have destroyed it. Reagan borrowed the Tip O'Neill deficits and people could now see what is happening. Didn't bother D's. Presidents had tried to stop them before, simply not allocating the deficit funds they had voted for. They had passed the 1974 Congressional Budget Act over the veto of liberal R' R. Nixon. http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ROHO/projec... There are other pieces about this act which indicate it made deficit spending a far less irresponsible consideration than ever before. Any case look at the budgets legally required and look at Pelosi and Reid complinace.

Again, I could go on, but if you know this and still wonder why, "blame Democrats solely for your perception of the poor administration of such programs," is not well founded, there is no use. Possibly you could enlighten me as to why, folks that I must presume have to live within their income or pay a price, often too high, call themselves liberal and never ever no matter how often shown, still refuse to consider the problems caused by the greedy buggers in control of government. As stated, none of these, today once mentioned the conservative major concern. Price and Payment!

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons June 5, 2012 | 9:15 a.m.

Frankc-I concede that you have researched and know more about the history behind the administration of these programs than I. However, I am still curious to know whether you support such programs in principle, or whether you oppose government-sponsored programs to help certain segments of society. Your answers appear to me to be somewhat schizophrenic. As I am sure you know, Bob Dole voted against the institution of medicare back in the mid '60s; Newt Gingrich uttered his infamous "wither on the vine" comments in the mid '90s. Do you agree with them or not? In your opinion would the citizens of this nation be better off without medicare (and SS if you like) or is the population as a whole better off with these programs?

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 5, 2012 | 10:49 a.m.

Not only "researched", have lived through it. As I feared for my itemization for you, you have only discerned that I know more about it than you. Nothing else? Dole, Newt, and the conservative R's only questioned the Cost of the programs. They knew (as did the D's) that the program would balloon creating immense problems. Since, they have only tried to repair areas causing economic damage, while D's have opposed Any changes that could restrict their access to the money and since LBJ, they have spent it all! (Knowing identification of the people and incidents do not register in you and yours thought process, I intend to continue the repetition in the hope some sliver might get thru.)

You cannot somehow imagine that expenditure of these trillions have solved few problems for the intended poor, but have richly rewarded the administrators and sponsors of the programs. I have asked you more than once to specify why you are not willing to discuss in any instance the runaway costs of these programs, yet you refer to Me as schizophrenic?

I have stated here that D's should not be blamed for their programs, only for the total opposition to Any change. Should one not consider that this sometimes notably condemning practice might indicate money is being illegally and unethically removed from the programs?

I have bemoaned the constant liberal cry "they want to repeal or destroy" every time a mention of repair to a program comes up.

Does this not describe my conservative position: conservatives can embrace any step toward all the progress that is offered, as long as each step has a concrete foundation. This is mine and describes my long felt opinion: If liberals were told to spend however much necessary for a permanent building to show what they accomplished, they would be so eager to show the world, they would do exactly that. Not take the time for a foundation!

Are your answers forthcoming?

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons June 5, 2012 | 12:45 p.m.

Frankc-it is refreshing for me to read your comment that "D's should not be blamed for their programs, only for the total opposition to Any change". The first part of that sentence shows that at heart, you have a little socialism within you, however much I'm sure you would like to deny it. A libertarian would say NO to all such social welfare programs. The fact you don't want them dismantled reinforces it.

With regard to Dole and Gingrich you're wrong. They were not just fighting rising costs of Medicare. Dole actively opposed its inception and Gingrich wanted to kill the program. The quote below is from the following source:

http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/2011...

"Dole, who was running for president and trying to shore up support among hard-core conservatives, boasted: "If you're looking for leadership, ... somebody who has been a career conservative, long before many of them showed up around this town — I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare — one of 12, because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965." That very same day, Gingrich explained that Republicans weren't trying to get rid of Medicare all at once "because we don't think that that's politically smart," but were trying to cause it to "wither on the vine."

I agree with you that in order to ensure that these programs are able to continue to benefit the citizens of this country, changes are needed. If significant cuts in adminstrative and sponsorship costs can be made then I certainly wouldn't oppose such measures. In fact I'd stand up and cheer! But I am suspicious of Republican motives based on statements such as Newt's "wither on the vine" comment. Aren't you?

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 5, 2012 | 4:04 p.m.

You have gone to great lengths to build yourself a pedestal, which as I have noted, has no Foundation. You throw two quotes which everyone has already heard, include Doles admonition about "voting against Medicare — one of 12, because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965.", but do not consider this a good reason, tho he has been proven correct, over and over. You ignore the "voucher plan" described.
As did Hillary and every D', any plan submitted during her illegally handled (she and her cohort were fined $280,000) televised health care discussions, that did not contain a new flow of cash to Washington. My opinion from watching the fiasco. The fine came because she never allowed anyone knowing anything about the problem, admittance or any voice in the discussions. You now are "suspicious of Republican motives based on statements such as Newt's "wither on the vine" comment"

"I agree with you that in order to ensure that these programs are able to continue to benefit the citizens of this country, changes are needed." No, you do not! Nothing you have written except this sentence has indicated that. Your closest is *"Are you proposing the abolition of such programs* to help balance the budget? If so, whoever pushes through such legislation (and Mark is right, even with R controlled White House, Senate and Congress it would never pass) will quickly relinquish that power because it's not just democrats who are a part of the "welfocracy". I'm sure you'll agree with me".

No I do not agree with you! While (I'm sure) cursing the Tea Party you have not noticed that they in 2010 cleaned out a number of liberal R's, seeing the writing some have resigned and in primaries this year, more obstacles to sanity in Congress have been replaced. The 90's welfare reform was done by R' controlled Congress with a weak D' prez. It was proclaimed a death stroke for our poor by Democrats just as a balanced budget and true health care reform are condemned now.

I have spent a great deal of time and effort to show you the truth of the unbelievable cost of Democrat spending over the years. Have asked you to "specify why you are not willing to discuss in any instance the runaway costs of these programs," and gotten no answer. Seems odd, unless no answer is available. If necessary, make something up as do many of your cohorts around here. I'll wait.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons June 5, 2012 | 5:02 p.m.

Frankc-I haven't gone to great lengths to build anything, let alone a pedestal. In fact I'm not sure what you even mean by that. It seems that a common tactic of yours is to trivialize anything an "opponent" states, then counter with your own trvialities that boggle the mind. For example, Bob Dole opposed the very existence of a program you profess to support, right at its very inception. You even seem to agree with his position in 1965...."tho he has been proven correct, over and over", suggesting you DON'T support the existence of Medicare. Hence my earlier "schizophrenic" comment. You merely repeat Newt's "wither on the vine" comment without even saying what YOU think it means, when it's VERY clear what he meant. Both these statements are extremely significant when considering the whole Democrat/Republican Medicare debate. Hillary's $280,000 fine and her television appearence aren't!!

You even have the rudeness to state "No you do not!" when I say I agree with you. I made that statement in good faith because I do agree with you, but to you it's not enough. In fact I don't think you even want someone like me to agree with you because you have already made up your mind that I am some sort of effete liberal who can't stand on his own two feet and would rather sponge off "real" Americans who fly the Republican banner. I'm not.

You got my goat up Frankc-I AM willing to consider vouchers, I am very happy to see waste slashed in order to save these programs, but I still can't work out whether you like them or not. I DO agree with some of what you say, but you dilute your message by focusing on your own petty bugbears, like Hillary above, Obama and his staff members lining their pockets, like ACORN...........

I'll finish by writing what you want me to write having corresponded on here with you; ONLY Democrats are corrupt,Republicans are NEVER corrupt, ONLY Republicans can save this nation, ONLY Frank Christian knows the truth when he's arguing with liberals. There...Happy?

(Report Comment)
Rich C. June 5, 2012 | 6:11 p.m.

Kudos to you steve for attempting to reason with him this long...And for coming to the realization that he cannot be reasoned with. Your ending acknowledgement is the same reason I stopped trying. Everyone has a so-called "crazy uncle". Frank is the Republican Party's.

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 5, 2012 | 9:38 p.m.

"ONLY Republicans can save this nation, ONLY Frank Christian knows the truth when he's arguing with liberals. There...Happy?

I am conservative. At this point Republicans seem to be the only ones Interested in saving this Nation, which without any doubt is in peril! May I correct you to, "F.C. Presents the truth in discussions with liberals"? Happy? Yes, quite! Not because of anything you have written, but because Governor Scott Walker has beaten the unions in Wisconsin! Write that you also are happy and our discussions need not end. Otherwise join cookley and all the others that sulk, because they cannot "reason" with Frank.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. June 5, 2012 | 10:57 p.m.

I am perfectly fine with Walker winning in Wisconsin. Voter turnout was high and the people of Wisconsin got what they wanted (or at least the majority did).

That's how elections work. That's "reason".

In Frank Christians world, you would be forced to choose between Republican and ..... Republican. That isn't "reason".

By the way Frank, did you see the exit polling for Presidency in Wisconsin?

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 6, 2012 | 7:26 a.m.

"did you see the exit polling for Presidency in Wisconsin?

No, but did you know Wisconsin is a Blue State?

Only a "meaney", (I guess, that me) would throw this in.

Fox News told us before the election, that most people polled in WI, still showed preference for Obummer as President. I assume, that is the "thunderbolt" you wish me to hear about.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons June 6, 2012 | 8:08 a.m.

"May I correct you to, "F.C. Presents the truth in discussions with liberals"?

What patronizing, egotistical rubbish!

Frankc-are you suggesting then that in your "discussions" with liberals ONLY Frankc presents the truth? That anything presented by a liberal that contradicts Frankc's view of things is, by definition, NOT the truth? What a NARCISSIST!!

Rich c - you're absolutely right. It's clearly futile. He doesn't even recognize a "fact" or the "truth" unless it comes from him, doesn't realize there's a difference between "truth" and "opinion". No room for discussion, no point in putting forward any sort of opinion that might disagree with his worldview, no use trying to reason with him. Futile.

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 6, 2012 | 9:51 a.m.

My statement. "May I correct you to, "F.C. Presents the truth in discussions with liberals"? YOU insert word, Only, to justify your bogus outcry!

I don't recall and cannot find any specific information you have provided in this entire exchange except the Media Matters bit on Gingrich and the quote from Dole. Practically my entire concern with you has been your reluctance to discuss an important point, why cost is never considered by you and liberals in any discussion of their programs. If you believe that I do not know difference between "truth" and "opinion", you may retire happy. Good Luck.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons June 6, 2012 | 9:54 a.m.

On June 2nd Frankc-hit out at liberals who described his great hero thus;

The Post Dispatch "expert" came to KFRU explain how we should view Limbaugh and all the faults we should know. To mispronounce his name by detractors was great fun then. Limbo was most common. The brilliant PD guest, chose Limbough (branch of a tree). Had I not had to advertise my name, I would have asked why he thought he could explain a subject when he couldn't even pronounce the name.

On June 6th, Frankc-decribed President Obama thus,

"Obummer".

Hypocrisy??

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons June 6, 2012 | 10:06 a.m.

Frankc-why don't YOU discuss Bob Dole's opposition to the very inception of a program you support and Newt Gingrich's desire to destroy it by letting it "wither on the vine". Those are documentable FACTS, not opinions of mine. They are very relevant to the Medicare debate, yet because they are positions held by Republicans who have at one time been very prominent members of the conservative side of the debate you refuse to even recognize them for what they are. You know why? because you're a party hack. Your side does no wrong; the "other" side does everything wrong. I'll retire happy Frankc.

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 6, 2012 | 11:31 a.m.

ss - the Post Dispatch expert is supposed to be an objective journalist. I am a conservative individual. No Hypocrisy!

What do you not understand about "because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965."? Seems to me an excellent reason for a fiscally responsible legislator to vote against any bill, no matter who sponsored it. You prefer to refer to them as evil, corrupt, conservative. Or did "you refuse to even recognize them for what they are." mean something else?

Without refuting one example that I mentioned, you give us,"You know why? because you're a party hack. Your side does no wrong; the "other" side does everything wrong." These are words of a "hack"! The repetition here is boring.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. June 6, 2012 | 12:37 p.m.

Ordinarily, people live and learn.

Evident above, some people just live.

(Report Comment)
Steve Simmons June 6, 2012 | 12:46 p.m.

I stand by "hypocritical". Whatever you want to call it though, making fun of an opponent's name is rather childish, whether you're an objective journalist or a conservative individual.

Now, as for "not refuting one example I have given" I am at a loss to find any real examples of anything much in your posts. However, that must be me being dense so how about this;

Frank Christian is President, the Congress is composed of 435 Frank Christians and there are 100 senator Frank Christians. On the Supreme Court bench sit 9 Frank Christians.

Question: what would the Frank Christians do to save the United States of America? How would Frank Christian make Social Security, Medicare etc solvent?

This is not a trick question and before you throw it back at me I will admit, I don't know. But then, as I am sure you will agree, I am no Frank Christian.

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 6, 2012 | 4:41 p.m.

"making fun of an opponent's name is rather childish," Absolutely true. Sometimes, however, we have to laugh to keep from crying.

"before you throw it back at me I will admit, I don't know." I want to believe that this is a serious request for answers to serious questions. If so, my appreciation is sincere.

We, ourselves don't know. Balancing the budget would be first and best way to save the U.S.A. The Democrat, Frank Christians, don't want anyone to try! They state repeatedly they will not sign on to anything that does not provide more tax money for them to spend. The Republican Frank Christians now have two plans on record. Cato produced a plan over 1 year ago. If you can prevent yourself from denial of these truths, you will have to see that nothing can be done until Democrat Frank Christians are removed from control of our government! I think you might find most every word of this in our prior posts, tho, you were "at a loss to find any real examples of anything much in your posts" before.

I honestly believe we have worn this thread out.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements