Congresswoman Virginia Foxx has made a spectacle of herself slobbering all over certain men in Washington. There was the famous lip assault on George W. Bush, the fawning failure to detect any illegal drug use from a perusal of Roger Clemens' blown-up photographs, and now it's Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan that Foxx has fixated on with unhealthy affection.Why?
Because Ryan has written a Republican "budget plan," "A Roadmap for America's Future Act of 2010," that aims to zero out Social Security and Medicare. The Madam, like most of her fellow conservatives, hates Social Security and Medicare and itches with an itch she can't quite scratch to get rid of all such safety nets.
Congressman Ryan allows her and her fellow Republicans in Congress to scratch that itch.
The non-partisan Tax Policy Center, in a detailed analysis of Mr. Ryan's numbers, sez that Congressman Ryan's budget numbers would actually continue and accelerate the disastrous economic policies that got us into this current mess ... policies that ensure that the rich get richer. According to the Tax Policy Center, "The Roadmap's tax provisions would be highly regressive compared with the current tax system," benefiting the people who don't need social safety nets and resent like all holy hell having to pay any taxes whatsoever for the "undeserving poor."
Talk like that just makes Madam Foxx feel sexy all over.
34 comments:
No doubt Congresswomen Foxx is the first North Carolina mail order bride that most Communist Russians reject on sight in GQ maz?
J.W.,
I read the whole report, and I don't like it either.
I, too, read the report. The top 20% gain 11% and the bottom 20% gain 1.5% The taxes from the bottom 80% rise, while the top 1% has their tax rate essentially halved to 13.5%
And we expected anything different from the "Multi-Millionaire Madame?" Like representing the poor in Tobaccoville?
ALL please note: Mike & I actually agree!
Now, Foxx NEEDS TO GO!
I remember reading The Good Earth by Pearl Buck years ago. One concept stuck in my mind, that when the rich are too rich, society is unstable and will be overturned. The founding fathers believed that a concentration of vast wealth in a few hands was poison to a democratic society. They were familiar with the corruption and incompetence that results from a plutocracy. The incredible inequities in our society are not healthy. When people are so rich (millions in annual income or billionaires), it is not because they are that virtuous. It is because they are lucky and/or rapacious.
Mrs. Foxx has benefited from a stable society that subsidized her education and gave her the opportunity to rise. Now she wants to deny others that opportunity. She is pathetic, really.
god bless the Democrats in congress! they have done so much to help the average american...(defeating BoA is a big step)
Not to worry about Medicare, or Social Security, they are both going broke at an accelerating rate, so they are a self correcting problem.
Good riddence to bad rubbish!
OK, When your mother-in-law comes to live with you and you pay her medical bills, don't start whining. And you better be real nice to your kids, because you might need to live with them when you lose your house and your health because you are too old and sick to work.
the social security program is going short on funds because every administration since lbj has used all of the money, required by law to set aside, for paying for their spending adventures. they put iou's in the box so we now borrow more to pay for what we already had, if the law had been followed.
lbj used it for the vietnam fiasco. and subsiquent admins learned from his crimes.
greenspan chaired a group under acting pres reagan to re-set the program resulting in lower payments to the elderly so "our government" could continue to waste our resources chasing dogma.
as bridle said, you better be nice to your family so you don't end up living under a bridge somewhere, like next to burger king.
And you think we should give these people control over more stuff, Craig?!?
mikedicker;
you are such a raging idiot.
i have never advocated giving these people more control.
you have a wax brain to suggest such.
perhaps you aughta crawl back into your hole.
So you now support doing away with Social Security and Medicare?
Last Post was for Mike D
liberal pov;
social security and medicare are programs in support of our citizens.
i support such things. when administered honestly, which hasn't been seen for some time, they are little different than insurance policies, like the right wing has their love affair with.
i don't support taking our tax money and giving it to corporations and countries in support of private agendas or for military adventures.
i don't support taking our money, or borrowing some, and invading small countries because they disagree with us.
Mike, there is a difference between people. Some people are incompetent zealots who only care about power and money. Some people are competent and honest and true public servants. Whether a program is successful or not depends on which type of person is in charge. Some government programs have been very successful. Some have been very successful until incompetent clowns were placed in charge. Some have been unsuccessful until competent people were recruited.
Excellent post, Bridle.
"<span>i have never advocated giving these people more control." - Craig Dudley</span>
I understand that, Craig, and that is exactly the answer I was fishing out of you. I'll neglect your meaningless insults and stick with the subject matter.
So, Craig, you would be completely opposed to the concept of American Single-Payer health care, right, as it would "[give] these people more control"?
Could you please attempt to avoid an off-subject smokescreen rant and just answer the question? Bigger government or smaller government? Trust politicians or don't trust government?
Bridle,
I disagree, and that is why I support term limits for both houses of Congress. 12 years and you're out.
I believe that power itself corrupts people, and that good people become bad people because of that power. Sure, some bozos will cycle through with term limits, but we can vote them out before their 12 years is up.
Of course, term limits would destroy this site, as Foxx would have been gone a long time ago.
Liberal POV,
Your question makes no sense, given my post.
Your question is akin to following my statement "I don't feel like eating at Los Arcoiris tonight" with your question "Oh, so now you hate Mexican food?"
mikedicker;
you are some loud individual to be speaking about abusive behavior.
i take it you have your usual opposition to "socialism".
are you opposed to socialism in all of its aspects?
mikedicker;
guess i aught to define the dread socialism for you so we meet on common ground; taking money from some to do something others decide is important, eh?
Craig,
Our economic system blends elements of Capitalism and Socialism. I accept and embrace that.
I answered your question honestly, openly, and directly. Anyone reading this exchange can see that you avoided my question by launching an attack, but I simply answered yours.
Care to try again?
That is not the defintion of socialism. Socialism is defined as "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." from online dictionary.
What the tax protesters really want is to enjoy the benefits of a civilized society (clean water, safety, system of laws, education, transportation etc) without paying for them. Oddly enough, these are the same folks who so enthusiastically endorse sending our soldiers overseas to fight and die in fantastically expensive wars.We hear all about how they don't want to contribute to school lunches for hungry kids, but nothing about the corruption of Halliburton, KBR, and all the other war profitteers who are fattening on the blood and backs of our soldiers.
I'm not sure about the term limits thing. You have a point about the corruption of power, but on the other hand, it can take a legislator years to develop the skills and connections to be effective in doing his or her job, that is advocating for his or her constituents.
Craig Dudley,
The only name I have ever posted under in this forum is "Mike D.".
You appear to have a new name for me.
Either it is an affectionate nickname, based on the part of your anatomy you feel attracted to share with me, or you have decided that political discussion in an anonymous forum does not meet your McCarthyist requirements, and you have decided to go outside the blog, do your own research on anonymous contributors and print their full names, simply because you don't agree with their words.
Oh, and may I remind you that you came to my job and inquired as to which person I was, without introducing yourself.
Hmmm, a creepy lurker who tries to use public intimidation by, what was your word for it, "outing" the identity of an individual who challenges your ideas?
Sociopath.
And I'm a little surprised that BikerBard is the only person who criticizes you for your "outing" and intimidation tactics.
If some tea-partier were to come here and do what you do to me, but to Bridle, or Liberal POV, or Dingo, or for that matter, if someone started posting Craig Dudley's address and phone number... I would use every non-profane word I know to rip them to shreds in the defense of WataugaWatch contributors.
Yes, Craig, that's right. I would defend you against someone who attacked you in the personal manner in which you go after me.
I have appreciated your civilized and considerate discussions with me. Anonymity allows us to express ourselves freely and should be respected on this forum.
Mike & Craig:
You are BOTH interesting people to me. I enjoy each of your posts when civilized in debate. Can't you both agree to disagree, but respect each other's points and avoid personal attacks. And I still abhor the "outing" intimidation stuff. Mike never tried, same as did you, Craig, to hide who he was. I respect ANYONE who stands up for what he believes in.
I, for one, would like to invite a peace so you BOTH are free to comment, without personal attacks. What say you both...?
BikerBard,
I promise to stick to the topic of conversation, and my debate will be civilized, right up until the point that Craig restarts his McCarthyist intimidation tactics, then I'm going to let him have it. If he doesn't go there anymore, he'll have a friendly, thoughtful, and civilized person to debate. Here, I'll even start:
Craig,
You said "<span>i have never advocated giving these people more control." So I ask, </span><span>would you be completely opposed to the concept of American Single-Payer health care, as it would "[give] these people more control"? I think this is a fair and straightforward question.
</span>
biker;
i have tried several ways and several times to avoid mikieds crap. he persists.
while assaulting others he speaks of how calm and rational he is.
upon occasion i try again and get subterfuge and obsfucation.
he lies and makes things up from some corner of his thinking aparatus.
he has repeatedly accused me of vile things w/o any reaction from those on this post, including you, who know better.
i can find no reason to respond to him forever more.
Craig,
I have a hard time believing that a person who has repeatedly made the statement "it doesn't matter who we vote for, the government still gets in" would be in favor of a single-payer system, given that The United Kingdom's single-payer system, the NHS, is the third largest employer in the world, after only the Chinese Red Army and Indian Railways. Given that the United Kingdom has less that one-fifth the population of the United States, the creation of a similar system in our country would create a mololithic government bureaucracy that would exceed the combined size of The Red Army, Indian Railways, and the NHS. I have a difficult time believing that a person who regularly rants against government would approve of the creation of such a beast.
I know you don't want to answer the question, as you have avoided it first by counter-attack, and now by using the Monty Python French Taunter technique of "I don't want to talk to you, no more, you empty-headed animal, food trough wiper", but the question is a fair one, so I'll try it one more time. Here goes:
<span>You said "<span>i have never advocated giving these people more control." So I ask, </span><span>would you be completely opposed to the concept of American Single-Payer health care, as it would "[give] these people more control"?</span></span>
"<span>i can find no reason to respond to him forever more." -Craig Dudley</span>
A lie, told and retold whenever Craig feels uncomfortable answering a question. Just watch... he has not stopped responding to my posts. He will stay away, long enough to not have to answer this fair question I have asked, then, when he thinks it's safe to come back out, he will be right back here giving specifics about what he opposes, but refusing to give specifics about what he supports.
Oh, and facing direct heat for McCarthyist style debate tactics like rejection of the anonymity of others and intimidation by public exposure, he will back off from it a little, perhaps even stay away from the blog for a bit, but he has adopted the ways of the Brownshirts, and I doubt that he will be able to pull himself back from it. He believes in what he does.
I wish it were not so.
You see, BikerBard?
If Craig believes he is being forced to conform to a standard of decency in his political campaign, he will simply refuse to participate for a while, lay low and hope that, in time, you will forget that you expect this from him. Then he will start right back with his public "outing" and intimidation techniques.
Answering my fair, simple question with a direct, rational, and related response would have been a foolproof way for Craig to show that what I have said of him is untrue. He thinks he can engage in civil dialogue? Great! Bring it on!
Here it is, one more time:
<span>Craig,
You said "<span>i have never advocated giving these people more control." So I ask, </span><span>would you be completely opposed to the concept of American Single-Payer health care, as it would "[give] these people more control"?</span></span>
You didn't ask me but I'll stick my nose in and open my big mouth anyway. Modified single payer would be the most efficient and least costly system. It would make use of economies of scale to deliver the services that prevent serious complications. It would create many many jobs. It would ensure that all children have the opportunity to reach their full potential and give back to this country. It would allow us to respond quickly to threats posed by emerging diseases that will inevitably lead to epidemics. It will save our economy by preventing bankruptcies caused by catastrophic medical bills.
How is it that people trust the government to run a killing organization (military) but not a healing organization?
Yes, Mike D, I'm following the discourse. I'm sorry that Craig seems not to be willing to meet you halfway. :(
Post a Comment