Monday, March 24, 2014

Seizing the Wealth


"You say you wanna a revolution?"
Well, you know,
We all wanna change the world."

John Lennon, 1968

As was the case eighty years ago, one of the the solutions to the economic quagmire we currently find ourselves wallowing in will be a massive redistribution of the wealth of the world - not just the USA - but the entire planet earth. Now there's something to look forward to, ay? The tired  old, worn-out placebo of "trickle down economics" isn't fooling anyone anymore - or at the very least - enough people have become hip to the scam. John Steinbeck once said something to to the effect that a middle class conservative was some poor bastard living under the hopeless illusion that he or she would one day be a member of the ruling class. There used to be a lot of plutocratic wannabes living in that dreamland. They're becoming as rare as Betamax videotapes. More-and-more people these days just want to get by, be comfortable, give their kids a decent education, and retire in moderate comfort. That's not really a helluva lot to expect when you think about it; in fact, it used to be the norm in this country. It will be again.

Am I waging class warfare here? You bet your ass I am. And I ain't taking no prisoners, baby!

The Frankster
Think about it: For the better part of forty years we had a succession of Liberal presidents and a series of predominantly liberal congresses (it ebbed and flowed) and the result was the greatest economy in the history of humanity. Since the early eighties, when this country took a hard turn rightward, the economic security that generations took for granted blew up in our clueless faces. KABOOM!!!

This is not a coincidence, kids. 

I've never been the kind of guy to speak for anyone but myself - and I really hate to be the bearer of nasty tidings - but like the old song says, "something's gotta give". The current economic reality we live under is unsustainable. For over thirty years, which class has been doing all the giving? There will be a brief pause while you ponder that question.


For those of you who got it right, you win a four year supply of Rice-a-Roni - The San Fransisco Treat.

You can dismiss what I say as the insane ramblings of an unhinged lefty (I get that every day) but the truth of the matter is that I'm a fairly moderate guy. It's only by the standards of these weird times that someone like me can be viewed - by anyone - as some kind of radical. You know you're living in the weirdest of alternate realities when a weak-kneed panderer to the status quo like Barack Obama is perceived by so many as a wild-eyed socialist. It really is funny when you think about it. Why don't I hear you laughing?

Here's some further commie diatribe for your entertainment pleasure: Back in the good old days, people like the Koch brothers paid a whopping ninety percent of their income in taxes. Those days are coming back. The survival of this country depends on nothing less. It's either that or die. There's nothing I love more first thing in the morning than confronting these stark realities. They really wake me up. Hi ho.

And while we're on the subject of "waking up"....

Uncle Bobby once said that a hard rain was gonna fall. It's falling now. Wake the fuck up.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY


Capitalism: A Love Story
A film by Michael Moore

Watch it if you haven't already. It's a few years old so you can pick it up relatively inexpensively. It's worth your time.


At 10:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"people like the Koch brothers paid a whopping ninety percent of their income in taxes"

How much would have Geo Soros paid in the "good old days"?

At 10:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do labor unions pay Federal Income Tax?

At 11:23 AM, Blogger The New York Crank said...

Let's remember that it wasn't 90 percent of their entire income that people like the Koch brothers paid. It was 90 percent of their income over a certain amount. Overall, the percentage was considerably less.

And still they whine from the comfort of their palaces!

Yours very crankily,
The New York Crank

At 11:52 AM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

George Soros would have paid 90%. He can afford it.

At 11:53 AM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

George Soros would have paid 90%. He can afford it.

At 1:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does Planned Parenthood pay federal income taxes?

Is George Soros an American Citizen?
Does he pay federal income taxes now.
Would he have back in the "good ole days"?

What tax rate should the income the Kennedy's receive from their trust fund be? What is it now?

Does the NAACP pay federal income taxes?

Does Code Pink pay income taxes?

Does the Rainbow Coalition pay income taxes?

Do GLAD, GLAAD and HRC pay federal income taxes?

Do the Koch Brothers and their company's pay federal income tax?
The answer is YES, they do. Regardless of the rate, they pay more than the organizations listed above.
Further, they also EMPLOYEE more than the organizations listed above. Those employees also pay taxes.

But, because they are rich & conservative, who spend their money on causes liberals oppose, they aren't paying enough taxes. Is that a backdoor attempt to stifle free speech? Is that an attempt to cause donor suppression, like the IRS has been doing over the past 4 years?

Of course not, because in the wonderful world of liberalism, one can do no bad in advancing the cause of liberalism. Do the ends justify the means?

BTW, have you ever wondered if the high tax rates might have had something to do with paying off the debt of WWII and not for the advancement of the liberal agenda?

But as I pointed out in my five point post in this blog's previous thread,(Mr. Paul's Nasty Faux Pas) the term "general Welfare" was changed to mean what it does today, only in 1936.

If I understand the NY Crank correctly, it is his/her view the the top tax rate of 90% isn't enough because with deductions, there would still enough money for the rich to live comfortably. Could it be therefore, that the unstated goal of the far liberal radical left is to create a society that had as it's base belief "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?

The truth is "the larger the slice taken by government, the smaller the cake available for everyone". The truth, is the liberal radical left would rather have the poor become poorer as long as it means the rich became poorer. That will be the results using their methods of fixing "income inequality". All would equally miserable.

At 5:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just thought you should know that

In a recently released ( report that listed the top 156 political contributors in the last 25 years, the Kochs were ranked 59th. SEIU, on the other hand, was ranked #10. The pro-abortion “Emily’s List” was #21.

Chuck Schumer, a guy who gets so much money from Wall Street (Goldman Sachs #7 on the list, JP Morgan Chase #15 on the list, Citigroup #18 on the list) hopes to tie the Kochs around the neck of the Tea Party. In a speech a couple months ago, Schumer repeatedly referred to the “Tea Party Elites.

The Koch brothers, ranked 59th on this list of political donors, donate money that they earn from their business. It’s their money.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees donate money they confiscate from their union members (union members, who, by the way, are paid through the taxes of the residents of a state, county or municipality). And the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is ranked at #2.

In other words, taxpayers (some of whom are Tea Party folks, many of whom would never donate a penny to Democrats) are seeing their tax dollars used as contributions to the Democrat Party to the tune of over sixty million dollars since 1989.

The Kochs have donated just over eighteen million dollars (of their own money) since 1989.

No Democrat has demonized Michael Bloomberg for sinking millions of dollars into campaigns for pro-gun control Democrats in the last year.

No Democrat has a problem with the twenty-four million dollars Time Warner has contributed over the last 25 years — mostly because 72% of that twenty-four million went to Democrats.

Puts the whole Koch brothers thing into perspective, doesn’t it?

At 7:38 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...


According to the worldmap.php showing the 10 latest locations of visitors to your website, you are #1 in PATAGONIA!


At 8:35 AM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

How many years in prison should a person get if they voted 6 times for Bush?

At 9:31 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Tom, do you see the tension in your argument?

On the one hand, you describe a failing government.

On the other, you advocate diverting more money from the private sector to said failing governement.

Also, 90% isn't a tax. It is confiscation - no matter your income level. That's the plain fact. It is scandalous for a man to think otherwise. Any government that would see fit to take 90% of ANYONE'S possession is not a government I want anything to do with.

At 10:45 AM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Before the "back to the future" higher tax gang get's too far into their bubble cult dream, some facts need to be provided.

year tax rate hi/low rev as % of GDP
51-63 20/91 7.7
64-81 14/70 8.0
82-86 11/50 8.3
88-90 15/28 8.1
91-92 15/31 7.8
93-96 15/39.6 8.0
96-02 15/39.6 9.0

Today's government spending levels are too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must be cut!

President Kennedy announced his bold plan to introduce permanent, across-the-board, top-to-bottom tax cuts for both individuals and corporations to help the economy grow and prevent a recession. Kennedy argued that tax reform was “long-needed” because both “logic and equity” demanded tax relief for Americans. Further, Kennedy predicted that the dollars released from taxation would create new jobs, new salaries, and spur economic growth and an expanding American economy, thereby creating more jobs and higher tax revenues. He was exactly right.

Kennedy’s supply-side tax cuts were enacted in 1964 after he was assassinated, and by 1965 the top personal income tax rate was cut to 70% and corporate income tax rates were also reduced. The Kennedy tax cuts did help expand the economy, resulting in a 106-month economic expansion during the 1960s, which was the longest expansion in U.S. history at that time. Individual income tax revenues grew by 85% from 1965 to 1970 and corporate tax revenues grew 29%, as Kennedy predicted.

Don't forget that following Kennedy was the New Dealer President LBJ, who waged an "unpaided for war" in Vietnam and the War on Poverty IE; his"Great Society". Funded by the increased rev resulting from the Kennedy Tax cut from the wonderful 91% so missed by liberals today.

At 2:36 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

"For over thirty years, which class has been doing all the giving?"

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, it is not middle-income families.

According to their data, from about 1955 to 1980 middle-income average federal income tax rate steadily increased. And from 1980 to 2008 it steadily decreased to below 1955 levels. And since 2008 it has been back on the increase to roughly back to the the 1955 levels.

So, there is a good argument to be made possibly that the 2000 cuts were too deep and ill-advised and we are re-correcting from 2008 to now, but I don't think we can make the claim that the middle class has been hurt over the past 35 years by federal tax policy - they arguably have fared better.

As I have mentioned MANY times, the taxes you don't see in the debauching of the curency that has been taking place far outpaces any federal tax policy decisions. Truth-be-told, that is what has hurt all of us far worse and will continue to.

Further federal confiscation of wealth is not the answer. In fact, what I've read on the topic indicates that the reality was that very little of the 90% tax bracket money was ever collected due to shelthers and tricks that the rich will ALWAYS have at their disposal. It might be a political statement (and bad one at that) but would likely have little real impact.

At 2:40 PM, Blogger Rain Trueax said...

Except they didn't, Tom. They had a lot of ways to avoid it. That was only the official tax rate. I don't know how many liberals think as you do but they figured this out sometime back and if everything gets divvied up, you will also have much less than you do. Nowhere has communism been proven to work for long. So I, as a left of middle moderate, would support tax rates that were up to 50% but not more. And then make it so the deductions and offshore hiding doesn't work. If the Koch brothers paid that much, we'd be way ahead of where we are. Not only do those like me not support a confiscatory tax rate, but we don't trust the government that much to manage it once they get it. It's never happening but getting rid of the ways the rich evade even 50% that might happen. But only if the left looks like they are logical human beings not demagogues.

At 3:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But only if the left looks like they are logical human beings not demagogues."

I couldn't agree with you more! Well said.

At 7:08 PM, Anonymous Mona Charon said...

The Democratic playbook consists of little beyond character assassination. The "war on women" is empty of content. What are the specific Republican policies that comprise this war? Legalizing wife beating? Swathing women in burkas? If it's opposing the "free" contraception coverage in Obamacare, well, we can discuss that. First, some "war." Second, there ain't no free lunch (or pills), as Americans are learning. Many people will pay higher premiums to cover the "free" benefits of Obamacare.

The Democratic Party is blowing smoke and burning effigies of Republicans to escape having to defend failure. Obamacare, the greatest overreach in recent American political history, was born unpopular and has graduated to reviled. The administration's other contributions to government dependency -- increasing the numbers of Americans on permanent disability, increasing the numbers of food stamp recipients, increasing the length of unemployment insurance, increasing the welfare rolls -- are also unpopular. Polling shows that large majorities believe too many Americans are dependent on government subsidies.

It is Democratic/liberal policies that have created the failing schools and dysfunctional governments in major American cities like Detroit, Chicago and Los Angeles, and that are leading blue states into bankruptcy. It is Democratic liberalism that is presiding over the diminution of American military and diplomatic power in the world. And it is Democratic liberal policies that are trapping millions in poverty.

At 8:45 AM, Blogger Janie Morris said...

I really like your blog...can't seem to find a link to "follow"...Help!

At 8:47 AM, Blogger Janie Morris said...

Is there a way to follow your blog? I really like it, but cannot seem to locate the magic button. I'm old and dumb.

At 8:50 AM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

Hello, Janie....

For some reason, there is no way to "follow" this blog - at least as far as I can tell. I've been trying to figure this out for some time. Perhaps someone could help us here?

All the best,


At 12:37 PM, Anonymous KanaW said...

Hi, Tom,
I just checked the user's guide and found that there's a "gadget" to allow people to get email notifications:

The Follow by Email gadget provides blog authors a simple way for their readers to subscribe to the latest hot-off-the-press updates, which are delivered directly to the reader’s inbox. When new blog content is published, all subscribed readers will receive a daily email notification of the new published posts, which includes a copy of the new content as well as links back to the actual posts.

To enable Follow by Email, click the Add a Gadget link from the Design | Page Elements tab, and then select the Follow by Email gadget which should be at the top of the list. Once you add the gadget, readers visiting your blog can then just enter their email address and click Submit.

Hope that helps!


At 1:25 PM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

I can't find the user's guide anywhere. I'm not as savvy as I should be.

At 7:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Latest AP poll shows ONLY 29% of Americans favor Obama care, even after President Obama has changed the law 38 times. Changes to a TAX law without the House being asked to approve.
And to think, liberals here have stated that conservatives were antidemocratic. Talk about living in the bubble cult of the dangerous radical extreme far left wing liberals.

At 8:51 PM, Anonymous KanaW said...

Hi, Tom,
Here's a link for what should be an easy way to add it (I hope it works, anyway; I don't have a blogger acct)

At 10:10 PM, Anonymous Dave Dubya said...

A recent Tweet to my iPhone at the Prison summed it up nicely for me:

Socialism is people lined up for bread.

The free market is bread lined up for people.

At 11:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Communism is the goal of socialism

At 11:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And you wonder why liberals want to raise taxes.

"As part of its plan to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, the Obama administration is targeting the dairy industry to reduce methane emissions in their operations.'

Belching and flatulence are being targeted.

At 7:06 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

I see anonymous is still getting all his info from Fox news.

At 7:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You see wrong Mozart.

At 7:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey thinks President Barack Obama, a fellow Democrat, was re-elected in 2012 because he ‘sucked less’ than former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

The Nebraskan straight-talker told MailOnline in an exclusive interview that Obama isn’t up to the job of bringing liberals and conservatives to the table to rescue America’s slowly choking entitlement programs.

And Obama, he said Wednesday in his Manhattan office, knew full well he was lying when he promised that the Affordable Care Act would allow Americans to keep insurance plans they liked.

‘He had to know he was misleading the audience,’ Kerrey said quietly, recalling the newly minted president’s countless promises as Congress and the public debated his signature health insurance overhaul.

On the other hand, he may have said it so many times,’ he added, ‘that the spell-checker wasn’t in the room – the spell-checker, the fact-checker – somebody who says, “Excuse me, Mr. President, but I hope you know this…”‘

At 9:30 AM, Anonymous Barnie Sanders said...

Dave Dubya, thanks for the post about my possible running for President to support working families and fight the Koch brothers who control AmeriKa.

I know I will get at least 2 votes from you and Jefferson's Jockstrap.

We are 2 kindred communists!

At 12:10 PM, Anonymous Just Sayin said...

Why haven’t Republicans pledged to end corporate welfare as we know it?

Part of the explanation is that too many politicians have gotten confused about the difference between free-market capitalism and crony capitalism.

Democrats love welfare of any kind and seem to relish the idea of making big business government-dependent.

President Obama, with his stimulus plans and his green-energy giveaways, has been a master at that.

At 3:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Democrats love welfare of any kind and seem to relish the idea of making big business government-dependent

Some call that type of relationship between govt and big business Fascism.

At 7:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Despite shelling out $52 million in only three months to promote the Affordable Care Act, support for President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law hit a new low, a new poll shows.

The Associated Press-GfK survey, released Friday, found that only 26 percent of Americans support Obamacare, while 43 percent disapprove of the law. Support for the law has dwindled since it was officially passed in March 2010, when 41 percent of Americans were in favor of the Affordable Care Act.

The survey’s findings come as the deadline to enroll in Obamacare’s exchanges quickly approaches. Though the Obama administration announced earlier this week it would be extending the deadline to enroll through mid-April — for people who experienced difficulty using — enrollment figures still fall well short of the White House’s projections.


At 11:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah let's seize the wealth and give it to the poor!!

MIAMI (CBSMiami) — The search is on for a South Florida couple who authorities said were living a lavish lifestyle while collecting food stamps.

Prosecutors are describing Colin Chisholm,III and his wife Andrea as, “rich folks ripping off the system.”

Authorities said the couple got $167,000 in welfare from the state of Minnesota while living in Palm Beach on a $1.2 million yacht.

“I’ve never ridden in a yacht that nice. I bet most of us haven’t, but they were living on it while they were collecting public assistance,” said Mike Freeman of the Hennepin County Attorney.

The Chisholms are charged with wrongfully obtaining public assistance. Prosecutors said over the years they fraudulently collected medical assistance, welfare payments and food stamps.

They also allegedly lied about where they were living, who they were living with and their source of income.

The couple, who reportedly insisted on being called lord and lady, is also accused of failing to report $3 million deposited in their bank accounts.

Andrea ran a high end kennel and entered dogs in fancy dog show. She is accused of using $60,000 of public assistance money for massages at a spa.

The couples alleged scam ran from January 2005 to March 2012. At times they were allegedly collecting welfare benefits in both Florida and Minnesota, at the same time.

It’s something former neighbors back in Minnesota found shocking.

“It astonishes me. I had no idea that this could ever really happen,” said former neighbor Callie King.

If they’re convicted, the Chisholms could face up to 20 years in prison.

They first have to get caught. Authorities said they have reason to believe the couple fled the U.S. and may be hiding out some place where it’s warm and keeping a low profile.

130% of the poverty level in NY is over $90,000 a year.

"A zebra does not change it's spots"
Al Gore

At 12:34 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

I’m glad Chuckie refers to as a reliable source.

They tell us:

Since 2000, the Kochs and people and political action committees associated with the company have donated:

Contributions to candidates: $2,155,640
Contributions to Leadership PACs: $602,000
Contributions to parties: $533,523
Contributions to 527 committees: $2,392,729

Not to mention over $10,000,000 in lobbying for just last year.

And there's:

Koch-backed political coalition, designed to shield donors, raised $400 million in 2012

Kind puts Soros and the twenty-four million dollars Time Warner has contributed into perspective, doesn't it?

And now billionaire Adelson has GOP presidential candidates flocking to him for his political anointing and financial blessings.

GOP = Party of, by, and for the rich. Everyone not understanding this fact are chumps.

The Democratic playbook consists of little beyond character assassination.

Projection, proven to be a Con-servative tactic again and again,

Right, fake commie "Dave Dubya"?

Right, fake commie "Bernie Sanders"?

Right, real asshole Chuckie?

Pure evil at work for the radical fascist Right. There's no other word for the hate and dishonesty from such a racist servant of mammon.

Make no mistake, evil must be called out as evil. Why else would he need to quote Lenin and play the commie card all the time?

Why else would he lie and deceive all the time?

Why else would he copy and paste his racist Klan jokes?


And he hates us. He hates everyone who disagrees with his fanatic cult. We can practically see the tingle up his leg he gets from repeatedly spewing his hate.

At 3:02 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Let’s not forget the Koch Kartel Korruption at the local level.

Elections in Wisconsin’s Iron County have always been down-home affairs: an ad in the Iron County Miner newspaper, some leaflets dropped at the door, maybe a hand-painted yard sign.

This year, that’s changed. Determined to promote controversial mining projects — and to advance Gov. Scott Walker’s agenda — a group backed by the billionaire Koch brothers has waded into Tuesday’s competition for control of the Iron County Board.

With dubious “facts” and over-the-top charges, the Wisconsin chapter of Americans for Prosperity is pouring money into the county — where voter turnout in spring elections rarely tops 1,500 — for attack ads. Small-business owners, farmers and retirees who have asked sensible questions about the impact of major developments on pristine lakes, rivers, waterfalls and tourism are dismissed as “anti-mining radicals” who “just want to shut the mines down, no matter what.”

Iron County is debating whether to allow mining, not whether to shut mines down. And many of the candidates the Kochs and their allies are attacking have simply said they want to hear from all sides.

But those details don’t matter in the new world of Big Money politics ushered in by U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have cleared the way for billionaires and corporations to buy elections.

At 3:38 PM, Anonymous James Hansen said...

Looks like Jeb Bush will be the next POTUS. Hillery will be his opponent but to me there is not much daylight between them as far is politics go.

And the United States will continue to spiral down, down down.

At 4:08 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

In 2010, Rick Snyder promised the people of Michigan not to raise taxes. But after he was elected, Snyder cut $1 billion from local schools and raised taxes on pensions, homeowners, and middle class families – all to pay for a $1.8 billion tax giveaway to corporate special interests like the Koch brothers.

At 5:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the goal of confiscating the wealth of others is to prevent them expressing their opposition to the policy's of the left?

I get it.

At 6:19 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

First off Anonymous, it's "policies", and second, I think the corporations and people like the Koch Bros have "confiscated" enough wealth in this country, they can give a little back. You are so obsessed with Soros yet he's not even worthy of mention compared to the Koch Bros.

At 8:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No president can win ’em all, but Obama’s foreign-policy record is unblemished by success. From east to west and north to south, America’s standing and influence have declined universally.

It is impossible for a US president to be irrelevant, but Obama is testing the proposition.

Obama's chickens are coming home to roost, and what a mess they are making.

Obama’s sixth year in the White House is shaping up as his worst, and that’s saying something. He’s been in the Oval Office so long that it is obscene to blame his problems on George W. Bush, the weather or racism. Obama owns the world he made, or more accurately, the world he tried to remake.

Nothing important has worked as promised, and there is every reason to believe the worst is yet to come. The president’s casual remark the other day that he worries about “a nuclear weapon ­going off in Manhattan” inadvertently reflected the fear millions of Americans have about his leadership. Not necessarily about a bomb, but about where he is taking the country.

We are racing downhill and he is stepping on the gas. Will he stop before the nation crashes?

“This is insane: in the world President Obama lives in, college football teams are now unions, and government is paying for maternity coverage for 18 year old boys. It might be funny if it were not such a blatant attack on the American idea of a private sector,” said Nebraska senatorial candidate Ben Sasse in a new promotional video called “Pregnant Football Players.”

Poll: Iraq And Afghan War Vets Overwhelmingly Prefer George W. Bush Over Obama As Their Commander In Chief…

At 8:36 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Iraq And Afghan War Vets Overwhelmingly Prefer George W. Bush Over Obama As Their Commander In Chief…

That should comfort the dead and their families.

Funny how two of Bush's FOUR TRILLION DOLLAR major failures are an argument about Obama's "failure". Yes, the guy that issued the SUCCESSFUL high risk order to kill bin-Laden. That's what the bubble cult considers "unblemished by success".

Who's bin-Laden,anyway, right, boys? And who's Khadaffi, anyway? Some dictator Bush overthrew? Less than ten Americans were killed in Libya. Compare that to Iraq for some real failure.

Iraq is now allied with Iran. Afghanistan is still Afghanistan.

And not one American is safer from terrorism.

In case anybody forgot, the other multiple TRILLION DOLLAR Bush failure was the Great Bush Recession and decline that still leaves Americans economically devastated. Yep, that's what Bush left us. And we still haven't recovered. Never will, thanks the the GOP and cowardly corpo-dems.

Yet, still the economy is in way better shape than what Bush left us.

Better blame the black guy for not fixing it all, over the obstruction by a party dedicated to assuring the black guy's failure.

Because you see, none of this is Bush's fault. Nope not a bit.

Who's Bush, anyway, right, boys?



At 8:36 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Sounds like somebody had a bad shift at the prison.

At 8:49 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Who's that, Chuckie?

Someone who can detect a CON'S(both kinds) BS a mile away?

I'm having a great day.

Nothing important has worked as promised

Despite insurance corporations pulling policies from under people, (yes corporations, not Obama) many, many more Americans are getting cheaper and better insurance.

Even that Michigan woman the Koch's paid to lie is getting a better deal now.


At 9:55 PM, Anonymous AtheistLib said...

Funny that anonymous has to post as multiple screen names. Like no one thinks they aren't the same moron.

At 11:46 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

No AtheistLib, what's funny is how you and DD have yet to figure out when I post by looking at the map showing the ip locations of those who visit Tom's blog. With a little (gasp) work you can figure when I post, and when those who are posting as anonymous or under Davies name or Barnie name post. By doing so I've figure out that Dave lives near Detroit, that Harley lives s.w. of KC, that Mozart lives in IA, east of Des Moines. Only reason I care is when some one fakes Davies name I can check the map to see if a spot on the map has shown up around I'd guest Ann Arbor or Detroit...

So while you may get your rocks off like Davie does by cussing me out and accusing me of being a racist, etc etc, etc, I think it's a hoot when I blamed or credit for something I didn't say!

Now what I think is not funny is the fact that you are an atheist. May God bless you, despite yourself.

At 6:44 AM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Hey Chuck, can you provide even one scrap of credible, measureable, observable evidence that ANY "God" actually exists? I'll answer that for you. NO YOU CAN'T.

At 11:33 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Mozart, I'd ask you to please provide proof for your version of why the universe exists as well. For Chuck to believe in an eternal uncreated Creator of all that exists is 100% rational and credible. In fact, at the end of the day, it is the ONLY rational and credible explanation.

At 11:37 AM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

Last year ICE reported nearly 722,000 encounters with illegal or criminal immigrants. But ICE officers filed immigration charges against less than 195,000 aliens.

“According to ICE personnel, the vast gap between the number of encounters reported and the number of aliens put on the path to removal exists because officers are not permitted to file charges against aliens who do not fall into the administration’s narrowly defined criteria for enforcement, regardless of the criminal charges or the circumstances in which the alien was identified,”

ICE reports that the Obama Administration released 35% or 68,000 convected criminal aliens back into the general population in 2013 that could have been deported.

Is this why Democrats don't want voter ID laws? Do those who have been released qualify for the benefits of the 'general welfare" clause? Does my pointing this out and asking these questions mean I'm a racist?

Anyone want to give me the odds on this information being twisted into a rant about the evil racists rich, who worship at the foot of their wealth manna, and are filled with hate for the "little people: and wouldn't be upset if the illegals were white skinned instead of brown and have been brainwashed by FOX News, and the Koch brothers?

Got a better one for you Mozart, give me one scrap of credible, measureable, observable evidence that ANY "God" doesn't exist.

At 3:27 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Chuck to believe in an eternal uncreated Creator of all that exists is 100% rational and credible.

I would say this is your subjective truth. It is your accepted "explanation".

Perhaps you can understand how insulting that would be to many rational and credible people. It's at the least a huge stretch in definitions for the words rational and credible. Young children and the delusional, hallucinating, mentally ill also share that "rational and credible" belief, despite not being rational and credible.

If one may believe God is, because He is, then one can also believe the universe is, because it is.

It's called faith for a reason.

And faith takes a leap over reason and credibility. In other words, we don't know the answers, but may only believe we do.

Chuckie's demand for proof of a negative is neither rational nor credible. Nobody has proven or disproved the existence of God. Chuckie also believes in "death panels" and that liberals are commies. And we all know Chuckie hates "commies". Beliefs do not make them true.

What if Chuckie believes the universe is 6,000 years old? What if one believes eating pork and shrimp are sins leading to eternal suffering and damnation?

Those would be opinions or beliefs, not rational and credible facts. These opinions or beliefs dismiss rational and credible science. They are not as rational and credible as the freezing point of water, or other scientifically proven facts.

Beliefs without evidence are still beliefs, even religious ones. One may even perceive what one believes to be evidence. Others will disagree.

"faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"

If religious beliefs were objectively and measurably 100% rational and credible, we'd all belong to the same church. There would be no atheists.

And if we are all children of God, as I believe, then some of us will have a lot of hate to explain.

Hate usually has false beliefs and willful blindness at its core.

Perhaps a question for us to consider would be: If Christ is the answer, why are many Christians so hateful?

I would submit that despite their faith, they hold to the false beliefs and blindness that nurture their hate. Could one of those beliefs be one that says those who don't share their beliefs are irrational and not credible?

Humans of all faiths and cultures are all too quick to assign the worst of characteristics to those they don't understand, are different, or who simply disagree with them.

I include myself in this, so please don't take it personally.

I think it's a residual trait in the primitive part of the brain we humans are still struggling to overcome.

I hope you see that point as rational and credible. ;-)

At 4:36 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

"If one may believe God is, because He is, then one can also believe the universe is, because it is."

I don't agree with you - absolutely not. Few would say that the universe is a rational, personal entity capable of ex nihilo creation (some kooks, may, I don't know). But, in fact, the current scientific understaing posits quite the opposite...except when it comes to unfounded philosophies on how the cosmos came into being in the first place. At that point, modern "science" has allowed itself quite a bit of non-scientific freedom in postulating all manners of off-the-wall theories to explain what is unexplainable in a system where God has been a priori expunged from the equation. I never said I believed that God is because He is - I said (in this context) that I believe He is because the universe is, though not merely for that reason.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." - Romans 1:18-23

So, what this passage is teaching is also a great truth. Atheism is not an intellectual problem - it is a moral one. It is rebellion - not lack of intellectual credulity.

"Perhaps you can understand how insulting that would be to many rational and credible people."

Mozart asked for proof. I asked him for the same. My point being, he asks for what he cannot himself provide. Sometimes the truth is insulting to our sensibilities - that I cannot help. I try my best not to give the truth in an insulting way, but if the truth itself insults, that also is a subjective issue...

At 4:51 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

"If Christ is the answer, why are many Christians so hateful?"

Because becoming a Christian does not make you perfect, is the short answer. Look up the terms sanctification and justification, I think they will answer your question the best. Christians are sinners.

As for hate, you have to believe that God is perfect and hates that which goes against his will, IE sin. Therefore God is fully able to hate. The proof that God loves is the fact that a world of people that sin against Him, He still provides rain, sunshine, or the things that allow mankind to live on earth. IE general grace. Look up "specific grace" to see how Christians view God, who is called love, that also hates the very imperfection in all of mankind, yet doesn't destroy the earth and all of humanity with it.

At 6:13 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

"If one may believe God is, because He is, then one can also believe the universe is, because it is."

I don't agree with you - absolutely not.

Belief in God because the universe exists also fits this statement. And I even share that sentiment, although I cannot say it is rational and credible as science. People can, and do, believe almost anything for any reason.

I understand your point, but your agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. I’m, just stating the nature of beliefs.

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth”

So how would this apply to those who insist the universe is 6000 years old, as they hate and regard as evil those who disagree? How does this apply to the persecution and suppression of those who first dared say the earth was not the center of the solar system?

Divine double standards?

We are not saved by acts. We are not saved by churches. We are not saved by religion. We are not even saved by beliefs. We are saved by a grace. All too many believe that merely agreeing with the words of scripture, or those of a church leader, makes them saved. They take that belief alone as moral superiority, despite the hate they continue to hold in their hearts.

Sociopaths and unrepentant killers may well believe what you believe. Lucifer “believed” too, right?

We are saved by grace. A grace, I dare say, that transcends all dogma and rules of diet.

So Chuckie,

God hates shrimp too, right? Or did He change his mind? Neither quite qualifies as perfection.

Perhaps there’s a difference between claiming to be the word of God, and actually being the word of God. I’m skeptical of a hateful God. I would like to think He should be above that.

Because becoming a Christian does not make you perfect, is the short answer... Christians are sinners

Yes, and I would submit that despite their faith, they hold to the false beliefs and blindness that nurture their hate. That is their imperfection and path to sin. And I would also suggest it’s the reason you hate liberals and believe they are commies.

My Christian upbringing taught me to love my enemies. It’s not easy, but if you believe we are all children of God, then that is what we should try to do. Right?

God, who is called love, that also hates the very imperfection in all of mankind, yet doesn't destroy the earth and all of humanity with it.

Then you must believe He hates his own creation, His children, so much He has wiped them out by flood. Was that a mistake? A big divine “Oops, sorry, I got carried away”?

If you believe God hates so much, maybe something like the Westboro Baptist Church would be your kind of spiritual path. They love to demonstrate who “God hates”.

Again, perhaps there’s a difference between claiming to be the word of God, as many have claimed, and actually being the word of God. If such a possibility exists it will be denied by people of beliefs, but not by rational and credible people.

One would have been executed as a heretic to say this in the not too distant past, or in some places, even in the present day. Thank God we are not a theocracy.

At 6:43 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

DD -

Too much to respond to in a blog...
you are very confused on Christian doctrine and orthodoxy I think, but would obviously be better discussed in person and not on a blog.

"We are saved by grace. A grace, I dare say, that transcends all dogma and rules of diet."

A dogmatic statement, no?

At 7:17 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

A dogmatic statement, no?

LOL! If one person's statement about what "transcends all dogma and rules of diet" can be dogma, then I suppose it is.

I agree, too much to discuss here. I'd love to chat with you over some beer sometime. I think we agree on enough things to be civil, and disagree enough for it to be interesting.

you are very confused on Christian doctrine and orthodoxy...said the Pope to Galileo.

If I only had a buck for every time that was brought up at a witch trial or Inquisition. ;-)

Indeed, I would have been executed as a heretic.

I am Christian as far as I try to follow the teachings and commandments, and emulate the examples, of Jesus. Yes, that is unforgivable heresy to many, but it works for me and God.

I'm definitely not the "churchy" type, although I have attended services of many faiths. I get the gist of it. I just prefer to think for myself rather than conform my beliefs and thought to any individual church. If that is a sin, then at least I stand in good historical company with others who faced the scorn of Pharisees, priests, and other institutional voices of authority.

At 1:59 AM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...

My Christian upbringing taught me to love my enemies. It’s not easy, but if you believe we are all children of God, then that is what we should try to do. Right?

Sorry but I do not believe it is right.

Bible instructs us to love God as we love ourselves and then love our neighbors. Maybe you can share the passage in the Bible where it says we are to love our enemies. Also, where does it say we are all children of God? I cant find either one.

At 9:39 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Matthew 5:44
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

The Lord’s Prayer:

“Our Father…”

You're welcome.

At 12:53 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Yep, I was about to reference that verse. Would also be indicated in the parable of the Good Samaritan...

Definitely are to love those who hate us.

BUT, the Bible does not teach universalism, either, DD. As far as God hating, that may be semantic. God certainly will punish - whether he "hates" in a literal fashion (and not in idiomatic way) is a theologically debatable matter and one I'm not sure on. At the end of the day, though, you'd have to ignore much of Jesus' teachings to believe there is salvation for all regardless their position with Him. He made very exclusive claims in that regard...

At 4:00 PM, Blogger Chuck Morre said...


You have proved me wrong.
I love you and bless you.

At 1:49 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Chuck, you know very well that one cannot prove a negative. However, with you claiming the positive the burden of proof is on YOU, not me. All you did was make an excuse as usual, and a bad one at that. I will say that to date there is not one scrap of credible measurable, observable, evidence that any "god" exists. So I'd say my "claim" is more credible.

At 1:53 PM, Blogger Mozart1220 said...

Harley, just because science does not have ALL the answers (yet) does not mean it MUST be a supernatural "God". That's like saying "Someone keeps adding firewood to my pile behind the house. I can't find any evidence so far of who is placing it there. God MUST be creating more to help me heat my home"

There is ample evidence of the "big bang", and no evidence whatsoever of a "God" creating the universe in 6 days.

At 10:06 PM, Blogger Harley A. said...

Mozart, your example proves the innate logic of my argument.

Notice you didn't say "firewood keeps piling up spontaneously behind my house with no apparent cause..."

As any clear-thinking person would, you assume "someone" is piling it there and your problem is to find out "who" is doing it - in other words, what intelligent agent with a purpose is organizing firewood behind your house.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home