Dems attack Ryan plan to privatize Social Security

Le Jimbo wrote:

<quoted text>Moron, ever war since the civil war was started by liberal.......eat a 9, save time.

The liberals did not start civil war..........WHAT A DUMB STATEMENT..........Lincoln crushed states rights and started the civil war....I am againt slavery of any kind. But most other nations ended slavery without wars... The civilw ar was about states rights NOT SLAVERY LIKE YOU WERE LIED TO ABOUT.

xnutmegger wrote:

<quoted text>
The liberal L.A. Times wrote those 20 year old claims not the conservative Wash. Post.Following which Reid's interest in some pending real estate deals disappeared.

does it matter at this point? If so, why?

Did Tom "Da Wimp" Delay serve his time in prison yet?

You want to talk about all the Republicans that have been disgraced in office?

You must if you want to bring up 20 year old stories about Reid (cause you ain't got nothing else) that never resulted in a conviction and his constituents keep electing him.

Heck Reid just beat one of the TEA Party darlings about two years ago didn't he? How bad did they have to be if they could not beat Reid who wastes money in 5-star hotels and did not all those things wrong over all those years?

Man this is great, the best you got is to brag about ONE Congressman sleeping in his office out of all the ones elected and 20-year old stroies on Reid.

ToManyLaws wrote:

<quoted text>
The liberals did not start civil war..........WHAT A DUMB STATEMENT..........Lincoln crushed states rights and started the civil war....I am againt slavery of any kind. But most other nations ended slavery without wars... The civilw ar was about states rights NOT SLAVERY LIKE YOU WERE LIED TO ABOUT.

I said SENSE MORON.......not including, but if you want to play that game, the secession of the southern states and the firing on Fort Sumpter is what started the civil war, so there again by the slavery loving liberals.

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
does it matter at this point? If so, why?
Did Tom "Da Wimp" Delay serve his time in prison yet?
You want to talk about all the Republicans that have been disgraced in office?
You must if you want to bring up 20 year old stories about Reid (cause you ain't got nothing else) that never resulted in a conviction and his constituents keep electing him.
Heck Reid just beat one of the TEA Party darlings about two years ago didn't he? How bad did they have to be if they could not beat Reid who wastes money in 5-star hotels and did not all those things wrong over all those years?
Man this is great, the best you got is to brag about ONE Congressman sleeping in his office out of all the ones elected and 20-year old stroies on Reid.

......and a Latino Tea Party candidate beat his son for the gov'ns seat in Nv.

Just comparing the Dem speak with Dem reality. I'll keep doing so don't get to twisted up about it.

Le Jimbo wrote:

<quoted text>Moron, ever war since the civil war was started by liberal.......eat a 9, save time.

according today's definition of a Liberal, that would Make Lincoln one including the Republican Party at the time which was progressive.

xnutmegger wrote:

<quoted text>
......and a Latino Tea Party candidate beat his son for the gov'ns seat in Nv.
Just comparing the Dem speak with Dem reality. I'll keep doing so don't get to twisted up about it.

Twisted up about what? We were talking about Harry and the only way you could gain any traction in your mind was to divert to someone else.

That shows pretty clear how wimpy your Congressman sleeping in his office compared to Reid was.

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>according today's definition of a Liberal, that would Make Lincoln one including the Republican Party at the time which was progressive.

Yes and men have more babies than women........controling definitions and verbage is the prefered ploy of the libs today.

okb2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Twisted up about what? We were talking about Harry and the only way you could gain any traction in your mind was to divert to someone else.
That shows pretty clear how wimpy your Congressman sleeping in his office compared to Reid was.

so you're not much of a multitasker huh?

Le Jimbo wrote:

<quoted text>Yes and men have more babies than women........controling definitions and verbage is the prefered ploy of the libs today.

I know what your saying about today's so called Liberals, which is why I say their Bigots. FDR is the one that gets credit for redefining the Liberal in US which is a Pseudo Liberal and the word Psuedo means not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham where as a Classical Liberal is an individual that advocates limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, individual liberties including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets. FDR & his New Deal Programs like Social Secuity would be rejected by a Classical Liberal.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pseudo

Classical Liberal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_libera...

When the GOP proposes a plan to fix either medicare or SS, which are both going broke, the democrats attack it.

Why don't we ever hear of the GOP attacking the democrats plan to fix either SS or medicare?

Caution: trick question

JDC wrote:

When the GOP proposes a plan to fix either medicare or SS, which are both going broke, the democrats attack it.
Why don't we ever hear of the GOP attacking the democrats plan to fix either SS or medicare?
Caution: trick question

Obama has not put plans on paper to be held accountable to. He only aludes to things in speeches which change on a daily basis or when the teleprompter is reloaded.

Le Jimbo wrote:

<quoted text>Yep, Russia didn't have tree huggers blocking the building of new more up to date refineries.....pity that.

"Tree huggers blocking the building of new more up to date refineries"?

No, that would be teabaggers and oil companies.

Wall Street Government wrote:

<quoted text>
"Tree huggers blocking the building of new more up to date refineries"?
No, that would be teabaggers and oil companies.

Duh.

We both no better.

xnutmegger wrote:

<quoted text>
Duh !
I know all about the Koch ( Coke) bros.
The Tea Party welcomes their money to support meetings and educational material but also a fire break is maintained.
What LEFTY ( WS Gov't)doesn't tell you is one of the Koch bros. lives in NYC , a most Lib city , and he contributes $XXXXXX millions of dollars to maintaining old historic public buildings and museums. So the Koch bros. support Lib NYC and the Tea Party.
But LEFTY skips over Koch's support of NYC " INFRASTRUCTURE " and dwells on 80 YO history ( typical LEFTY ).
BTW , LEFTY money bags Geo. Soros is a convicted felon in France.

Maybe some recent socialist history of the Koch's:

You didn’t hear this on Fox News or the Drudge Report, but on October 10 Venezuela seized and nationalized a massive fertilizer plant part-owned by Koch Industries. The media silence is a bit puzzling. You’d think that the seizure of property belonging to America’s second-largest private company, owned by one of the most powerful families in the country and the bankrollers of today’s libertarian/Tea Party revolution—the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch–would be considered newsworthy. But no, even though their Venezuela plant was nationalized a whole three months ago, other than a handful of short business-wire dispatches, this has yet to make the news. Even Koch Industries has been suspiciously silent on the matter.

One reason why the Kochs could be keeping the news under wraps is that the nationalization of the fertilizer plant may appear to be bad news for Charles and David Koch, but here’s the big surprise: the Kochs made hundreds of millions on every end of this deal…and even more surprising, bond markets cheered the nationalization. In other words, the free markets championed by the Kochs gave a big thumbs-down to Kochs’ negative influence on the value of the business, while at the same time, the free-market Kochs earned huge windfalls doing business with socialists. No wonder this story hasn’t made the rounds.

Their venture in Venezuela followed the same old corporate welfare business strategy. Even as Charles Koch was publicly blaming the Venezuela’s poverty and economic woes on the country’s socialist policies, his company was taking advantage of the country’s heavily subsidized natural gas. Fertilizer production requires massive amounts of natural gas, which can account for 50 percent of operating costs and seriously eat into profit margins—unless, of course, the natural gas is subsidized by the state. And that is exactly why, in 1998, Koch Industries partnered up with two state-owned companies to build one of the biggest nitrogen-based fertilizer plants in the world. By investing $100 million—or just 10% of the $1 billion project—the Kochs were able to tap into a guaranteed supply of cheap natural gas, courtesy of the socialist Venezuelan government.

So for all the enterprising Americans out there wondering “What’s the secret to the Kochs’ success?” The answer isn’t pretty—especially if you’re one of the gullible Tea Party libertarians who believe the Kochs practice the free-market libertarianism that they preach. Their ability to reap billions and billions in profits year after year isn’t about buying low and selling high, but about buying subsidized-by-the-state, and selling subsidized-by-the-state. Using taxpayer money to cover the costs and ensure profits every time—that’s the simple formula to the Kochs’ success.

You thank Hugo for all of the Koch brothers "charity".

xnutmegger wrote:

<quoted text>
Duh.
We both no better.

Illustrating how the oil industry’s failure to invest in oil production and refining keeps gas prices artificially high, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) announced his plan today to take tax breaks away from oil companies that do not invest in new refinery capacity and upgrades.

“The consequences of the oil industry’s anti-consumer behavior are clear. When there is less refining capacity, there is less ability to turn oil into gas. When there is less gas, prices go up. When gas prices go up, oil companies make more money,” said Wyden.“It’s a ‘heads the oil companies win, tails the American consumer loses’ proposition.”

Wyden offered several examples of how oil companies have tried to systematically limit investment in refining capacity, including:

In 2004, Shell Oil tried to close its refinery in Bakersfield, California, when it claimed that there was no longer enough oil in the refinery's surrounding oil fields. Wyden and others objected to the shut down arguing that it was a deliberate effort to reduce refinery capacity. As a result of these objections, Shell sold the facility to an independent refiner, which is still profitably supplying the West Coast with fuel today.

* In March 2005, 15 workers were killed and another 170 were injured in an accident at a BP refinery in Texas City, Texas. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) concluded that the Texas City disaster was a result of "organizational and safety deficiencies at all levels of the BP corporation." The CSB found that BP had systematically cut investment in refinery safety and maintenance despite plant safety personnel warnings that a major accident was imminent.

Wyden’s proposal would prevent oil companies from taking advantage of a tax incentive for gasoline and other products they produce unless that output is from new or upgraded refineries and production facilities

Simply put, taxpayers should not be rewarding oil companies for squeezing the supply of gasoline and diesel fuel,” said Wyden.“Today, oil companies have perverse incentives to limit investment in maintaining and expanding refineries, because if they cut corners and refineries have to shut down, companies get rewarded with higher gas prices and higher profits. This behavior shouldn’t be rewarded with billions of dollars in tax breaks.”

Wyden announced that he plans to offer an amendment limiting these oil industry tax breaks during this week’s U.S. Senate consideration of major energy legislation.

Good! We have been waiting to hear the Dems plans for Social Security, so give what is your plan?

Le Jimbo wrote:

<quoted text>so you're not much of a multitasker huh?

No need to multitask on here. So many on the right would not be able handle a compound argument.

Anonymous of Indy wrote:

<quoted text>I know what your saying about today's so called Liberals, which is why I say their Bigots. FDR is the one that gets credit for redefining the Liberal in US which is a Pseudo Liberal and the word Psuedo means not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham where as a Classical Liberal is an individual that advocates limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, individual liberties including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets. FDR & his New Deal Programs like Social Secuity would be rejected by a Classical Liberal.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pseudo
Classical Liberal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_libera...

I think you are confused. The framers of the Constitution initially tried small limited government with Articles of Confederation. It did not work and they went to a central government so powerful that they had to right in safeguards (The Bill of Rihts) to protect the people from it.

They certainly accepted and approved government actions that were available in their day such as building infrastructure and education. However, it would be wise to remember that Medicine, Science, and other things were not available as we know them today.

If Medicine was available then as it is now it is at least an even bet that we would have had nationl medical care from the start. Maybe better than even.

Wall Street Government wrote:

<quoted text>
"Tree huggers blocking the building of new more up to date refineries"?
No, that would be teabaggers and oil companies.

You can't be serious.

TeabaggEEs have been driving up energy prices for decades. They line the pockets of dictators and pollute the environment by making us drill 20,000 leagues under the sea.

TeabaggEEs starve the poor and freeze little old ladies in winter.

Wall Street Government wrote:

<quoted text>
Illustrating how the oil industry’s failure to invest in oil production and refining keeps gas prices artificially high, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) announced his plan today to take tax breaks away from oil companies that do not invest in new refinery capacity and upgrades.
“The consequences of the oil industry’s anti-consumer behavior are clear. When there is less refining capacity, there is less ability to turn oil into gas. When there is less gas, prices go up. When gas prices go up, oil companies make more money,” said Wyden.“It’s a ‘heads the oil companies win, tails the American consumer loses’ proposition.”
Wyden offered several examples of how oil companies have tried to systematically limit investment in refining capacity, including:
In 2004, Shell Oil tried to close its refinery in Bakersfield, California, when it claimed that there was no longer enough oil in the refinery's surrounding oil fields. Wyden and others objected to the shut down arguing that it was a deliberate effort to reduce refinery capacity. As a result of these objections, Shell sold the facility to an independent refiner, which is still profitably supplying the West Coast with fuel today.
* In March 2005, 15 workers were killed and another 170 were injured in an accident at a BP refinery in Texas City, Texas. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) concluded that the Texas City disaster was a result of "organizational and safety deficiencies at all levels of the BP corporation." The CSB found that BP had systematically cut investment in refinery safety and maintenance despite plant safety personnel warnings that a major accident was imminent.
Wyden’s proposal would prevent oil companies from taking advantage of a tax incentive for gasoline and other products they produce unless that output is from new or upgraded refineries and production facilities
Simply put, taxpayers should not be rewarding oil companies for squeezing the supply of gasoline and diesel fuel,” said Wyden.“Today, oil companies have perverse incentives to limit investment in maintaining and expanding refineries, because if they cut corners and refineries have to shut down, companies get rewarded with higher gas prices and higher profits. This behavior shouldn’t be rewarded with billions of dollars in tax breaks.”
Wyden announced that he plans to offer an amendment limiting these oil industry tax breaks during this week’s U.S. Senate consideration of major energy legislation.

I've been watching a refinery trying to open in S.W. Az . for 5-6 years and it ain't big oil keeping them out.

It's hordes of lawyers , Fed licensing red tape , Eco freaks and Indian tribes allied with another lawyer horde.
...and the Mexican gov't wanting bribes to sell them oil.

http://www.arizonacleanfuels.com/

BTW , Wyden generally is OK by me.

As to tax breaks , when it comes to energy tax breaks one LEFTY pisses and moans to end them while The FIRST LEFTY stands in an Iowa cornfield asking for more of them.

AFAIC , level field for so called tax breaks playing favorites is playing politics with energy.

Dems like high taxes so thye can play favorites selling breaks and taking care of Cronies and Bundlers.