4/16/2011 10:59:17 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, he burned bridges when he mentioned that there were to factors to the deficit reduction equation - spending, and revenue. Unheard of! ... Shut your mouth! ... Republicans were trying so hard to make it look like a single factor equation. "Everything was on the table", except talk of taxes."

If a lack of taxes is part of the problem, then why is it that we have roughly the same amount of revenue coming in as a pct of gdp as we pretty much always have?
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/tax-revenue-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/

Quote :

"The total tax revenue as a fraction of GDP since 1950 averages 16.9%."

but spending?
well, lets consider that the average of US gov't expenditures as a pct of GDP from 1930 to 1941 was around 8-10%. From 49-68 it's around 18%. From then until 2008, it's 20%. 2009 and 2010? 25%. No, we don't have a spending problem AT ALL. Nope, clearly we just need to raise taxes... Oh, and projections of Medicare and SS bring that up to 40% by 2070. Yep, no spending or entitlement problems WHATSOEVER.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/hist.html
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3521&type=0

[Edited on April 16, 2011 at 2:59 PM. Reason : ]

4/16/2011 2:57:54 PM

US Tax Revenue as a Fraction of GDP by Component

4/16/2011 3:06:33 PM

aaaaaaaand, sum it all up, and you get an average of about 18%. your point? Yes, corporate taxes are going down, but only because companies are fleeing the US's high taxes. and look what is conveniently increasing... entitlements!

[Edited on April 16, 2011 at 3:16 PM. Reason : ]

4/16/2011 3:15:39 PM

Quote :

"companies are fleeing the US's high taxes labor costs. and look what is conveniently increasing... entitlements"

looks like social security taxes are the same % as they were 30 years ago

4/16/2011 3:30:59 PM

yeah. companies really aren't moving their headquarters overseas, fred. how stupid of me. It's not like 60 minutes did a story on this a couple weeks ago. yeah...

4/16/2011 3:41:28 PM

tax dodging isn't a new idea either though, whether it's through overseas dodging or domestic tax loophole dodging. does this have anything to do with Obama anyways??

4/16/2011 3:51:24 PM

Quote :

"well, lets consider that the average of US gov't expenditures as a pct of GDP from 1930 to 1941 was around 8-10%. From 49-68 it's around 18%. From then until 2008, it's 20%. 2009 and 2010? 25%. No, we don't have a spending problem AT ALL. Nope, clearly we just need to raise taxes... Oh, and projections of Medicare and SS bring that up to 40% by 2070. Yep, no spending or entitlement problems WHATSOEVER."

Except the problem that people are talking about is not merely raising taxes, it’s shifting the burden away from the people who are suffering most in the depression, and shifting it towards the people who are unscathed.

If poor/middle class people are getting crushed, that only sets the stage to make things worse for EVERYONE in the future. I guess libertarians relish the idea of wealth pooling to powerful magnates who throw scraps to everyone that doesn’t conform to their ideas, but normal people don’t support this, and this is really not what the US should be aiming for, burro.

[Edited on April 16, 2011 at 4:36 PM. Reason : ]

4/16/2011 4:35:17 PM

I didn't say there wasn't a spending problem. I only said it wasn't a one factor equation. With taxes as a percent of GDP at a 50 year low - particularly for companies and top 10% wage earners - and an ever increasing income gap (see graphs), it was refreshing to hear someone who wasn't pretending that the equation has only one factor.

4/16/2011 5:41:27 PM

Quote :

"I only said it wasn't a one factor equation."

and I've showed something quite different. our revenues have been fairly stable. our expenditures have NOT. what part of that makes you think that lack of revenue is part of the problem?

Quote :

"I guess libertarians relish the idea of wealth pooling to powerful magnates who throw scraps to everyone"

I guess it must be great characterizing people who don't agree with you as such foolish people, but that isn't how it is.

4/16/2011 9:23:48 PM

fairly stable my ass, it has been talked about the past several years were revenue has fallen due to the depression and this year isnt expected to be any better.....people dont have jobs, no tax collection from pay.....(just one example).....

4/17/2011 2:05:35 AM

Our revenue has become more unstable as we are relying more heavily on such a small portion (the rich) to pay it. As the economy turns they tend to lose big, thus drastically cutting taxable income. CNN actually did a great piece on this.

Think about it like a business that has just one client vs one that has millions. Any change to one clients ability to spend really affects the first business but they dont even notice it at the second business.

4/17/2011 9:14:35 AM

aaronburro:

Quote :

"our revenues have been fairly stable. our expenditures have NOT"

eyedrb:

Quote :

"Our revenue has become more unstable as we are relying more heavily on such a small portion (the rich)"

Sometimes I just wonder if we have been looking at different graphs. Yes, the revenues are stable, but look at what has been propping them up: corporate revenues have been going down since the late 60's, marginal rates for the top income earners dropped in the 80s (not to mention estate taxes). Look at the graph. The only revenue item that's gone up is "social insurance" taxes ... Those are the regressive payroll deduction taxes that fall disproportionately on middle and lower wage earners. Meanwhile, the share of income that goes to the top 10% wage earners has gone from under 35% to 45%.

On the spending side (per aaronburro's data), excluding the great depression, for 60 years (from 1949 to about 2008) the spending has been between 18%-20%. That seems pretty stable (not to mention that it includes the "Great Society", where millions were lifted out of poverty). Then he throws in 2009 and 2010 as jumps in spending - remember, the corporate bailouts. Please! Money to those "too big to fail". As if that wasn't brazen enough, there is a proposal now is to gut Medicaid and SS, because the projections are that they will cost too much. Cost to much? Increased revenues from that group are the only reason the income has remained stable! ... The two-faced Republican's say they hate "social redistribution of wealth", but it just seems to be a game of, "Let's think of more ways we can we move money upward." ... What's next, pitting American wage earners against the lowest earners in the world? ... Oh, wait ... Done that already.

Yes, I do believe that both factors in the equation need to be looked at.


[Edited on April 17, 2011 at 10:11 AM. Reason : *~<]BO]

4/17/2011 10:06:38 AM

Nearly half of California's income taxes before the recession came from the top 1% of earners: households that took in more than $490,000 a year. High earners, it turns out, have especially volatile incomes—their earnings fell by more than twice as much as the rest of the population's during the recession. When they crashed, they took California's finances down with them.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704604704576220491592684626.html

^and we do have to reform entitlements. Im not saying we push sick people out of hospitals, but we can certainly stop paying for color contacts, braces, and erection meds. And yes, even not cover chemo for a 90 yr old. (although they are free to pay for it)

Oh, and we had a 37% drop in federal income tax revenue from 2008 to 2009. That isnt what I would call stable. However, only a 1% drop in revenue of FICA, which everyone pays into. Amazing how stable/difference between the two. One progressive, the other a flat tax.

[Edited on April 17, 2011 at 10:14 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on April 17, 2011 at 10:21 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on April 17, 2011 at 10:24 AM. Reason : .]

4/17/2011 10:13:03 AM

^^Dude, you're making it way more complicated than it should be. Look at how much spending has gone up in the past ten years. Then look at exploding healthcare costs and unfunded liabilities for SS/Medicare. Raising taxes (or drastically changing the way we collect taxes) may be part of the solution, but we need the size of government to shrink. I'll never understand the ignorance among progressives that allows them to straight up ignore the structural problems of the economy, and more broadly, their blind faith in the state, which is actively working to rob all of us, regardless of ideology.

[Edited on April 17, 2011 at 10:33 AM. Reason : ]

4/17/2011 10:20:32 AM

^I agree with you.

Why is it that the two most subsidized sectors have the highest inflation? (education and healthcare) And some still think MORE govt into these industries is the answer. lol

4/17/2011 10:23:55 AM

^The answer to that is obvious to anyone that has read and understood Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, or even newer guys like Schiff, who speaks about it all the time. Progressive leaders have no answer except, "more of the intervention that has already failed," which is why they're still lost in the woods.

[Edited on April 17, 2011 at 10:38 AM. Reason : ]

4/17/2011 10:37:15 AM

^^, ^ ... You guys got data, or are you just flapping your gums ... and dropping names? ... Of course the top 1% pay more taxes ... they've got the money. I've noticed all of the graph of them and taxes use "adjusted gross income" ... They also have more access to tax breaks. In addition, people always talk about "income taxes" ... but nobody throws in "social insurance" taxes.

In terms of healthcare, yes, it sucks. We are the only industrialized country in the world without a plan to insure that all of our citizens have some minimal form of basic healthcare. We are an international embarrassment. We have the most expensive healthcare in the world, and care for the least percentage of our citizens. What is the only Republican answer, find ways to insure less people get it.

I personally have three friends with dying parents that can't afford treatment. I know it's easy to say, "well, you should have made more money man" ... But, not in a civilized society.

[Edited on April 17, 2011 at 12:50 PM. Reason : *~<]BO]

4/17/2011 12:37:03 PM

Couldn't have missed the point any more. If we keep going in this direction, the elderly and poor won't only be unable to afford healthcare, they'll be starving on the streets because their social security check can't buy a loaf of bread. Do you not understand what's at stake? Our entire budget is funded by debt. We're at the mercy of our foreign creditors.

4/17/2011 1:10:25 PM

^ I agree wholeheartedly. This outrageous deficit can not continue. I only stated the (seemingly) obvious - that there are 2 factors in the deficit equation, not just one.

At the same time, I don't see any real reform going on ... Just less of the same.

[Edited on April 17, 2011 at 1:16 PM. Reason : *~<]BO]

4/17/2011 1:14:53 PM

Quote :

"Why is it that the two most subsidized sectors have the highest inflation? (education and healthcare)"

Defense and agriculture subsidies dwarf any federal spending on education.

4/17/2011 1:16:05 PM

Quote :

"excluding the great depression, for 60 years (from 1949 to about 2008) the spending has been between 18%-20%. "

That's a bit disingenuous. From 49 to 68, it was 18%. Then the average shifted up 2%. That 2% is a huge shift, and it represents your vaunted "Great Society." Only one problem. The projection for this "Great Society" is 40% by 2070. that's almost half of our fucking economy, dude.

Quote :

"As if that wasn't brazen enough, there is a proposal now is to gut Medicaid and SS, because the projections are that they will cost too much. Cost to much? Increased revenues from that group are the only reason the income has remained stable!"

You don't get it, do you? "Stable" or not, the plan is insolvent. They are giant ponzi schemes. Such schemes look stable early on, because less people need to be paid initially. Changing away from this ponzi scheme is the only solution.

Quote :

"The two-faced Republican's say they hate "social redistribution of wealth", but it just seems to be a game of, "Let's think of more ways we can we move money upward.""

Yep, that's all it is. I just want to give more money to rich people. And I'm not rich. it can't possibly be that I realize that this redistribution of wealth is 1) immoral and 2) destined for failure. Nope, can't be that at all.

Quote :

"We are the only industrialized country in the world without a plan to insure that all of our citizens have some minimal form of basic healthcare."

Yep, and we are the nation every one flocks to in order get said healthcare. coincidence? I think not.

4/17/2011 3:57:53 PM

nvm

[Edited on April 17, 2011 at 4:06 PM. Reason : w]

4/17/2011 4:04:49 PM

Kris

Quote :

"Defense and agriculture subsidies dwarf any federal spending on education."

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

Looks like it is 20B a year in Ag subsidies and 140B in federal education spending(2010).

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

And just to back up the spending issue, bc someone asked for numbers.
Federal spending in:
2000= 1.8T
2005= 2.5T
2010= 3.5T
2011= 3.8T

GOP wants to take us back all the way to the dark ages of spending. 2008 and 3T, the horror.

[Edited on April 17, 2011 at 6:09 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2011 6:04:54 PM

Quote :

"Looks like it is 20B a year in Ag subsidies and 140B in federal education spending(2010)."

with total aid in 2009 from all levels of government adding up to $180.8 billion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy

compared to $90.8b in the same year for educational spending
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_education_spending_20.html

The 20b is only direct subsidies, which is not what we are talking about, much in the same way when we talk about educational spending, we are not talking about secondary education alone. However I am being generous with the $90b considering more than half of that has little to do with the actual primary and secondary education as implied in the context of the debate.

[Edited on April 17, 2011 at 7:29 PM. Reason : ]

4/17/2011 7:25:44 PM

Quote :

"Yep, that's all it is. I just want to give more money to rich people. And I'm not rich. it can't possibly be that I realize that this redistribution of wealth is 1) immoral and 2) destined for failure. Nope, can't be that at all. "

1) that’s questionable
2) that’s demonstrably false

4/17/2011 7:44:15 PM

Kris compare apples to apples please.

I was comparing federal dollars to both. 20B vs 140B

If you want to compare ALL funding then it looks like 180B for Ag and 850B for Education.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

You can click on the Headers for Total, Federal, State, etc.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/a-food-manifesto-for-the-future/

"Total agricultural subsidies in 2009 were around $16 billion" From the NYtimes

[Edited on April 17, 2011 at 8:44 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on April 17, 2011 at 8:45 PM. Reason : .]

4/17/2011 8:31:30 PM

Quote :

"I was comparing federal dollars to both."

True and I suppose I did miss that the quote I took stated "all levels of government", but the objection still applies that you used only "direct subsidies" as your figure for agriculture subsidies, in addition you used all educational spending while much of what is classified under that is not relevant to the context of the discussion. I think even with those objections withstanding, I misspoke in including farm subsidies on my list.

4/17/2011 9:02:27 PM

aaronburro:

Quote :

"That 2% is a huge shift ... The projection for this "Great Society" is 40% by 2070 ... "Stable" or not, the plan is insolvent. They are giant ponzi schemes ... Yep, that's all it is. I just want to give more money to rich people ... we are the nation every one flocks to in order get said healthcare ..."

I don't mean to imply that the current social systems are sustainable. Something will have to change, but it's telling when even you have to project social spending programs 60yrs into the future to make it sound horrible. A lot can happen in 60 years.

What bothers me though is the political game being played by Republicans in trying to to characterize the current deficit crisis as, "The inevitable result of increasing social spending cumulating with Obama era 'Great Society' social programs." That is a bold faced lie. When you look at the graphs you see that, overall, outlays and revenues had been relatively stable for 40 years - outlays were even going down for 20 years before Bush came to office and started two wars. The truth is, what caused our current deficit crisis is the mere fact that the federal government gave trillion-dollar bailouts to the financial sector while, at the same time, the overall employment sector tanked. The data speaks for itself. Now the Republicans want to use the crisis as an excuse to make long-term policy changes in their favor.

It gets even worse when you realize that Republicans refuse to imagine that more revenue might help. Why, that would take money away the higher income earners - those very people that helped cause the problem and who have been taking an increasing share of overall income. No, they would rather fill the gap by selling out middle and low income wage earners - those very people who have been propping up tax revenues with, "Social Insurance" for some time. Some insurance.

You say wealth redistribution is immoral, but that's exactly what has been happening. The thing is though that money has been moving upward. It's not that I think you favor the rich. I just think you are so fixed on your ideology that you discount, on principle, anything that doesn't fit in with it. To be able to change opinions based on data is the highest level of critical thinking. Personally, I believe in quite a limited role for government, but not as limited as your view. I think it's just as shallow to imagine that government can solve everyone's problems as it is to say the free market can. But, fair is fair in regards to the current debt crisis.

Finally, with regard to healthcare. You keep saying that, "we are the nation everyone flocks to in order get said healthcare", but you never provide statistics, or data. My impression is that people come here for very complicated and very specialized procedures, but when it comes to more routine procedures they are going where it is cheaper. This healthcare news article talks about 6 million Americans that bolstered the ever increasing "Medical Tourism" industry to get things done cheaper elsewhere: http://news.health.com/2009/04/08/traveling-treatment/ .

http://www.formerlyfluffy.com/no-insurance-cnn-health-report-on-medical-tourism/ :

4/17/2011 10:54:50 PM

Quote :

"What bothers me though is the political game being played by Republicans in trying to to characterize the current deficit crisis as, "The inevitable result of increasing social spending cumulating with Obama era 'Great Society' social programs." That is a bold faced lie. When you look at the graphs you see that, overall, outlays and revenues had been relatively stable for 40 years - outlays were even going down for 20 years before Bush came to office and started two wars. The truth is, what caused our current deficit crisis is the mere fact that the federal government gave trillion-dollar bailouts to the financial sector while, at the same time, the overall employment sector tanked. "

Actually, it's a combination. The entitlements ARE costing more and more. And, there was cray-cray spending by dubya, too. But, to say "entitlement spending was flat for 40 years" is disingenuous, as it ignores the coming problem: baby boomers.

Quote :

"It gets even worse when you realize that Republicans refuse to imagine that more revenue might help."

I'm sure it would. But 40% of our economy? Really?

Quote :

"Why, that would take money away the higher income earners - those very people that helped cause the problem and who have been taking an increasing share of overall income."

I was not aware that high income earners begged us to bomb iraq alone. I was not aware that high income owners put into place the SS and Medicare programs. wow. this is news to me!

Quote :

"The thing is though that money has been moving upward."

Maybe, but it is NOT due to the gov't taking from one and giving to another. Moving of wealth != wealth redistribution. Nice try.

Quote :

"My impression is that people come here for very complicated and very specialized procedures"

Right. What good is free healthcare if it can't solve your problem?

Quote :

"This healthcare news article talks about 6 million Americans that bolstered the ever increasing "Medical Tourism" industry to get things done cheaper elsewhere"

Yep, due to this fantastic gov't meddling we have in this country in the healthcare industry where we have the worst of both worlds with insurance demanding high prices and doctors unable to do anything different due to gov't regulation.

4/18/2011 6:17:23 PM

aaronburro, you seem to have a tough time dealing with nuance - like the reasons for the current deficit crisis v.s. long-term financial entitlement spending, and specialized healthcare v.s. public healthcare policy. You seem to group them all together. That is why I get the impression you spend a lot of time categorizing right and wrong and not much time in thoughtful consideration of the complexities. You seem to think in big discrete chunks.

The current deficit crisis did not happen because Bush started wars, or because of out of control entitlement spending. You act like the 40% of GDP entitlement number is the current number instead of a projection 60 years out into the future. 60 years into the future is a long time to start crying "The sky is falling". Yes, it will have to be dealt with, and it will need thoughtful consideration. But using the current crisis as a pretext to make knee-jerk long-term policy decisions, now that is disingenuous.

The current deficit crisis was caused by the high-income financial sector mismanaging the housing markets, requiring trillion-dollar federal bailouts. It was a fast, big money crisis, not like the relatively slow one looming ahead. Dumping the Bush high-income tax breaks would not be an inappropriate response in order to recoup some of the money that was paid out to the financial sector. I also have to disagree with you about the movement of wealth. The movement of wealth is not something that, "just happens". It usually has something to do with changes in policy (i.e. tax breaks, global trade agreements, deregulating sectors, etc.). To consider otherwise is just naive.

Finally, the kind of healthcare systems need for rare specialized procedures are different than what is needed to insure that every citizen has access to basic level of healthcare. I admit I'm a little biased right now because I personally have three people I know that can not afford cancer treatments. They are literally being sent home to die (in one case without any treatment). You can't have it both ways. We can not, at the same time, have both "the greatest healthcare system in the world", with 47 million citizen that are uninsured and 6 million going to other countries because they can't afford to get what we do have ...

[Edited on April 18, 2011 at 10:39 PM. Reason : *~<]BO]

4/18/2011 10:36:49 PM

Quote :

"You act like the 40% of GDP entitlement number is the current number instead of a projection 60 years out into the future."

You're right. The CBO usually low-balls it by an order of magnitude. your point?

Quote :

"60 years into the future is a long time to start crying "The sky is falling"."

So, then, we can just wait 59 years and it'll be A-OK, right?

Quote :

"The movement of wealth is not something that, "just happens". It usually has something to do with changes in policy (i.e. tax breaks, global trade agreements, deregulating sectors, etc.). To consider otherwise is just naive."

Yep. Bill Gates was made rich by an act of Congress. yep. While certainly changes in the tax code can lead to changes in wealth, that is still a far cry from "hey, you give me 100 bux so I can give it to this guy." Which was my whole point. Both are bad. But one is surely more reprehensible.

Quote :

"We can not, at the same time, have both "the greatest healthcare system in the world", with 47 million citizen that are uninsured "

Oh look, the bogus claim of 47 million citizens, again! Nevermind that that number included illegal aliens and people who didn't want to purchase insurance anyway.

Quote :

"and 6 million going to other countries because they can't afford to get what we do have ..."

Yes, people can't afford their treatments. So they spend thousands on thousands on a plane ticket to fly to Timbuktu to get it done there. Yeah, that REALLY makes sense. And then we look at where they are going... Thailand... sex-change capital of the world. Yes, I'm REALLY worried about the lack of affordable sex-changes. I wonder how much of those numbers are also due to prescription drug shopping, which is an entirely different topic, where we have the drug prices being propped up by the US gov't, in addition to the fact that we subsidize the rest of the world's drugs. Anyway, the article you posted is low on facts, high on hype.

Moreover, you are conflating "insurance" with "healthcare." Those are two drastically different things. What if we could have basic "healthcare" without insurance? Did i just blow your mind? As well, you aren't understanding WHY the specialized care is here ad nowhere else, and it is entirely due to the universal insurance model! You don't understand that they are simply incompatible. There's no "nuance" there. It's just simply how it is. Moreover, you aren't understanding that the reason heart surgery costs $100k in the US and $8.5k in india is insurance. In short, insurance IS THE PROBLEM.

How about this: how about we work to change the insurance culture we have here so that people can afford insurance, keep it when they change jobs, and also pay reasonable rates for ordinary healthcare needs?

4/18/2011 10:54:45 PM

Hey...no hard questions for the President.

4/19/2011 7:21:29 PM

Im not fan of Obama, but I dont see where he did anything wrong with telling the guy to let him finish answering his questions. Im sure he has been coached on that since that Fox interview.

And I really dont see where the questions were that tough either. What do you want him to say? Yeah, I cant win texas? Hell even republicans say that have a chance at California in interviews when they know damn well they dont.

4/19/2011 11:24:41 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/27/white-house-releases-obama-birth-certificate/






































like it matters

4/27/2011 9:33:32 AM

He's desperate and needs every vote, even the dumbasses. He's certainly lost his base.

Obama Drops Charges Against the Warrant-less Wiretapping Whistleblower
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/tamm/
Not because it's a horrible thing that threatens democratic values, but because they thought any jury would be so horrified by the government's actions that they would never convict. Still full steam ahead on destroying the lives of other whistleblowers though, including corporate whistleblowers, and the torture of Bradley Manning.

[Edited on April 27, 2011 at 10:27 AM. Reason : .]

4/27/2011 10:21:43 AM

So of the people who still think he wasn't born in the US, what percentage of them will change their minds after this? I'm guessing 5%-10%.

4/27/2011 10:51:35 AM

For him to release it after all this time shows he is very desperate and/or had to hire someone to fabricate it. Looks to me like he's foreign-born after all.

4/27/2011 10:53:16 AM

Quote :

" Looks to me like he's foreign-born after all."

lol

4/27/2011 10:53:58 AM

Here's the thing. That's the Certificate of Live Birth which Trump and the Birthers have been clammering isn't enough. This debate isn't over.

4/27/2011 11:15:38 AM

no it isn't. this is different from the certificate of live birth.

4/27/2011 11:38:27 AM

taking 3 years to produce a single document makes me think he may be foreign born after all. He would have been better off to just leave the matter unanswered so that he could claim the argument as too petty to demand response.

4/27/2011 11:54:31 AM

it. doesn't. matter.

His mother was a US Citizen. He could have been born in fucking Iraq and he'd still be a natural born citizen.

4/27/2011 12:03:56 PM

carbon dating the typewriter font is the only way to be sure

4/27/2011 1:06:57 PM

First republicans bitched and moaned about him not producing the document, then when he does, now its "well this is a waste of time, we have more important things to worry about" or "well that took too long, clearly its fake".

jesus titty-fucking christ.

4/27/2011 1:14:26 PM

Quote :

"carbon dating the typewriter font is the only way to be sure"

The vast majority of the people who don't believe he was born in America probably don't believe in carbon dating either.

4/27/2011 1:16:43 PM

^^

haha, you expect those idiots to concede?

4/27/2011 1:30:23 PM

Since when are facts useful to delusional people?

Quote :

"The vast majority of the people who don't believe he was born in America probably don't believe in carbon dating either."

So fucking true.

[Edited on April 27, 2011 at 1:56 PM. Reason : .]

4/27/2011 1:53:37 PM

Honestly, why did it take him this long to produce it? He knew that there was a requirement in the Constitution that you be a natural born citizen. He knew that Americans are retarded and that anyone with a non-standard name would be the target of suspicion. Why would he not have had these documents available before even making the decision to run so he could squash any objections, right off the bat?

I've never thought that Obama was born outside of the United States, but the way he has handled this birther thing has confirmed for me that he's an incompetent fool. He's not brilliant, as has so often been suggested by his supporters. I wouldn't trust the man to run a hot dog stand.

4/27/2011 2:31:06 PM

you are not a very smart person

4/27/2011 2:46:47 PM