advertisement

J. KARL MILLER: What does Paul Ryan add to the GOP ticket?

Wednesday, August 29, 2012 | 6:00 a.m. CDT; updated 8:26 p.m. CDT, Wednesday, August 29, 2012

COLUMBIA — Mitt Romney's Aug. 11 naming of Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as his vice presidential candidate for November's presidential election has, as expected, evoked a deluge of pro and con commentary.

Romney's selection of Ryan has garnered an enthusiastic response from the Republican right, a cautious approval from Republican moderates, a wait-and-see from Independents, mixed reviews from serious Democrats and disdain and the usual fear mongering from the left. Conservatives hail Ryan as a young and attractive candidate who understands the budget, deficits and taxes and who will bring a fresh face and fiscal sanity to the table.

Democrats portray him as a radical, the architect of the evil Republican plan to destroy Medicare, a proponent of tax cuts for the wealthy and a pro-life and practicing Catholic, an officer in the GOP's war on women. The White House chimes in with its familiar and tiresome "blame Bush" tactics, accusing Ryan of voting in step for that administration's reckless policies that bloated the deficit and destroyed the economy.

So, we see that everything is proceeding as normal on the road to the presidency. The selection of a vice presidential candidate, while lauded by the respective parties as bringing any number of virtues and values to the contest, is usually the recipient of nods or yawns from the voting public. One may be reminded of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's veep, John Nance Garner, who, when asked of the value of the vice president replied, in the cleaned-up version: "Not worth a bucket of warm spit."

As an example, we can look back on the 2008 campaign and the selections of vice presidential candidates. Sen. John McCain chose the animated and photogenic Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, to energize an otherwise dull campaign, while the Democrats chose Delaware's Sen. Joe Biden to add gravitas and wisdom to the ticket, which featured the charismatic but somewhat inexperienced Barack Obama at the top.

Neither produced the desired effect. There are conflicting opinions as to whether former Gov. Palin was an asset or a bust. At any rate, the McCain-Palin ticket did not come away a winner. And, whatever former Sen. Biden might have provided the Obama presidency, neither gravitas nor wisdom comes to mind.

So, what does Mr. Ryan bring to the campaign? For starters, he has drafted a budget, a plan the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires from each house of Congress annually by April 1. It's a task the Congressional Democrats have not accomplished for three years. Despite the howls that the "Ryan Budget" will bankrupt Social Security and Medicare, favor the wealthy and throw Grandma, Grandpa, Uncle Earl, Aunt Edna and all of the children under the bus, it is the only document at hand that Congress has for use as a starting point.

Next, we move on to health care, the Affordable Care Act about which former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed so famously, "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it." It is probable that Mr. Ryan might be the only one who has read the bill and knows what is contained therein.

As a consequence, Ryan joined forces with Oregon's Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden to come to an agreement to reform Medicare, using Wyden's Healthy Americans Act to temper the version of premium support envisioned in the original Ryan budget. The compromise retained the traditional fee for service as an option and requires the private plans be at least as comprehensive as Medicare.

At the age of 42, the prospective vice president injects youth and vibrancy into the campaign, not unlike that offered by the current president four years ago. He is also, hands-down, the most knowledgeable member in matters of the budget and fiscal policies and is a studious and disciplined politician whose leadership style seals his future as a player.

He is issue-oriented but also personable and thoughtful, introducing a creative approach to problem solving. He will make his case for a limited government, conservative Romney-Ryan ticket, advocating a return to fiscal responsibility through commensurate spending cuts.

As soon as the sideshow issues, such as Gov. Romney's tax returns, Bain Capital, "Mediscare," Todd Akin and the ever-present allegations that Republicans are for dirty air and water and against women, the working poor and the middle class, grow tiresome, the serious campaigning can begin.

While those aforementioned irrelevancies may be effective demagoguery in firing up the base, the bread and butter issues — jobs, the economy, the growing deficit and entitlement reform — will decide the election.

And, who knows? Perhaps Mr. Ryan as Vice President Ryan and president of the Senate can lend his budgetary skills to that body of Congress and guide it through its first budget submission in four years?

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

Michael Williams August 29, 2012 | 7:43 a.m.

"There are conflicting opinions as to whether former Gov. Palin was an asset or a bust."
______________________

JKarl, you sly ol' double entendre dawg, you.

I'd say she has all the above attributes.....with all possible meanings.

PS: So does Mia Love, mayor of Sarasota Springs, UT. Wow!

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 29, 2012 | 7:55 a.m.

Mia Love sounds more like a stripper!

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams August 29, 2012 | 8:16 a.m.

Frank: She's a Mormon convert, so I doubt you'll get your stripper.

She spoke at the RNC last night....quite eloquently.

What's the female equivalent of an Uncle Tom? Whatever the moniker, she's times 3: a woman, a black, a conservative.

Did I mention smart and beautiful?

A "traitor to the cause" in all respects..........

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 29, 2012 | 8:29 a.m.

I agree with your all. Sometimes, in the morning, my dirty mind gits loose 'afore the sweet and clean one can control it.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams August 29, 2012 | 8:45 a.m.

Frank: You aren't the only one with the problem, so don't worry about it. After all, who wrote the very first post on JKarl's missive and, out of all his fine words, picked out the only double entendre contained within?

Answer?

Ummmm....that would be me.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon August 29, 2012 | 9:26 a.m.

Ryan's budget would shift the tax burden further on the middle class; bad idea:

"Now, temporary tax cuts can create jobs because they pump more money into the economy and boost consumer and business spending. The payroll tax holiday is one such example. But the fact that Ryan’s tax proposal won’t change net revenue levels in the near-term means that its economic effects will be minimal – and it will certainly not materially offset the job declines stemming from spending cuts. Worse, the composition of Ryan’s tax-shift means that it will likely result in a small job loss because it shifts the tax burden from high-earners to middle-class households. Low-income households will also face higher taxes because Ryan would allow certain tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, and the American Opportunity Tax Credit to fall from their current levels. Redistributing money away from people who spend more of each marginal dollar of disposable income (low- and moderate-income households) to those with much higher savings rates (high-income households) is broadly recognized as leading to a decline in aggregate demand."

http://www.epi.org/blog/paul-ryan-budget...

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 29, 2012 | 10:14 a.m.

"Redistributing money away from people who spend more of each marginal dollar of disposable income (low- and moderate-income households) to those with much higher savings rates (high-income households) is broadly recognized as leading to a decline in aggregate demand."

A totally false statement, but one liberals love to preach. "those with much higher savings rates (high-income households)" will over and over take the action liberals never want to admit. They will invest the money! New ideas, new projects, require new hiring! This has been proven, dramatically, 5 times in our history, with across the board tax cuts. Liberals deny it, because when they see what free men, thru free enterprise (yeah, I was a Jaycee) can do, they realize that, "if this is allowed to continue, no one will need a liberal!".

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon August 29, 2012 | 10:39 a.m.

Frank wrote: "A totally false statement, but one liberals love to preach... They will invest the money!"

First, it's not false; if you think it is, provide some evidence. Second, the Bush tax cuts have been in place for a decade; where are the jobs? Where's the investment?

Answer: "they" (the wealthy) simply aren't investing in America; if they are investing at all, they going overseas. They really couldn't care less.

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 29, 2012 | 12:33 p.m.

B. Brandon - It damn sure is False!. This is where it gets disgusting for me. You and yours must ignore any "proof" to be able to bow to your ideology. You demand proof and ask "where are the jobs?" after W. Bush tax cuts. The unemployment rate after those cuts was reduced to 4.6%, (four point six percent)and stayed there until Democrats took Congress and the Democrat, Clinton Dodd, Frank real estate shenanigans showed that ugly head!

I suppose you will have to feign ignorance over the investment, or lack of it, problem in our country. Have you never read or heard anything that has stated the business killing regulation and the uncertainty of taxation on business and investors is what has reduced our economic growth to near zero? This is the only reason they are going overseas. While your hero and cohorts are governing in the exact opposite direction of less regulation and taxes and sell the idea, every day about our investors,as you did, "They really couldn't care less."

My bet is, that when we change our government and start righting the ship, you and yours, will still be singing your songs of desperation and demanding more "proof".

(Report Comment)
Rich C. August 29, 2012 | 1:05 p.m.

Romney will just outsource more of America's jobs..

Just like he did at Bain.

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 29, 2012 | 1:15 p.m.

Horse puckey! But if he does, at least, he will be creating jobs for Someone, Somewhere.

(Report Comment)
Skip Yates August 29, 2012 | 1:33 p.m.

@B. Brandon. "They" (the wealthy) simply aren't investing in America......" I guess when you drive down stadium you miss shopping centers, apartments, etc., etc. where the wealthy have invested in your own city, huh?

(Report Comment)
hank ottinger August 29, 2012 | 2:50 p.m.

Sadly, Mr. Romney nor Mr. Ryan have any foreign policy experience. None. We live in a global community, for better or for worse. Biden does have such experience, and after four years as President, so does Obama.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon August 29, 2012 | 3:02 p.m.

Then, Frank, what you're telling us is that you can't refute the analysis of the Ryan budget, and all you can do is resort to anger: "[i]t damn sure is False!. This is where it gets disgusting for me."

I find malignant ignorance disgusting as well.

(Report Comment)
Skip Yates August 29, 2012 | 3:57 p.m.

@ Mr Ottinger..... POTUS and Biden have foreign policy experience????? Well, maybe a sorry one at that. How is the "Arab Spring" working for you.... and the seemingly complete lack of respect for President Obama by most, if not all, substantial foreign leaders. And, Hillary Clinton's appointment was nothing more than a political payoff and she is a disaster.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush August 29, 2012 | 3:59 p.m.

The good ol' boy choir
Sings from their hymnal in the
First five comments here.

Attention women!
Wanna join the GOP?
Akin and the choir!

Then again, Thinking
Women already knew that -
Act accordingly.

{"Perhaps Mr. Ryan as Vice President Ryan and president of the Senate can lend his budgetary skills to that body of Congress and guide it through its first budget submission in four years?"

US Constitution - Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."}

Ten GOP Reps
Defected from Paul's budget.
Not a serious

Proposal. It still
Won't balance the budget for
At least two decades.

It won't throw Grandpa
Nor Grandma under the bus.
Just their Grandchildren.

Over fifty-five?
You'll get all the perks. Under
That age? ALBATROSS!

I've learned to revise
My expectations downward
Reading this column.

And Bob, feed the trolls
At your own risk...or maybe
At your own pleasure.

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 29, 2012 | 4:00 p.m.

B. Brandon - My comment was about the statement of the last paragraph in your copied post, as you well know. To refute this paragraph, refutes the whole analysis, because it refutes the whole liberal view of life in this world as they/you believe it should be. In case you are still wondering, I do now refute this fabricated analysis by Ethan Pollack! Easily done, because of refusal to consider new revenues to government and creation of jobs that will most certainly happen with across the board tax cuts and deregulation. After being shown this "phenomenon" time and again and still reject it, must indeed, for liberals, be an "imposed ignorance", that leads them to make stupid shallow exclamations such as, "The federal budget cannot be balanced without spending cuts AND Tax increases!"

There will be much more liberal "analysis" of Ryan, his plan and our economy. My bet is none will consider "across the board tax cuts" as a tool for improving our economy. This imo, makes their efforts, insidious, rather than intelligent.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz August 29, 2012 | 4:30 p.m.

Rich, who owns those outsourced jobs? Obama, America, or the company?

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon August 29, 2012 | 5:02 p.m.

Okay, Frank; state your authority that the following from my "copied post" is wrong:

"Redistributing money away from people who spend more of each marginal dollar of disposable income (low- and moderate-income households) to those with much higher savings rates (high-income households) is broadly recognized as leading to a decline in aggregate demand."

(And "Because I say so" is not good authority, just letting you know ahead of time.)

By the way, I don't read minds; but when some folks have "ignorant" practically tattooed to their brows, it's kinda hard to miss. Just saying.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black August 29, 2012 | 5:26 p.m.

Bob, you'll notice Frank never touched on your question of "if lower taxes create jobs, where are they, considering taxes are at their lowest in 50 years. And he insists they WILL invest, with nothing to back it up. And don't ask for proof. The regulars on here detest that. As I always state, good luck wrestling with that pig!!

(Report Comment)
mike mentor August 29, 2012 | 5:33 p.m.

Owebama's medicare plan. Steal benefits from CURRENT seniors to pay for Owebamacare. Hopey changey real hard and the money tree will giveth for future generations.

Not my kind of a plan, but then again the daily scratch off ticket isn't my retirement plan either...

P.S. A backwards poet writes inverse.

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 29, 2012 | 5:54 p.m.

B. Brandon - Gosh! Ignorance does seem to have a prominent seat at this table. Whose brow are you referring to? I pointed to 5 times across the board tax cuts have improved our economy. Andrew Mellon in 1920's, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Legislation by 1994 Republicans, signed by William Clinton and W. Bush. Will you accept Cato Institute?
http://www.cato.org/publications/comment... You can see the increases in revenue on any chart showing annual receipts of the federal government. That Democrats spent it, until 94 R's controlled it and balanced the budget will not be shown there. Need further information, just advise.

I can desist with the slurs on personal intelligence if you can. I don't mind, but would rather use the time to prove the error of your politics. You may then, explain it to Tony Black.

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 29, 2012 | 6:06 p.m.

Tony B. - "Frank never touched on your question of "if lower taxes create jobs, where are they"

"You demand proof and ask "where are the jobs?" after W. Bush tax cuts. The unemployment rate after those cuts was reduced to 4.6%, (four point six percent)and stayed there until Democrats took Congress and the Democrat, Clinton Dodd, Frank real estate shenanigans showed that ugly head!"

Could your mother explain this to you?

(Report Comment)
hank ottinger August 29, 2012 | 7:25 p.m.

@ Mr. Yates. So please enlighten me on the foreign policy credentials of Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller August 29, 2012 | 7:48 p.m.

Mr Bush,

Being studied civics and the Constitution and also having served on Capitol Hill for 5 years, I am very much aware of Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 of the U S Constitution assigning the raising of revenue to the House of Representatives. I applaud your diligent research.

However, the budget process has nothing to do with the raising of revenue--instead, budgets regulate the spending of revenue.

May I recommend for your reading the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974? I believe you will find that the Congress to include the United States Senate Budget Committee is required to submit its budget resolution annually by 1 April.

I believe that in doing a bit more research, you will find that in the last year of the 111th Congress, in which the Democrats held both Houses, was the first year in history that a Congressional budget was not submitted.
Have a nice day sir.

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 29, 2012 | 8:34 p.m.

Bob Brandon - When you return to the conversation, I wanted to ask a question forgotten in my last post. Would You prove that,"Redistributing money away from people who spend more of each marginal dollar of disposable income (low- and moderate-income households) to those with much higher savings rates (high-income households)" will actually happen with Ryan's or any other Republican Congressional budget plan?

(Report Comment)
Skip Yates August 29, 2012 | 9:14 p.m.

Nice "gotcha" question there Mr Ottinger..... of course they have none, few do when elected to higher office. What they do have is constitution and belief in this country, that this country should again be the leader of the free world, etc. Far different from a President that bows to the the leaders of Arabia and Japan, vows to change the "culture" of America and is disdainful of its "arrogance". Frankly, President Obama has achieved much of that in the eyes of the world. Apparently that is leadership in your viewpoint.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush August 29, 2012 | 9:41 p.m.

And still revising
Downward my expectations.
Have a good day, too.

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote August 29, 2012 | 10:06 p.m.

It is interesting that Mr. Miller would tout Mr. Ryan's Medicare reforms as a counterbalance and/or Republican response to the ACA. Mr. Ryan's plan includes a mandate stipulating that beneficiaries purchase private insurance with a provided voucher. Those that do not purchase private insurance are penalized all of the money they have contributed via payroll taxes into the Medicare system. Mr. Miller has previously suggested that such a provision is unconstitutional when included in the ACA (the activity/inactivity nonsense as well as the ridiculous "broccoli argument"). Does Mr. Miller takes into account the party affiliation of a bill's sponsor when assessing its constitutionality?
As to the Democrats not passing a budget, The Budget Control Act of 2011 included the budget for fiscal year 2012. This passed a Republican House, a Democratic Senate and was signed into law by Pres. Obama. It also has a 10 year horizon. Many Republicans oppose it, and it is quite likely that the Republicans will be unable to pass a budget for this year that conforms to the conditions mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011. I'm going to guess that the lack of a Republican budget for 2013 will be met with nary a comment by Mr. Miller...but we already knew that didn't we? It would be nice if the Missourian provided thoughtful comments/ideas from conservative quarters. Perhaps if Mr. Miller put in a little more effort and actually researched the topics he wrote about, he could provide that commentary.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon August 30, 2012 | 6:32 a.m.

Frank wrote: "I can desist with the slurs on personal intelligence if you can."
Bob responds: If you'll desist on impugning my character, "my comment... as you well know," I'll consider being less accurate with my observations of your personal qualities.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon August 30, 2012 | 6:33 a.m.

Frank wrote about the Mellon tax cuts. The circumstances then were that the highest rates were cut ostensibly to encourage the rich to pay their taxes vice putting the money in such things as municipal tax-free bonds (which, by the way, did its part to create the real estate bubble of the Twenties that inevitably burst). At the same time, federal spending - especially for the armed forces - was slashed drastically. By the way, Frank: the only one advocating such similar reductions in military spending in the GOP is Paul Rand. What we have now is relatively low tax rates but also low tax revenues (federal spending has flattened during the Obama Administration), but revenues have dropped, and the GOP congress isn't serious about reducing spending that doesn't target the poor and vulnerable. We don't need the world's largest military establishment to protect the national frontiers; we have to have the world's largest military to maintain the American empire. National security does not equal keeping empire.

Frank then writes: "Would You prove that...,"Redistributing money away from people who spend more of each marginal dollar of disposable income (low- and moderate-income households) to those with much higher savings rates (high-income households)" will actually happen with Ryan's or any other Republican Congressional budget plan?"

That's an easy answer: look at Europe now; the countries of the EU have been practicing austerity budgeting for quite a few budget cycles, and, precisely for that, they're in a double dip recession. Robert Reich sums it up neatly:

"First, that the real issue isn’t debt per se, but rather the ratio of the debt to the size of the economy.

In their haste to cut the public debt, Europeans have overlooked the denominator of the equation. By reducing public budgets, they’ve removed a critical source of demand — at a time when consumers and the private sector are still in the gravitational pull of the Great Recession and can’t make up the difference. The obvious result is a massive slowdown that has worsened the ratio of Europe’s debt to its total GDP and is plunging the continent into recession.

A large debt with faster growth is preferable to a smaller debt sitting atop no growth at all. And it’s infinitely better than a smaller debt on top of a contracting economy.

The second lesson Merkel and others have overlooked is that the social costs of austerity economics can be huge. It’s one thing to cut a government budget when unemployment is low and wages are rising. But if you cut spending during a time of high unemployment and stagnant or declining wages, you’re not only causing unemployment to rise even further. You’re also removing the public services and safety nets people depend on, especially when times are tough."

See http://www.salon.com/2012/04/25/europes_...

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon August 30, 2012 | 6:34 a.m.

This is what Ryan's budget would do to the U.S. economy. Remember that the U.S. is only marginally better shape than the EU precisely because of what stimulus was enacted earlier in the Administration. Many commentators at the time observed that it was not nearly enough, but it was better than nothing, which is what the Ryan budget ladles.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon August 30, 2012 | 6:35 a.m.

Frank will insist on insulting quibbling, but probably he and certainly the Colonel are what I would call FIGMO socialists. The Colonel will certainly be familiar with FIGMO: "F***-**, I've Got My Orders." In more polite circles, the first F is "forget-it." He and his have their socialism: the social security, the old-age health care, maybe even a federally-protected pension, the kind of social safety net that all of us need. Problem is that they've got theirs, but they're highly offended that younger people are asking for the same benefits as well. They're going to say that they've "earned" it, and perhaps they have: what they have done is pay their payroll taxes (as is everyone else working who's actually paying their present benefits), but the whole idea that the safety net should carry on after them seems communistic, Kenyan, even Islamic.

Folks who pull up ladders after themselves cannot be surprised when the abandoned then bring ladders with them.

(Report Comment)
Tony Black August 30, 2012 | 7:18 a.m.

Frank, my mother passed away almost 2 years ago.

(Report Comment)
Rich C. August 30, 2012 | 7:53 a.m.

@ Bob Brandon

And the younger crowd is said to be entitlement crowd.

Done going to school so let's vote to dismantle it. Stop funding K-12 and then complain about the test scores.

All while the younger generation takes less home every paycheck just to pay for older crowd's Social Security and Medicare (which likely won't be there when we retire).

And then the older crowd fights healthcare reform that will help the younger crowd. Anything goes as long as you don't take away their medicare.

The only thing the younger people are "entitled" to is the debt of the retired crowd.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking August 30, 2012 | 7:54 a.m.

frank christian wrote:

"You can see the increases in revenue on any chart showing annual receipts of the federal government."

I'd like to see what that chart did past 1929 - revenues likely dropped like a stone. That's independent of federal spending.

Tax cuts allow us to live better in the present at the cost of the future. Spending is not cut, which means we have to increase the deficit. Much of the money may generate economic activity (also increasing private and corporate debt as business expands), but it's all temporary. Each of those cuts have been followed several years later by a recession, some quite severe.

Economic activity has been very high even in periods of 90%+ top tax rates, and has been very poor in times of low rates (like today), and this is largely independent of federal spending. Tax cuts do not generate long-term economic growth. They help blow debt bubbles, which leave the economy in worse shape than if nothing had been done at all.

DK

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 30, 2012 | 8:02 a.m.

B. Brandon - Mellon tax cuts encouraged the rich to pay More taxes and they did, while earning More money for themselves! Every leader, every time, (with exception of Bush) has asked Congress to reduce spending along with their tax cuts. Until 1994, they were talking to Democrats and got the opposite response. We need the largest Defense, because of those we must protect, our people, as well as those in the socialist based governments (EU), which will not protect themselves.

I asked for proof and you, sagely, give me Robt. Reich opinion? Contact with his friends for Cabinet appointment with Clinton, produced comment similar to Rob't has a loose handle on the truth. Glad, however, that you have introduced a little humor with your thoughtful pasting. The EU problems come from their Keynesian spending and their austerity measures are necessary to live up to the provisions of their "bailout" loans!

Paul Ryan intends to reduce federal government spending to the traditional, 20% of GDP. An atrocity! Measures such as these make release of federal tax payer money by crooks like the liberal Democrats to their chosen few, more difficult. (To get his fiscal plan to the floor of the U.S. House, Ronald Reagan had to sign one more Tip O'Neill, 3B$, "jobs bill". 600M$ came off the top and went straight to Massachusetts!) We can see the difficulty for liberals to pretend concern for our economy when the concern is only to keep the money flowing.

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 30, 2012 | 8:09 a.m.

Mark F. is another. Tax cuts are described as near sinful and his only concern is for the money he sees as being denied our benevolent federal government.

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 30, 2012 | 8:13 a.m.

Tony B.- Please accept my apology.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon August 30, 2012 | 8:31 a.m.

I love (manly love, that is) Frank; the same way that I would love using weapons technology to fish in barrels.

(1a) Frank wrote: "More taxes and they did, while earning More money for themselves!"

Until 1929, that is, and the same deregulated speculation that trashed our economy then has trashed our economy now. They tried austerity back then, as well and with similar results and under a President who is probably the greatest businessman ever to enter the White House for all the good it did him. I can certainly appreciate how Frank missed all that, but then when one wears blinders, one misses a lot.

(1b) Frank wrote: "We need the largest Defense, because of those we must protect, our people, as well as those in the socialist based governments (EU), which will not protect themselves."

If you think we need spend an amount of money equal to the amount spent on the next 10 largest militaries in the world to defend 5% of the world's population in a country with only two national land borders with countries with whom we are at peace, you're just ignorant. the reason why we lost in Iraq and are getting out of Afghanistan, which we are losing, it that our opponents refused to be good sports and attack at our strengths but at our weaknesses. J.Q. Adams's words (1821) come to mind:

"She [America] well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom."

(2) Frank wrote: "I asked for proof and you, sagely, give me Robt. Reich opinion?"

That's right; I gave you the opinion of a trained, respected economist. You haven't given us anything. Want another? Read pretty much anything by Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize economist, on austerity budgeting. Until you give us something other than by hacks like Ryan (who has a bachelors degree in economics, which is just enough business knowledge to drive the Weinermobile for Oscar Mayer), you're just not going to have much credibility.

(3) "Paul Ryan intends to reduce federal government spending to the traditional, 20% of GDP."

There's nothing "traditional" about 20%. It's a Procrustean bed that would hurt the poor and vulnerable. In due course, it will catch up with one Frank Christian, but he wears blinders too much to see.

Conclusion: just more rantings from a FIGMO socialist.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon August 30, 2012 | 9:00 a.m.

Greg composed:

"And Bob, feed the trolls
At your own risk...or maybe
At your own pleasure."

Thank you for the haiku.

You're right about one thing: it's fun feeding trolls. Frank's a troll. The Good Colonel's a troll as well even though he gets a column to express his views from under the bridge. A paraphrase of that old quote from the late Senator Hruska, Republican from Nebraska, that even trolls "are entitled to a little representation" comes to mind. And The Colonel's a troll here in the same way that Joe Scarborough's a troll at MSNBC. I suppose there's journalistic merit in there somewhere, but it also comes with a lot of foggy blather.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking August 30, 2012 | 9:21 a.m.

frank christian wrote:

"Mark F. is another. Tax cuts are described as near sinful and his only concern is for the money he sees as being denied our benevolent federal government."

No. I'm saying that tax cuts, in an era (which has been going on for decades) where sufficient spending cuts are impossible to decide on by either party, are fiscally irresponsible, and we have a $16 trillion debt to show for it.

It is all about living better today at the cost of tomorrow. Deficits don't matter as long as our credit is good (no one in either party shows the slightest inkling of practically taking on the deficit in the near to moderate term). Ryan's plan will simply increase the deficit another $5-10 trillion dollars on the historically unfounded ideology that smaller government means more economic growth.

World War II ended the Great Depression, not anything the government or private enterprise did. In fact, government spending was at a record percentage of GDP all during the war, and by modern Republican ideology, that should have have crippled the postwar recovery. Instead, there was a long period of robust economic growth, under top tax rates approaching 90%. Correlation does not equal causation, but lack of correlation usually means lack of causation.

DK

(Report Comment)
John Schultz August 30, 2012 | 10:35 a.m.

Bob, if your reference to austerity is in regards to Herbert Hoover, you are incorrect. Federal spending DOUBLED under his administration in deflation-adjusted dollars and by 48% in nominal terms (reference the graph on page 4, using White House data):

http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp122.pdf

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller August 30, 2012 | 10:47 a.m.

Mr Foote,

I hate to prick your bubble but, the Budget Control Act of 2011 has nothing to do with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 which still requires each House of Congress to submit a budget annually by 1 April. And, by the way, the Republicans did pass a budget this year..we know it as the "Ryan Budget."

The Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed into law primarily as a result of the Democrat's failure to submit a budget during the last year that party held both Houses. As I mentioned, that was the first time in the history of the U S that the Congress had not submitted a budget. The Budget Control Act of 2011 established the foolish and doomed to failure "Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (sometimes called the "super committee") and options for a balanced budget amendment.

Hopefully that explains the fallacy of your "apples and oranges" conclusions re budget submissions. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 remains in force and, thus far, the only party to shirk its duty (3 consecutive times) has been the Democrats.

By the way, Mr Foote, I am a bit confused re your " Mr. Miller has previously suggested that such a provision is unconstitutional when included in the ACA (the activity/inactivity nonsense as well as the ridiculous "broccoli argument"). Does Mr. Miller takes into account the party affiliation of a bill's sponsor when assessing its constitutionality?"

To the best of my knowledge and contrary to some of the actions of President Obama, the Supreme Court remains the authority in rendering decisions on the Constitutionalality of legislation. I have neither the luxury nor the authority of declaring a bill unconstitutional; accordingly, I have, to my knowledge anyway, not usurped the prerogatives of the court.

Finally, the relevance of your "Does Mr. Miller takes into account the party affiliation of a bill's sponsor when assessing its constitutionality?" escapes me. Care to illuminate?

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller August 30, 2012 | 11:00 a.m.

Mr Brandon,

"The Good Colonel's a troll as well even though he gets a column to express his views from under the bridge."

Really now Mr Brandon? It has been my observation that grownups discuss issues while school children call names.

You may learn some day that one may disagree without being disagreeable. I do realize that your objective is to be considered "cute and daring" by your peers: thus, I will merely consider the source.

Have a nice day sir.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon August 30, 2012 | 11:27 a.m.

Colonel:

First of all, it appears that my remarks struck home. Very good. When you respond under such circumstance, you invariably attempt to strike as patronizing a stance as possible. Let me advise you kindly that it's not especially effective.

"Troll" is not merely derogatory; it is also descriptive regarding participation in online forums. Liberal trolls, for their part, rarely last long at conservative sites; only conservative trolls have any sort of meaning existence online. The same applies to news networks: Scarborough is simply a "troll" tolerated at MSNBC. And it similarly and accurately describes the nature of your participation here at the Missourian. Why the editorial board does that is not for me to say: how unsearchable are their judgments and how inscrutable their way, as it were. Perhaps as an intellectual vaccine?

But you overstate your argument; here's a gem of yours from earlier this year:

"And, it is by now indelibly carved in stone that the GOP remains unalterably opposed to clean air and water and favors desecration of the planet. Any political entity that prefers the creation of jobs over saving the endangered snail darter, the scimitar oryx, the spotted owl and the sage grouse along with the clearing of dead trees and underbrush to reduce the occurrence of forest fires is "an enemy of the environment."

(http://www.columbiamissourian.com/storie...)

Lovely. Some discussion you articulated then. If this is your definition of "disagreeing without being disagreeable," I would certainly like to what you consider disagreeable.

So, without being discourteous, let me kindly suggest that you get over yourself. Grumpiness, in and of itself, is not a virtue. Mr. McCain discovered that for himself in 2008.

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 30, 2012 | 12:02 p.m.

1a 2 out of every $5. loaned by our banks by 1929 was to buy stocks. You maintain deregulation and tax cuts, caused the problem? Come out of the clouds!

1b Your whole assessment is inaccurate. You specify the dollars spent and generalize the threats that exist. We are "at peace" with China and Russia. If we disarm, which is the real intent of the left, should we be content with whatever "deals" can be made by, our man made savior, the United Nations? Would the savings from Defense cuts go to debt reduction? No way, new programs for the betterment of our downtrodden poor would be the trumpeted news of the day.

2 Then you do not accept Cato Institute! One could read your "trained, respected economist(s), (as well as most ridiculed) forever and never get anything but fictitious reasons for more spending of tax payer funds. You as usual are unable write the name Krugman without adding "Nobel Prize", which puts him with Gore and Obama whom both received one for doing Nothing.

3 You are correct about the 20%. I believe 19% was the real norm. "It's a Procrustean bed that would hurt the poor and vulnerable." Too bad you cannot admit that this "bed" in fact reduces the limits of Democrat slush funds and rewards for donors and voters. You are going to hear much more from "the hack", Paul Ryan, than you as, a leftist, Keynesian, would ever want to hear. I guarantee it!

(Report Comment)
Skip Yates August 30, 2012 | 12:11 p.m.

"Battleships are cheaper than battles" Winston Churchill

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 30, 2012 | 1:11 p.m.

Bob Brandon - Your referral to Miller's quite accurate statement ""And, it is by now indelibly carved in stone that the GOP remains unalterably opposed to clean air and water and favors desecration of the planet...., as being "disagreeable", smacks of another liberal flailing about for a point that might have some relevance. You have failed totally, here, as those defending the indefensible always do. You decry Paul Ryan as hack, only because he has in his mind to stop the degraded situation your leftists have rewarded us with for the tragedy of our last Presidential election. You cannot connect with the situation in EU and must insist that their Spending was inadequate! Neither can you succeed, trying present the senseless as sensible. Yours is a lost cause and that must be proven next November.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon August 30, 2012 | 1:48 p.m.

Frank responds:

“1a 2 out of every $5. loaned by our banks by 1929 was to buy stocks.”

Well, we all know where that money went: down the rat-hole.

“1b… If we disarm, which is the real intent of the left, should we be content with whatever "deals" can be made by, our man made savior, the United Nations?“

Well, if I had known you were a Bircher… I would’ve baked you a cake. In any event, no-one is advocating disarmament. And only the tin-hatters think we’re going to give our sovereignty to the UN. Are you into tin-foil headgear? The question is why we spend so much on defense when we are at peace with our hemispheric neighbors. The Russians and the Chinese are not geo-political threats however much the neo-conservatives want to blather. The Russians are preoccupied with and struggling in maintaining their existing sphere of influence, and the last thing the Chinese can afford is war with their best customer and largest creditor. Plus the Chinese, as one analyst put it (see Leith van Onselen, http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/07/c...) will get old before it gets rich. China will hit the point where there are more dependents than workers in 2013, three to four times faster than Japan and South Korea, both of which enjoyed an actual widespread prosperity when they hit that mark than China will ever reach by next year. In any event, the Chinese will always struggle with the geographic difficulties of projecting military power beyond their borders. Couple that with their rapidly aging and dwindling younger populations, no-one there wants to risk war with anyone.

“2 Then you do not accept Cato Institute!”

Nope, sure don’t. They’re not credible. Austerity in times of economic decline has never rebuilt an economy. Europe's proving that even now. If you want to diss the Nobel Prize, please feel free do so after you’ve won one.

“3… You are going to hear much more from "the hack", Paul Ryan, than you as, a leftist, Keynesian, would ever want to hear. I guarantee it!”

Alas, I do agree with you there. But not much after Nov. 6. His speech last night was trashed even by Fox News. He is, if anything, a less polished, if equally enthusiastic, prevaricator than Romney. He continues to lie about the GM plant closed in 2008. He continues to lie about the welfare work requirement modifications several Republican governors asked for (won't that make a nice commercial?). With some luck, he'll even lose for reelection in his house district. Then he can have his own news show on Fox News.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon August 30, 2012 | 1:52 p.m.

Frank writes: "Yours is a lost cause and that must be proven next November."

"Must" is a statement of faith, or of desperation, which is an extreme form of faith; "will," if used instead, is no more than an statement of anticipation, a milder, less frantic faith.

Neither require a factual basis, however.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop August 30, 2012 | 2:31 p.m.

Paul Ryan adds every positive value to the ticket that Biden does not possess. In 2010 Democrats suffered the worst defeat in congress in 72 years. Not only that, they lost five governorships and twenty state legislatures. And 2011 was redistricting. The American public is certainly no happier with Democrats in 2012 than they were in 2010. November 6th will certainly reflect this.

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 30, 2012 | 3:24 p.m.

"Well, we all know where that money went: down the rat-hole."

What a thoughtful answer. You make it sound like all the "stimulus" money your heroes insist on spreading like mayonnaise on every Democrat's sandwich. None of this money goes down the rat-hole, but into the pockets of the favored few.

"Austerity in times of economic decline has never rebuilt an economy. Europe's proving that even now." Do you make these up as you go along? Give me Krugman column that made this info available to you. A mandate from IMF for the first Greek bailout loan was to "privatize their Corrupt universal health care system." That's austerity.
I diss the Nobel gift, as everyone not associated with the "agenda", now does.

There is no lie about welfare work requirement. Another Obama "order" does not legalize the HHS effort to start a gut of the successful program. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/3...

I find several links agreeing that " His speech last night was trashed even by Fox News." All refer to Fox with "their" opinion but I can locate only one name. Sally Koler, who describes her self as a *progressive* associate of Fox News. Yes, it seems the ultra-conservative lying Fox News has a progressive on the payroll and the lefty's use of that fact is to be expected.

Word games don't help your cause either.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz August 30, 2012 | 3:24 p.m.

Bob, there you go again, talking about austerity. Please do comment on my link when you have a moment.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon August 30, 2012 | 4:52 p.m.

John, I did read your link. Let me ask you this: what if Hoover had done nothing whatsoever, essentially following Mellon's advice. What is the Cato Institute take on that?

Essentially, the economy by the end of the 20's had hit the wall on credit. Overextension of credit had fueled a real estate bubble from 1925 to 1927, a stocks bubble in 1928-1929, and a durable goods spending spree in the second half of the 20's. In fact, by 1929, the construction industry was already struggling as a result of the failed housing bubble, followed by a commercial real estate one. Agriculture was making itself vulnerable due to cultivating marginal lands with obsolescent farming practices ultimately vulnerable not just to collapsed demand but climatic collapse.

Income inequity had widened during the same time. Despite the boom/bubble in manufactures, workers and the middle class didn't share in the profitability. Wages only increased at a fourth of the productivity. When these bubbles finally burst, consumers lost jobs and reliable income and struggled first to manage existing debt instead of buying new goods and second to avoid desolation. It all turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy. The loss of credit weakened consumer spending; lack on spending meant manufacturing and retail declined. A conservative deregulated economic model of the 20's that still finds admirers today failed essentially as a extended Ponzi scheme.

What are the prescriptions that Cato would recommend?

(Report Comment)
mike mentor August 30, 2012 | 4:59 p.m.

I guess Bob's the last to know.

The words out!
The Nobel folks jumped the shark. Their awards mean less to me than the better homes and gardens seal of approval. They gave an award to Owebama before he had done anything. That's actually better than the Gore situation. They actually gave an award to Gore for making millions off of what we now know to be lies. Isn't that ironic...

The words out!
Owebama lacky Holder lied in letters to Congress. Had to send two "correction" letters after the truth came out and uncovered previous lies. There was also this contempt thing as well. All from our top lawman!

The words out!
Nothing Ryan said about the GM plant closing was a lie. Look at the transcript of what he said before you spout off.

The words out!
Harry Reid lied on the senate floor.

The words out!
Owebama administration leaked classified operation details that put all of our current and future service members at risk.

The words out!
There is one party acting extremely desperate right now as evidenced by the above.

The words out!
This party is like the daddy longleg after a kid has pulled off all the legs. Your legs were pulled off last election with historic and sweeping changes.

You may still have some life left, but not for long...

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon August 30, 2012 | 5:01 p.m.

Mr. Mentor's a troll that I decline to feed. Too busy feeding Mr. Christian as it is.

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 30, 2012 | 5:31 p.m.

"Too busy feeding Mr. Christian as it is." In the lame attempt to make liberalism sound reasonable, you certainly offer some good "chewies".

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon August 30, 2012 | 5:36 p.m.

Frank writes a lot; last things first, however:

He writes: “Word games don't help your cause either.”

Frank, in your case, words don’t help at all.

Frank earlier wrote: ‘None of this money goes down the rat-hole, but into the pockets of the favored few.”

Some would quibble that there’s any difference between rats and the favored few. The astonishing thing is that Frank actually sounds like a Socialist, if not a Kenyan or a Muslim.

Frank then wrote: “Give me [the] Krugman column that made this info available to you.”

Opening paragraph: “The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity.” So declared John Maynard Keynes 75 years ago, and he was right. Even if you have a long-run deficit problem — and who doesn’t? — slashing spending while the economy is deeply depressed is a self-defeating strategy, because it just deepens the depression.”

See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/opinio...

(One little thing: the internet is a wonderful thing. So I copied this – “A mandate from IMF for the first Greek bailout loan was to "privatize their Corrupt universal health care system" – to search. Frank, you’re just recycling your comments to a letter written to the Tribune back on July 15. See http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012.... Recycling remarks really is austerity, if not of the monetary sort. In any event, privatizing public services will only lead to degraded care. No-one in Canada, even its conservatives, are hankering to dismantle their universal health care system. Neither are the Brits, for that matter.)

Frank then wrote: “There is no lie about welfare work requirement,” then cites a National Review article. Laughable. The truth is that the changes are ones even Romney sought:

“The Romney commercial shocked welfare-policy experts. They say that the Obama administration rule change is a waiver aimed at reducing red tape so that states that administer welfare programs could put more people on payrolls, not fewer. Even Romney himself sought such a change when he was Massachusetts governor.
"Basically, it's not true; it's inaccurate and misleading," said Elizabeth Ananat, an assistant professor of public policy and economics at Duke University who studies poverty. She added that the Republican effort to take what had been a bipartisan policy push and "turn it into a cudgel is unfortunate - it's election-year politics."

See http://articles.philly.com/2012-08-29/ne...

(Essentially Frank is saying that Romney is a Socialist. Wouldn’t be surprising: Frank’s already admitted being a Socialist over ratholes.)

Frank, bon appetite.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon August 30, 2012 | 5:39 p.m.

Frank wrote: "In the lame attempt to make liberalism sound reasonable, you certainly offer some good "chewies".

The only "chewies" I have in the house are for the cat, and you will have to fight our big luv for the privilege of fish-scented breath.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz August 30, 2012 | 5:48 p.m.

Bob, I'd be happy to investigate what Cato would have recommended (I can pretty much guarantee less government intervention) if you'll admit that Hoover increasing the budget by 48% in his term is not austerity.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon August 30, 2012 | 6:00 p.m.

John, you wrote: "Bob, I'd be happy to investigate what Cato would have recommended (I can pretty much guarantee less government intervention) if you'll admit that Hoover increasing the budget by 48% in his term is not austerity."

We're not taking hostages here. I asked a question: what if Hoover had done nothing or had done what Mellon recommended - "liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate…"

You can answer my question or not. I'm truly interested.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop August 30, 2012 | 6:37 p.m.

At the end of the movie, The Fountainhead, in his portrayal of Howard Roark, Gary Cooper gives his defense argument that is the heart and soul of what it means to be an American and a free man, and not a subject of the liberal collectivist mentality that Democrats seek to foist on us today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq9udFmsN......

The only charity that should come from Americans is that which they would give selflessly from their own pocket, and not that coerced by force or threat of force through taxation.

An except from the Economics Faculty at George Mason University for their Constitution Day states as follows:

James Madison is the acknowledged father of the constitution. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia. James Madison wrote disapprovingly, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

The fact the congress appropriated directly from the people for Medicare and Social Security, and then misspent that money does not force those two funds into the moral status of welfare, though de facto they are now. Nor does unemployment fit since those moneys are also appropriated by taxation. When congress appropriates through specific taxation a program, that is not welfare. But there is much of the spending that is. And it needs correction.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop August 30, 2012 | 6:40 p.m.

Liberals have a natural hatred of conservative women because they are more intelligent, have a better public speaking presence, and are generally far prettier than liberal women. And when they are conservative minority women who fall into all those same categories of intelligence, presence, and looks, well, it's more than liberals can handle.

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 30, 2012 | 7:10 p.m.

B. Brandon - "Another reform high on the list is removing the state from the marketplace in crucial sectors like health care, transportation and energy and allowing private investment. Economists say that the liberalization of trucking routes — where a trucking license can cost up to $90,000 — and the health care industry would help bring down prices in these areas, which are among the highest in Europe." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/busine... Not the Tribune!

I'm preparing for an excellent dinner. See you soon.

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 30, 2012 | 9:05 p.m.

B. Brandon - "Some would quibble that there’s any difference between rats and the favored few." Could you be coming around? The favored few in my post were liberals in receipt of the billions, we out of favor Americans now only know as Debt. Comparing them to rats, works for me.

"Opening paragraph: “The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity.” So declared John Maynard Keynes 75 years ago,". This must have caused hilarity from thinking people, across the net! The most rejected theory since communism. Only those still after the tax payer money, the elitist rich, their lap dog Krugman, and you, yet accept it.

welfare work requirement- "it's election-year politics." That is true. The "politics" are another Obama Order! The act was written so that only Congress could change it. BO is creating another opportunity for liberal D's to keep more people on the government "dole". I believe that word came from the happy serfs in U.K.

It's ok, just feed your cat and me the way we are used to. Don't know about the cat, but I love it. Have to go, Clint Eastwood is on!

(Report Comment)
Skip Yates August 30, 2012 | 10:44 p.m.

LOL..... I think if Bob and Frank went out and had a drink to discuss issues, Frank would have a whiskey, neat, and Bob would have green tea.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon August 31, 2012 | 5:34 a.m.

Skip: I'd have a lager, stretching it out to be able to drive home safely and legally. Frank would stagger in already smashed.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon August 31, 2012 | 5:48 a.m.

Frank wrote: "The favored few in my post were liberals in receipt of the billions."

Great, tell me one liberal who cashed in as a result of the 1929 crash.

Frank wrote: "Only those still after the tax payer money, the elitist rich, their lap dog Krugman, and you, yet accept it."

This simply is an incoherent remark; putting Krugman on the same side as the likes of Jamie Dimon is malignant ignorance.

Frank wrote: "BO is creating another opportunity for liberal D's to keep more people on the government "dole"."

And you're still going to vote for Mitt Romney who, as governor, wanted the same flexibility that you condemn.

Frankly (no pun intended), the only real difference between Frank and the Colonel is that the Colonel chooses his words more carefully while both equally lack substance.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon August 31, 2012 | 6:40 a.m.

Frank wrote: "Have to go, Clint Eastwood is on!"

Wow. "See 'Grandpa Simpson Live' at the Tampa Bay Times Forum."

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 31, 2012 | 8:59 a.m.

B. Brandon - Here is a little help with you reading skills? You were on the market crash. I compared the money "gone" in the crash to the money gone in all stimulus. " You make it sound like all the "stimulus" money your heroes insist on spreading like mayonnaise on every Democrat's sandwich."

"putting Krugman on the same side as the likes of Jamie Dimon is malignant ignorance." It seems Krugman would bailout Dimon, then give his bank to the federal government. Sort of like our auto makers were "saved".

"And you're still going to vote for Mitt Romney...." Now here's an incoherent statement. To compare a request for flexibility with an executive order to, upon request, omit a mandate purposefully written by Congress that it could Not be omitted, indicates the writer is wildly searching for substance, with no success.

Clint Eastwood exhibited more sense than you, thus far, when he stated, "If they're not doin' a good job, ya have to let 'em go!"

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams August 31, 2012 | 9:04 a.m.

Hey Bob,

If you didn't like Eastwood's comedy, you're gonna like this even less:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2...

Are you in agreement with the opinions on Mia Love that were briefly hacked into her Wikipedia page?

Hope not, but the whole world wonders.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 1, 2012 | 6:41 a.m.

Frank, if you think talking to empty chairs means they're carrying on a conversation with you, then you obviously have as much sense as Clint Eastwood.

Frank wrote: "Clint Eastwood exhibited more sense than you, thus far, when he stated, "If they're not doin' a good job, ya have to let 'em go!"

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 1, 2012 | 6:47 a.m.

False dichotomy, Frank; our economy is in better shape that Europe's right now for the small amount of stimulus, half of which were tax-breaks. Among other things, we have a state full of repaired bridges and workers employed, supporting their families. That's not money down a rathole, like the paper assets lost in 1929 and since 2007.

Frank wrote: "I compared the money "gone" in the crash to the money gone in all stimulus."

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 1, 2012 | 6:51 a.m.

Michael, no-one cares about your wonderings.

Michael wrote: "Hope not, but the whole world wonders."

(Report Comment)
frank christian September 1, 2012 | 8:05 a.m.

B. Brandon - Still searching for substance, I see. And, still, no luck, I see.

Targeted, "tax breaks"? A State? Our State? 6T$ in new debt, for our country and you comment on bridges and jobs, in our State? (MO unemployment still above 7% in July.)

One might refer to your problem as "writers block", but I will concede that the subject you try to defend, liberalism, does limit intelligent thought.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 1, 2012 | 8:29 a.m.

Certainly not looking for substance from Mr. Christian. But, to be fair, at his age, Frank really isn't looking for substance himself.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams September 1, 2012 | 8:47 a.m.

Sorry, Bob.

I didn't know Mia was a sore subject.

PS: I saw a pic of the President sitting in a lawn chair next to a table and a second...empty...lawn chair.

I think he was having a conversation with Clint.

(Report Comment)
frank christian September 1, 2012 | 9:05 a.m.

BB - Funny, isn't it? In previous post I had thought to suggest that if you could not think of anything else, you could continue to criticize me. With the mediocre talent exhibited, are you a mind reader as well?

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle September 1, 2012 | 9:08 a.m.

Really bad at math? The GOTP and lottery tickets are for you.

Mathematical facts are: Tax cuts do not "pay for themselves" in additional growth and revenue from that growth.

Mathematical facts are: Tax cuts for the wealthiest have been happening, been in place for 30 years, and the economy we have *right now* is what those tax cuts have brought us.

Mathematical facts are: Military spending, mostly driven by Republican presidents, is responsible for about 90% of our national debt.

What Paul Ryan brings to the GOTP ticket is: Lies, lies, more lies, distortions, and a hideously disgusting "Selfish Righteous" attitude.

I don't think there's anything more accurately symbolic of the entire GOTP ideology and mantra, than having an argument with an empty chair. Really. Talking to an empty chair is delusional. The The GOTP is delusional.

They are delusional about energy: Under Obama, domestic energy production has seen the biggest increase, and overall production, in over 20 years. Yet the GOTP is running against a candidate that has supposedly killed the entire US energy production industry.

They are delusional about debt and deficit: They think they can dramatically *increase* military spending, while simultaneously *reducing* the deficit. Nevermind the fact that military spending, both year-by-year and total over the last 30 years, has an extremely high correlation with yearly debt and total deficit.

They are completely delusional about science: They wear ignorance about the facts of biological reproduction like a war medal. They delude themselves into ignoring 30+ years of solid science, and massive, overwhelming evidence about man-made global warming, and for... what?!? I just really don't even get that one.

They can spend *any* amount of money to build and drop bombs - that's always worth it!... but not a single penny to anything else or anyone else, because that's always a total waste of money (insert lie or distortion to back that up here). It's completely delusional.

The GOTP's entire platform is basically running against an empty chair; A figment of their own imagination. The GOTP is nearly manically narcissistic; utterly selfish, yet backed by fervent righteousness built on mostly lies and self-delusion.

They are arguing against an empty chair... and it's Just. Plain. STUPID.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams September 1, 2012 | 9:12 a.m.

Gee whiz, Derrick.

It rained.

Be happy.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 1, 2012 | 9:30 a.m.

It's not; it is however for you. I couldn't care less. But since you got your rear handed to you over the golf course investigation, I'm guessing you're looking for someplace else to post.

Michael: "I didn't know Mia was a sore subject."

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 1, 2012 | 9:45 a.m.

Speaking of Paul Ryan; why does he keep lying just to get so easily caught in it? Would appreciate someone, anyone - the Colonel, Frank, Michael, et al. - explaining why Mr. Ryan can't stop lying, especially those lies that are so easily exposed, like this lie about running of a sub three-hour marathon:

"Paul Ryan's campaign walked back comments the VP nominee made about running a marathon.

"I had a two hour and fifty-something" marathon, Ryan said last week an interview. "I hurt a disc in my back, so I don’t run marathons anymore."

But the Ryan campaign confirmed to Runner's World that he has only run one marathon, the 1990 Grandma’s Marathon in Duluth, Minnesota, which he finished in just over 4 hours."

See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/01...

"A spokesman confirmed late Friday that the Republican vice presidential candidate has run one marathon. That was the 1990 Grandma’s Marathon in Duluth, Minnesota, where Ryan, then 20, is listed as having finished in 4 hours, 1 minute, and 25 seconds.

Ryan had said in a radio interview last week that his personal best was "Under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something."

See http://news.runnersworld.com/2012/08/31/...

The original lie, from his interview with Hugh Hewitt (who apparently believed him):

HH: Are you still running?
PR: Yeah, I hurt a disc in my back, so I don’t run marathons anymore. I just run ten miles or yes.
HH: But you did run marathons at some point?
PR: Yeah, but I can’t do it anymore, because my back is just not that great.
HH: I’ve just gotta ask, what’s your personal best?
PR: Under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something.
HH: Holy smokes. All right, now you go down to Miami University…

See http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/3229320...

Plenty of folks are defending his lie about "protecting" Medicare by turning it into Vouchercare, specifically about criticizing the President for the same cuts that he would make under his proposed budget, and about the President closing the Janesville GM plant while still only the Democratic nominee back in 2008.

How do those of you who support this guy defend this lack of character?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams September 1, 2012 | 9:48 a.m.

My rear end handed to me?

I didn't know that particular conversation was a competition.

I had questions about publication of "news". Scott answered them quite well. The only things remaining are (a) a published copy of the letter so we can form our own opinions of the writer's intent, and (2) a forthright statement from the Missourian that...to their knowledge...no other attendee was a public official, thereby removing any remaining doubt this was partly a "gotcha" directed at our police.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams September 1, 2012 | 9:50 a.m.

How do those of you who support this guy defend this lack of character?
___________________

We're following your Bill Clinton lead?

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle September 1, 2012 | 9:50 a.m.

Yes, I'm happy about the rain. What does that have to do with nearly half the country being delusional and gobbling up lies like tasty snacks?

(Report Comment)
frank christian September 1, 2012 | 9:55 a.m.

D. Fogle & B. Brandon, two Terrified, Dem o crats! See how they run! A liberal would finish with "In Nov,they are going to be scared to death!"

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams September 1, 2012 | 10:04 a.m.

Derrick: Today is a good day to appreciate the value of "humidity", a thing we love to hate although it is the only thing standing between us and a desert.

We'll return to "delusional" tomorrow.

(Report Comment)
frank christian September 1, 2012 | 10:16 a.m.

"We're following your Bill Clinton lead?"

From the book, Sell Out authored by a Democrat, from the explanation of Clinton & Gore running thousands of immigrants through their INS with no test or investigation and swearing them in as U.S. citizens, 50,000 at a time in 3 U.S. cities. Page 49, last sentence in first paragraph, reads: "In the meantime, thousands of criminals are now citizens of the United States because it was assumed they would vote for Bill Clinton and Al Gore."

A little on the character of a couple of Democrats.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 1, 2012 | 10:16 a.m.

So Michael apparently has no problem with Ryan's lying. Neither does Frank, for that matter.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams September 1, 2012 | 10:22 a.m.

Bob: No, I have problems with all lies, including any you come up with.

But, for now, I'm sitting on my front porch with a laptop, sweating a bit in the humidity, waiting for more rain from the west, watching the hummers convert sucrose into fat for a long flight south, listening to the trees drip water, watching a squirrel plant nuts I'll have to pull out next spring, boiling a pork loin to make tamales, looking at great pics from:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28...

and, with 3 empty chairs around me, trying to convince Barack, Joe, and Nancy that it is simply impossible for me to do to myself what they have asked me to do.

(Report Comment)
frank christian September 1, 2012 | 10:38 a.m.

BB - Did you somehow drive by the Clinton & Gore caper? I'm sure you'll be back to comment on it.

Ryan's comment about the GM plant was Obama telling it's workers, “I believe that if our government is there to support you, this plant will be here for another 100 years.

Terrified D's, clawing for relevance, on black ice.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 1, 2012 | 10:53 a.m.

So, Frank, why are you defending Ryan's lies?

He's already admitted lying about being a competitive marathoner.

The Detroit Times also calls out Ryan - and you, by extension - as a liar about the Janesville plant.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120...

"In fact, Obama made no such promise and the plant halted production in December 2008, when President George W. Bush was in office."

The big word is "if": The President, then as now, believed that if government was there to help GM retool that the plant could've stayed open. In 2008, that government was Bush's, not Barack Obama's, and Dubya couldn't care less. GM closed the plant before any new administration could help the workers of Janesville. The President was able to help save GM after he took office, and that's no lie.

Do you actually like pandering in lies, Frank?

(Report Comment)
frank christian September 1, 2012 | 11:57 a.m.

ABC News quoting USA Today
"In February 2008, Obama told employees at the plant “if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years,” according to USA Today."

Not pandering BB, just trying to keep lying D's in check. A near impossible task.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 1, 2012 | 12:07 p.m.

Frank, the President didn't lie at Janesville; he was expressing a hope to save GM. A hope that became reality after he took office. But not before GM closed Janesville before Obama became president.

What's your problem with defending Ryan lying about the President? There's no question that Ryan has no real integrity, with the Janesville lie, the Medicare lie, the marathoner lie, and on and on.

Why are you defending this? Why are you defending him? Why does any Republican defend him? Can you give me a coherent reason why?

I don't think you can.

(Report Comment)
Corey Parks September 1, 2012 | 12:46 p.m.

I think it is common for people to defend someone who they feel are getting a raw deal or are just being treated more badly then the other guy. I have defended or stuck up for some just because I see the media treating someone better then the other just because of the D in front of his name. Ryan could be shown to have killed someone while Romney watched and I would still side with them just because I do not see how that has any reliance to the economy of our country and I do not believe the other side can pull the US out of the downward spiral they put us in.

(Report Comment)
frank christian September 1, 2012 | 12:51 p.m.

BB - Ryan never said BO lied at Janesville.

“Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight,” Ryan continued."

As previously stated, your attempts at journalism, had been fun. Now your frantic failure to paint Paul Ryan as a liar while supporting smilin' Joe Biden, has made you just a little more than pathetic. Try something else.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams September 1, 2012 | 1:46 p.m.

Cory: "I do not believe the other side can pull the US out of the downward spiral they put us in."
___________________

I'm willing to give a businessman a 4-year try, especially one who has also been a governor and actually managed people, a budget, and money.

I think the Repubs should stress the "businessman" aspect; everything else is political fun and froth and a diversion from our real problems right now. If nothing else, a President with that background would be a refreshing break from otherwise career politicians who've never run anything except their collective mouths or a community organizing drive.

Kind of a two-fer, don'tcha think?

That's the way I'm approaching it.

PS: A President is a manager. He/she should NOT be expected to know everything and, indeed, I would shy away from a wannabe who says/infers that they do (ala. Gore). A manager understands his/her strengths/weaknesses, finds good people to support his/her strengths and correct for any weaknesses, sets goals, makes rules for his/her administration that folks may not break, sets rules for "quality" and efficiency, watches money via a budget and CFO, and rah-rahs the troops (that would be us).

Career politicians have problems with many of these. One of the best political cartoons (non-partisan, btw) was of two senators walking, with one saying to the other, "I sure hope we win the election. I'd hate to think we'd have to go into business and live with the rules we just passed."

Or somesuch.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 1, 2012 | 1:48 p.m.

Ryan sure did, Frank, not just at the RNC but also on Aug. 12:

"I remember President Obama visiting it when he was first running, saying he'll keep that plant open. One more broken promise," Ryan said.

(By the way, Frank, a broken promise is lying about what you said you would do.)

See http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/stat...

It's already well-established fact that's not what the President said on Feb. 13, 2008. Ryan indeed lied when he said that. Like he lied about being a sub-three-hour marathoner. Not someone anyone should want a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

But Ryan doubles-down on the lie in his RNC speech:

"A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: 'I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.' That’s what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight."

PolitifactWisconsin challenged the Ryan House campaign on the statement. Kevin Seifert tried to offer the same lame lie on the Feb. 13, 2008, speech. So did Brendan Buck of the Romney campaign when Seifert passed the buck to Buck.

The proper conclusion: "That's a statement of belief that, with government help, the Janesville plant could remain open -- but not a promise to keep it open... Ryan said Obama broke his promise to keep a Wisconsin GM plant from closing. But we don't see evidence he explicitly made such a promise -- and more importantly, the Janesville plant shut down before he took office... We rate Ryan's statement False."

And so it is. And so is Ryan. And so are you. And there's nothing frantic about any of it. Something about your bragadocious responses reminds me of this lyric: "his brain is squirming like a toad." See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DED812HKW..., at the 1:20 mark.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 1, 2012 | 1:52 p.m.

The same was said of President G.W. Bush in 2000. See where it got us.

"I'm willing to give a businessman a 4-year try, especially one who has also been a governor and actually managed people, a budget, and money."

(Report Comment)
frank christian September 1, 2012 | 1:54 p.m.

BB - Do you have a temperature? You may need to see someone. It may also only be, that your record is broken. Try-something-else!

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams September 1, 2012 | 1:55 p.m.

Speaking of rain.

Lol. Take a look at the rainy ring-around-the-rosie being played with Columbia at it's center.

http://www.intellicast.com/National/Rada...

It's no wonder the low pressure system made a beeline directly for us; all that rising, hot air generated hereabouts from local libs has finally created a low pressure system we've needed and wanted. All we needed was a humidity injection from the Gulf and, voila, rain.

PS: Either that, or we're a toilet bowl. Whatever the case, keep up the good work....we need 5 more inches, preferably over 5 days. I'm placing the order now.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 1, 2012 | 1:56 p.m.

(laughing) This is the best you can do? Sounds like projection to me.

"Do you have a temperature? You may need to see someone. It may also only be, that your record is broken. Try-something-else!"

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams September 1, 2012 | 2:07 p.m.

Well, if we want to rank the quality of businessmen, I'd sure rank Romney higher than Bush. So, I think we agree, which should aggravate you to no end.

And if we want to compare the backgrounds of (1) an experienced, successful businessman, (2) a community organizer who's failed with The Jimmy Carter Presidency Act II, or (3) a sedimentary rock, I know the ones I'd pick 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. (Hint, the rock is 2nd.)

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 1, 2012 | 2:16 p.m.

Romney's not so much a successful businessman as a successful vulture capitalist. The only real thing that Romney's ever manufactured is debt. Bush was successful at being a bad businessman (i.e. Arbusto); Romney's been successful at being bad for businesses.

I'd pick the rock before Romney.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams September 1, 2012 | 2:45 p.m.

Bob, actually I erred when I specifically mentioned Romney in my list. I'm not particularly happy with Romney and you know that if you've read my stuff.

I should have put: "Anybody except a liberal". Romney qualifies.....barely.

The rock would still be second.

PS: I'm voting for Romney for what I HOPE he won't do and what I hope he WILL do. I already know what the other guy will do.

It's not particularly a position I like being in. But, Romney has 66 days-or-so to make me feel better about my position.

PS: Hopefully, you see at least SOME value in venture capitalists. I sure do....lots of companies/jobs are in existence right now because venture capitalists and not banks will take on the risk and invest. However, I do agree I would not want to be in a position where I had to bring one on board. It's a control thingie. It's far better to make good decisions and not need a VC than it is to make bad decisions and need one.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams September 1, 2012 | 2:50 p.m.

Hmmmm. MU just might have a reasonably dry game tonight if the clouds rain themselves out before they get here.

This novice meteorologist sees this as a distinct possibility given data on intellicast.com; if I'm wrong, then it's because I'm a novice. If I'm right, you heard it here first and I'm one helluva expert. Send money.

I'm confident I'm a better chemist than meteorologist, tho. I never understood meteors.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams September 1, 2012 | 3:04 p.m.

Missourian: A story you might consider.

I've closely monitored the progress of Isaac, mainly the formation of rain patterns. Quite frankly, since the age of computers and animation, I've never seen what I've seen with Isaac.

And much of it I don't understand.

Watching this thing cross the Gulf, forming rain patterns to the NE, driving straight up through AK and MO, then mushrooming mainly to the NE and stagnating over east KS is quite striking. In the next few hours, we even may get to see something that is extremely rare....a storm hitting us from the south, going north a hundred miles, circling around to the west a hundred miles, and hitting us again from the west.

I suggest two things that may interest many.

(1) Put together, if you can, a North America animated view of the progress of the storm, mainly formation of rain....from the beginning SE of Cuba until it rains itself out.

(2) A meteorologist's perspective (diagrams, explanations) of what happened and why. I'm not looking for "global warming" doctrine or politics; I'm looking for why Isaac did what it did, not only with it's movements but also why rain bands formed where they did, only to mushroom over the central/east US at the end.

Amazing stuff, and if you wanted to help educate us about weather, here's a good way to do it.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams September 1, 2012 | 3:06 p.m.

PS: I'll even subscribe WITH MONEY for 6 months if you do it.

(Report Comment)
frank christian September 1, 2012 | 3:09 p.m.

B. Brandon - re: your temperature. Something is preventing you from properly digesting the words you, yourself have provided. Three out of the four sources 2, yours, 2, mine posted here show that Ryan neither said that BO lied or, that he broke a promise, about the plant. He did say, "And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.". We know that liberals will stay up nights, trying to make something derogatory out of every word spoken by Republicans. That is easier than trying to think of something that has been beneficial to Americans from the Obama bunch. I had hoped you might challenge us with absolute information. Too bad. I suppose when you've read one liberal, you've read them all.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 1, 2012 | 3:48 p.m.

Frank, I feel very sorry for you, and I'm not kidding about that: it's very hard on a person to persist in a belief that cannot possibly be true, because it cuts to the core not only of the candidate's credibility but also the credibility of the supporter's faith in the candidate. Simply denying the facts exist is no defense; you simply cannot wish away the Aug. 12 speech. I've provided many links substantiating my points; it's telling that you have expressly avoided them. You have nothing credible to say further about the matter, so you ignore the evidence.

Ryan said the President broke a promise in Ryan's campaign speech of Aug. 12; I've given you a link and a quote from Ryan. That's a false statement that both his house campaign spokesman and the spokesman for the Romney campaign attempted to pass off as true. It is a false statement that he have back-off on at the RNC, but he doubled-down on it: that's conduct that goes to intent to lie. Ryan seems to find making such factual mistakes too easy for a man with real character.

You can continue to defend a liar all you want, but it won't change the truth.

(Report Comment)
frank christian September 1, 2012 | 4:29 p.m.

BB - An answer from me to you would have to be a re-post of my last. I don't like repetition, while you clearly love it. You have only repeated yourself all day. Did you expect a different result to occur? We know what Einstein said about that. Try not to hurt yourself in your throes. When you can produce some new malarkey in your effort to sell liberalism and the Keynesian elitists that come with it, let me be the first to hear it.

What about Clinton & Gore and their criminalization of their INS. No, they tried to stay legal by ordering FBI investigations on each of the apps for citizenship. They just ran them through and swore them in before the FBI had any chance to check up on any of them. And Democrats get upset with any effort to make our elections clean.

(Report Comment)
Bob Brandon September 1, 2012 | 5:13 p.m.

Why do you refuse to address the misconduct of Mr. Ryan?

(Report Comment)
frank christian September 1, 2012 | 6:01 p.m.

Because I don't have a leg to stand on. Every liberal knows that one who would misstate his time in a race must not be trusted as VP. Give us straight tongued Joe Biden every time!

Here are 14 of his lies in one debate. http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/joe_bid...

(Report Comment)
Skip Yates September 1, 2012 | 7:28 p.m.

Don't know much about Ryan's inaccurate comment about a marathon, which is really, really significant for those folks that probably thought "I did not have sex with that woman" was simply a private matter. But, I fully understand it depends on the definition of what "is" is, thus excusable.

(Report Comment)
frank christian September 1, 2012 | 7:45 p.m.

Gosh BB, you should have already rejected this Blogger about Biden as you rejected Nat'l review. This guy winds up with,"Quite a list! That’s probably more whoppers than McDonalds served up during the same time frame." Everyone knows Burger King serves Whoppers, not McDonald's. This guy is lying!

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle September 4, 2012 | 2:45 p.m.

I imagine Ryan knocking Frank over, and stealing his walker... It would *almost* be worth it.

But, beware scorched earth policies. And politics.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams September 4, 2012 | 2:53 p.m.

"I imagine Ryan knocking Frank over, and stealing his walker... It would *almost* be worth it."
_____________________

Wow.

Right out of the Mia Love wikipedia hackbook.

You're kiddin', right?

PS: I gotta give Frank one HUGE credit. He sure gets under a lot of skin.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle September 4, 2012 | 5:22 p.m.

Sorry, I don't get the Mia Love reference. You'll have to explain if you want me to understand. Heck, I barely skimmed Frank on this thread, but it's mostly just the same old crap, so I just repeated a similar statement I've made numerous times here before. The banality of this is almost crushing.

Not for everyone, though; I guess some people can get surprised about the same thing, day after day.

Of course, my imagery of Paul Ryan screwing Frank is pure fantasy; the current crop of retirees are all for his stuff, because they still get theirs (because they worked for it), and it's the NEXT generation that gets screwed (because supposedly nobody else is currently working for it, at least certainly not hard enough, certainly not with the right attitude).

So magnanimous...

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams September 4, 2012 | 5:59 p.m.

Derrick: There's this thingie called "google".

Try "mia love wiki hacked" and pick a few.

But, you're right, tho.....I guess I shouldn't be surprised since this sort of thing happens "day after day."

You must be under 55; I can see why you're upset.

(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