Obama intensifies push for ‘Buffett Rule’

[Mickey_Finn]

Oh my goodness you have this totally bass ackwards! Those who pay the most in taxes benefit the LEAST from the system, particularly with respect to what they take from the system vis a vis what they give to the system. Something like 40% of Americans now get more than they give and at some point we’re either going to be like one of the PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain) or hopefully someone with an understanding of economics will have the courage to stop the madness.

Also love that strawman. Heaven knows that federal workers are underpaid (NOT) and all are shining examples of humanity, slaving away for minimal salaries and benefits (NOT). But gee if we try to cut government spending that immediately unleashes the evil world of business to pollute, destroy, rape and pillage. Gosh I hope you rethink this argument.

There is nothing wrong with aspiring to have more, to make more money, to have a better life for your children. What IS wrong is wanting what someone else has. THAT is envy and it’s evil. Check the Bible. We heard this message long ago. I guess Barack’s form of Christianity didn’t get the memo

Lisa

Sorry Lisa. He’s right on the mark. The federal workers, who are vilified by TEA party extremists. Receive less in compensation when compared to equally educated workers in the private sector. I would also like to point out. Federal workers make life a lot easier and safer for the rest of us. They deserve your respect.

“PIGS”. Pause and reflect on this fact that. It was Wall Street, and their unbridled greed that drove the world’s economy into the ditch.

Your last paragraph is just too…

ATB

 

[Mickey_Finn]

They do pay more in taxes - much more…

Why shouldn’t they?

ATB

 

[LisaA]

Sorry Lisa. He’s right on the mark. The federal workers, who are vilified by TEA party extremists. Receive less in compensation when compared to equally educated workers in the private sector. I would also like to point out. Federal workers make life a lot easier and safer for the rest of us. They deserve your respect.

“PIGS”. Pause and reflect on this fact that. It was Wall Street, and their unbridled greed that drove the world’s economy into the ditch.

Your last paragraph is just too…

ATB

Please check recent statistics. Government workers earn more than private sector workers. Federal workers make life easier and safer? You are kidding right? I do have respect for the military and to some extent the CIA/FBI and other law enforcement. Do I have respect for say the GSA workers who used nearly a million tax dollars to put on clown suits and create DVDs and rap songs? Nope.

You are wrong that “Wall Street” caused these problems. The very government programs you seem to laud are the real cause, particularly in Europe. Does it occur to you that the countries with the largest and most bloated government social programs are in the worst financial shape? How did “Wall Street” destroy cities like Detroit and Los Angeles which are in dire financial straits? How did “Wall Street” cause the housing bubble? Wasn’t it the Fannie and Freddy underwriting of bad loans on our tax dollars the real problem?

Look at the Constitution. The powers of the Federal Government are clearly noted. Deciding on our lightbulbs is not one of them.

Lisa

 

[Persuader]

Oh my goodness you have this totally bass ackwards! Those who pay the most in taxes benefit the LEAST from the system

The system is the capitalist system. So, per definition, those at the top of that system benefit most from it. Now, I constantly see conservatives complain about how much taxes is paid by the rich as a percentage of total federal income tax. So why is that so? Is it because the rich pay a high percentage of their own income? No. It’s because their pretax income is so much higher (10% of 10 million is more than 50% of 1 million). Notice the difference. In the most highly taxed countries in western Europe, the rich pay a higher percentage of their own income in taxes, but they also pay a lower percentage of total income tax. Why? Because their pretax-income is substantially lower. So, clearly, that statistic is meaningless if you’re trying to figure out if someone is undertaxed. What you need to look at is what they pay as a percentage of their own income. Here you will see the relevant and interesting inequality.

Now, I think a better solution would be to lower pretax income for high earners. They don’t need actually need the money. But this is largely an issue of societal acceptance. If people think those high salaries are fair, there will be no change. So first we need to tackle why that is. It seems people actually think salaries in a capitalist system reflects fairness. Can this be refuted? Yes. First, let’s establish a prerequisite for someone deserving something. I say that you cannot deserve what is outside your control. So if a person happened to have rich parents, he didn’t deserve it. He got lucky. This is uncontroversial to say, but it turns out that this is the case about a lot of things.

A modern capitalist system rewards certain properties, and whether or not someone has those properties are in large part outside their control. No one chooses their genes. No one chooses their parents or their environment growing up. But these two factors (genes and environment) constitute the essential variables of personal development in childhood. As a result, your personality is in large part a function of those two variables. Variables you didn’t choose and had no control over.

You will notice that the above is an argument against meritocracy, so it already concedes that our capitalist system is a meritocracy. But we know that it isn’t. In a meritocracy, two people with similar intelligence, willpower and every other property valued by the system, would have the exact same chance of making it. This is not the case in the capitalist society. For example, if your parents are poor, you have less of a chance to get a good education. And even if you get into a great college, your tend to have less contacts in high places, and as a result tend to get paid less. I remember reading a very interesting study about this a couple of years ago, where they looked at the economic background of people taking the same degree at the same college. The best predictor of future income was not grades – it was the economic status of your parents. If that is not disheartening, I don’t what is.

So we can tell each other fantasy-stories and convince ourselves of our own greatness, but in a very basic sense a financially successful person is a lucky person, and he should never forget it. If he does forget, he runs the risk of hubris and thinking it’s all his own doing. Jesus told us to be humble, so be humble. Is it necessary to get paid 10 million dollars at Goldman Sachs, or can one slash that salary if it frees up money to pay some single mothers at Walmart a living wage? I’m not saying we pay bankers 20 000 dollars a year. We all recognize the need for some economic incentive. The question is if 10 million is necessary. It’s not, and it’s certainly got nothing to do with morality or being fair.

The very government programs you seem to laud are the real cause, particularly in Europe. Does it occur to you that the countries with the largest and most bloated government social programs are in the worst financial shape?

Untrue. The largest and most bloated governments are found in northern Europe. Those countries are arguably in the best financial shape.

 

[LisaA]

The system is the capitalist system. So, per definition, those at the top of that system benefit most from it. Now, I constantly see conservatives complain about how much taxes is paid by the rich as a percentage of total federal income tax.
Here you will see the relevant and interesting inequality.

Now, I think a better solution would be to lower pretax income for high earners. They don’t need actually need the money. But this is largely an issue of societal acceptance. If people think those high salaries are fair, there will be no change. So first we need to tackle why that is. It seems people actually think salaries in a capitalist system reflects fairness. Can this be refuted? Yes. First, let’s establish a prerequisite for someone deserving something. I say that you cannot deserve what is outside your control. So if a person happened to have rich parents, he didn’t deserve it. He got lucky. This is uncontroversial to say, but it turns out that this is the case about a lot of things.

A modern capitalist system rewards certain properties, and whether or not someone has those properties are in large part outside their control. No one chooses their genes. No one chooses their parents or their environment growing up. But these two factors (genes and environment) constitute the essential variables of personal development in childhood. As a result, your personality is in large part a function of those two variables. Variables you didn’t choose and had no control over.

You will notice that the above is an argument against meritocracy, so it already concedes that our capitalist system is a meritocracy. But we know that it isn’t. In a meritocracy, two people with similar intelligence, willpower and every other property valued by the system, would have the exact same chance of making it. This is not the case in the capitalist society. For example, if your parents are poor, you have less of a chance to get a good education. And even if you get into a great college, your tend to have less contacts in high places, and as a result tend to get paid less. I remember reading a very interesting study about this a couple of years ago, where they looked at the economic background of people taking the same degree at the same college. The best predictor of future income was not grades – it was the economic status of your parents. If that is not disheartening, I don’t what is.

So we can tell each other fantasy-stories and convince ourselves of our own greatness, but in a very basic sense a financially successful person is a lucky person, and he should never forget it. If he does forget, he runs the risk of hubris and thinking it’s all his own doing. Jesus told us to be humble, so be humble. Is it necessary to get paid 10 million dollars at Goldman Sachs, or can one slash that salary if it frees up money to pay some single mothers at Walmart a living wage? I’m not saying we pay bankers 20 000 dollars a year. We all recognize the need for some economic incentive. The question is if 10 million is necessary. It’s not, and it’s certainly got nothing to do with morality or being fair.

Untrue. The largest and most bloated governments are found in northern Europe. Those countries are arguably in the best financial shape.

Oh you have provided a target rich environment! Obviously you are on the Left. The Left is all about EQUALITY vs OPPORTUNITY. But the only way to force “equality” is to PULL THE TOP DOWN…see your suggestion to reduce upper income salaries, to take money from some Wall Street tycoon and give it to a single mother at Walmart.

Now let’s look at how you argue against yourself. You claim that the ONLY reason Mr Gotrocks got his rocks is because he was lucky. Born with a genetic windfall he then doesn’t have to go to school, get a degree, work at a lower eschelon and perform well before moving up. Yes in the world of Utopian Dreams this is what happens. Not so much.

Now look at your “deserving” single mother at Walmart. Do you think her situation is entirely LUCK? Really? If you want to be poor in America, drop out of high school, have children out of wedlock and aspire to nothing–after all we have Leftists who would like to take away the “ill gotten gains” of high earners and reward your bad behavior.

You are right, we are all born with certain characteristics and potential. I will never sing at the Met, throw a Superbowl Winning Touchdown or win an Academy Award. UNFAIR!!! They should take away some of LeBron’s salary and give it to me because I was unlucky…

Honestly these theories have proven to be utter failures and should be relegated to the dustbin of history. We can strive to provide equality …of opportunity not of outcomes. Again we can try because we will fail but THAT should be our objective, not punish people for success and reward others for failure.

Oh and your comment about northern European countries refer to the Scandinavian countries where they have extremely high taxes and lots of government goodies. THe problem is that the PIGS have lots of goodies but not a lot of taxpayers to pay them.

Lisa

 

[Persuader]

Now let’s look at how you argue against yourself. You claim that the ONLY reason Mr Gotrocks got his rocks is because he was lucky. Born with a genetic windfall he then doesn’t have to go to school, get a degree, work at a lower eschelon and perform well before moving up. Yes in the world of Utopian Dreams this is what happens. Not so much.

What are you even talking about? Why wouldn’t he need to go to school if he had the right genes? Do you think genes are independent variables? That’s not how it works. Genetic material interact with environment in development, which is the second variable you’re not in control of. But what is your logic here? I attacked meritocracy in the part of my argument you seem to be criticizing, but notice that I also argued that it doesn’t exist in reality. So why are you arguing as though I think it does? My point was simply that even if meritocracy did exist, the fairness of that system would be suspect.

Now look at your “deserving” single mother at Walmart. Do you think her situation is entirely LUCK? Really? If you want to be poor in America, drop out of high school, have children out of wedlock and aspire to nothing–after all we have Leftists who would like to take away the “ill gotten gains” of high earners and reward your bad behavior.

I didn’t necessarily say that her situation is entirely decided by luck. But certainly, if you got bad genes and grew up in a bad environment, you are much more likely to drop out of high school, have children out of wedlock and fall subject to mental health problems. Study upon study support this.

You are right, we are all born with certain characteristics and potential. I will never sing at the Met, throw a Superbowl Winning Touchdown or win an Academy Award. UNFAIR!!! They should take away some of LeBron’s salary and give it to me because I was unlucky…

I didn’t say that. I said that our incentive-system has nothing to do with fairness. However, it can be based on consequences. So, if we recognize that there needs to be economic incentives, there is an empirical question about how much is necessary to get people motivated to develop their talents. That is fine, and you can have a discussion about that and be right-wing if you like (Milton Friedman is a consequentialist libertarian). But to say that people morally deserve those fat-cat salaries at Wall Street is absurd.

Honestly these theories have proven to be utter failures and should be relegated to the dustbin of history. We can strive to provide equality …of opportunity not of outcomes. Again we can try because we will fail but THAT should be our objective, not punish people for success and reward others for failure.

I didn’t say anything about how you should organize a society. I said something about fairness. If you’re a consequentialist, like Milton Friedman, you can say that we need significant income inquality to motivate talent, and that this is ultimately good for society. That is an empirical question, though. And it has nothing to do with people thinking they deserve that high salary because it was all their doing, which is the mentality I argue against.

Oh and your comment about northern European countries refer to the Scandinavian countries where they have extremely high taxes and lots of government goodies. THe problem is that the PIGS have lots of goodies but not a lot of taxpayers to pay them.

Really? How do you explain that those countries have the largest working population (as a percentage) in the world? It seems that the facts contradict your argument. Here is the employment-to-population ratio (courtesy of OECD-rankings 2010): 1. Iceland, 2. Switzerland, 3. Norway, 4. Netherlands, 5. Denmark, 6. Sweden,… 15. United States. Would you look at that.

 

[LisaA]

What are you even talking about? Why wouldn’t he need to go to school if he had the right genes? Do you think genes are independent variables? That’s not how it works. Genetic material interact with environment in development, which is the second variable you’re not in control of. But what is your logic here? I attacked meritocracy in the part of my argument you seem to be criticizing, but notice that I also argued that it doesn’t exist in reality. So why are you arguing as though I think it does? My point was simply that even if meritocracy did exist, the fairness of that system would be suspect.

I didn’t necessarily say that her situation is entirely decided by luck. But certainly, if you got bad genes and grew up in a bad environment, you are much more likely to drop out of high school, have children out of wedlock and fall subject to mental health problems. Study upon study support this.

I didn’t say that. I said that our incentive-system has nothing to do with fairness. However, it can be based on consequences. So, if we recognize that there needs to be economic incentives, there is an empirical question about how much is necessary to get people motivated to develop their talents. That is fine, and you can have a discussion about that and be right-wing if you like (Milton Friedman is a consequentialist libertarian). But to say that people morally deserve those fat-cat salaries at Wall Street is absurd.

I didn’t say anything about how you should organize a society. I said something about fairness. If you’re a consequentialist, like Milton Friedman, you can say that we need significant income inquality to motivate talent, and that this is ultimately good for society. That is an empirical question, though. And it has nothing to do with people thinking they deserve that high salary because it was all their doing, which is the mentality I argue against.

Really? How do you explain that those countries have the largest working population (as a percentage) in the world? It seems that the facts contradict your argument. Here is the employment-to-population ratio (courtesy of OECD-rankings 2010): 1. Iceland, 2. Switzerland, 3. Norway, 4. Netherlands, 5. Denmark, 6. Sweden,… 15. United States. Would you look at that.

You seem to be contradicting your initial argument which was based on certain individuals…Mr Silver Spoon having high earning power through luck and greed rather than ability and industry. There is probably a bit of both but the idea we should cap salaries and “spread the wealth” is an anathema to me and probably most of America.

Ms Walmart Woman probably was born with two strikes against her but in reality the nanny state has CREATED Ms Walmart Woman by rewarding bad behavior. People do not have the incentive to help themselves if they think someone is going to come along and hand them bennies. It doesn’t take long to corrupt people either. I saw this with my own sister who was raised by hard working parents who were also raised by hardworking parents all of whom got an education and supported themselves. They never would have considered a government handout. Thanks to the “great society” where devients were turned into “victims” (yeah I know that’s harsh) they learned quickly that they really didn’t have to DO anything as there were “programs to help them” advance in their destructive behavior. We are now in the third generation of this debacle and I can only imagine how this story is more and more frequent.

Thus the idea that it’s fair to take Mr Wall Street’s big bonus (whether he deserves it or not who are we to say?) so Ms Walmart can have a “living wage” does nothing to inspire Ms Walmart to better her position through education and hard work. Nor does it do anything to Mr Wall Street other than make him more and more resentful of the government.

As to your countries…you make my point. These are all countries where people are employed and work and pay high taxes. The problem with the PIGS is that they dont

Lisa

 

[rlg94086]

Why shouldn’t they?

ATB

I said they do…I didn’t say they shouldn’t.

Again, by virtue of mathematics, of course they do.

 

[Balian]

I really think the whole Buffett Rule proposal is ridiculous. Common sense is number of dollars paid is really a good deal more important than the rate paid. The real problem is loopholes. Buffett pays a lower rate than would be expected of someone so wealthy because he has smart accountants who take advantage of every credit and deduction that the tax code allows. What is needed is a fair, flat tax system without all those special interest credits and deductions. Then the rates could be dropped for everyone, it would be simpler, there would be less cheating, and the government would get more revenues.

The inconvenient truth that Obama ignores is that only 1% of the US population would be effected by any Buffett Rule and in the grand scheme it wouldn’t make a hill of beans as far as revenues. It is just another unworkable, pie in the sky, liberal idea aimed at nothing other than getting votes in the next election. Just how stupid does Obama think the average American is?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I really think the whole Buffett Rule proposal is ridiculous. Common sense is number of dollars paid is really a good deal more important than the rate paid. The real problem is loopholes. Buffett pays a lower rate than would be expected of someone so wealthy because he has smart accountants who take advantage of every credit and deduction that the tax code allows. What is needed is a fair, flat tax system without all those special interest credits and deductions. Then the rates could be dropped for everyone, it would be simpler, there would be less cheating, and the government would get more revenues.

The inconvenient truth that Obama ignores is that only 1% of the US population would be effected by any Buffett Rule and in the grand scheme it wouldn’t make a hill of beans as far as revenues. It is just another unworkable, pie in the sky, liberal idea aimed at nothing other than getting votes in the next election. Just how stupid does Obama think the average American is?

You sir, are onto something.

If you let the Bush tax cuts expire you’d only get about $70 Billion in revenues.

I’m assuming that the Buffet rule goes through it will just incent people to hide money.

I believe we need some serious tax reform in this country.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Please check recent statistics. Government workers earn more than private sector workers. Federal workers make life easier and safer? You are kidding right? I do have respect for the military and to some extent the CIA/FBI and other law enforcement. Do I have respect for say the GSA workers who used nearly a million tax dollars to put on clown suits and create DVDs and rap songs? Nope.

You are wrong that “Wall Street” caused these problems. The very government programs you seem to laud are the real cause, particularly in Europe. Does it occur to you that the countries with the largest and most bloated government social programs are in the worst financial shape? How did “Wall Street” destroy cities like Detroit and Los Angeles which are in dire financial straits? How did “Wall Street” cause the housing bubble? Wasn’t it the Fannie and Freddy underwriting of bad loans on our tax dollars the real problem?

Look at the Constitution. The powers of the Federal Government are clearly noted. Deciding on our lightbulbs is not one of them.

Lisa

Lisa, wall street worked for years to undermine the Glass-Steagal act. When they finally pulled it off with the Gramm, Leach, Bliley act. They joined the investment and savings banks and set the stage for 2008. Thats the short version of course. But, the end results were financial institutions that were too big to be allowed to fail. If they failed, they would have dragged us all into the abyss.

When the world economy was knocked over. Countries with larger governments (PIGS?) were less able to weather the storm. Now, what we see is a large push to privatize many traditional government functions. So, corporations can amass even more wealth. While governments grow too weak to oppose them.

Racism destroyed Detroit.

ATB

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I said they do…I didn’t say they shouldn’t.

Again, by virtue of mathematics, of course they do.

rig, my point was they should pay more.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I really think the whole Buffett Rule proposal is ridiculous. Common sense is number of dollars paid is really a good deal more important than the rate paid. The real problem is loopholes. Buffett pays a lower rate than would be expected of someone so wealthy because he has smart accountants who take advantage of every credit and deduction that the tax code allows. What is needed is a fair, flat tax system without all those special interest credits and deductions. Then the rates could be dropped for everyone, it would be simpler, there would be less cheating, and the government would get more revenues.

The inconvenient truth that Obama ignores is that only 1% of the US population would be effected by any Buffett Rule and in the grand scheme it wouldn’t make a hill of beans as far as revenues. It is just another unworkable, pie in the sky, liberal idea aimed at nothing other than getting votes in the next election. Just how stupid does Obama think the average American is?

Actually, the “Buffett Rule” is a step in the right direction. We’ll still have a long ways to go. But, we’ll finally be heading in the right direction.

 

[rlg94086]

rig, my point was they should pay more.

Why? How much is enough? You do know that if the top 1% were taxed 100%, we would still have a deficit, right?

The Buffet Rule is a meaningless political stunt by a failed president using class warfare to rally the gullible.

 

[LisaA]

Lisa, wall street worked for years to undermine the Glass-Steagal act. When they finally pulled it off with the Gramm, Leach, Bliley act. They joined the investment and savings banks and set the stage for 2008. Thats the short version of course. But, the end results were financial institutions that were too big to be allowed to fail. If they failed, they would have dragged us all into the abyss.

When the world economy was knocked over. Countries with larger governments (PIGS?) were less able to weather the storm. Now, what we see is a large push to privatize many traditional government functions. So, corporations can amass even more wealth. While governments grow too weak to oppose them.

Racism destroyed Detroit.

ATB

Assume your last comment is tongue in cheek. Detroit was destroyed by years of Democrats in the mayor’s office, union demands, the welfare state and arrogance on the part of the auto industry.

The housing bubble was created in a large part by the Community Reinvestment Act which FORCED banks to take loans from those who could not afford them in order to ‘prove’ they were not racist. This unfortunately is STILL GOING ON.

Fanny and Freddy took on the risk of these NINJa loans (No Income No Job) so the banks were safe in providing them knowing that they did not hold the paper. While executives at Freddy and Fanny took home million dollar bonuses the taxpayers were left holding the bag. The housing bubble was like any other Ponzi scheme and as Mrs Thatcher said, you run out of OPM.

Oh there are no angels in this play and Wall Street had something to do with the problem but it was caused by greed at the individual level, the local bank level (I knew loan officers who were making six figures with these garbage loans) as well. IOW government interference with the market CAUSED the problems. Do you think banks would have done these garbage loans if they had to take the risk? The government forced them to write the loans then took on that risk which was dumped onto us. Government regulations preventing banks from also being investment houses were not the cause of the housing bubble.

As to the PIGS, the problem is a huge government work force with huge pensions, low retirement ages and a lack of taxpayers to fund it…can we say Greece? Greece was not destroyed by America’s housing bubble, it was destroyed by bloated government programs. We are walking dangerously close to this same path.

Lisa

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Assume your last comment is tongue in cheek. Detroit was destroyed by years of Democrats in the mayor’s office, union demands, the welfare state and arrogance on the part of the auto industry.

The housing bubble was created in a large part by the Community Reinvestment Act which FORCED banks to take loans from those who could not afford them in order to ‘prove’ they were not racist. This unfortunately is STILL GOING ON.

Fanny and Freddy took on the risk of these NINJa loans (No Income No Job) so the banks were safe in providing them knowing that they did not hold the paper. While executives at Freddy and Fanny took home million dollar bonuses the taxpayers were left holding the bag. The housing bubble was like any other Ponzi scheme and as Mrs Thatcher said, you run out of OPM.

Oh there are no angels in this play and Wall Street had something to do with the problem but it was caused by greed at the individual level, the local bank level (I knew loan officers who were making six figures with these garbage loans) as well. IOW government interference with the market CAUSED the problems. Do you think banks would have done these garbage loans if they had to take the risk? The government forced them to write the loans then took on that risk which was dumped onto us. Government regulations preventing banks from also being investment houses were not the cause of the housing bubble.

As to the PIGS, the problem is a huge government work force with huge pensions, low retirement ages and a lack of taxpayers to fund it…can we say Greece? Greece was not destroyed by America’s housing bubble, it was destroyed by bloated government programs. We are walking dangerously close to this same path.

Lisa

Detroit was destroyed by Racism. I watched it happeen. I know you saw that silly video Whats-his-face put out. It’s not grounded in truth.

You should quit watching FOX news. Really you should.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Why? How much is enough? You do know that if the top 1% were taxed 100%, we would still have a deficit, right? .

rig, trying thinking of the 1% as our flock. Part of our duty to them, as shepherds. Is to ensure they get their yearly shearing.

ATB

 

[ishii]

You should quit watching FOX news. Really you should.

i.e. I have no substantive arguments so I must engage in ad hominems.

Ishii

 

[TarkanAttila]

i.e. I have no substantive arguments so I must engage in ad hominems.

Ishii

I prefer Reuters and the BBC, maybe even CNN in a pinch, to FOX or NBC any day of the week.

That said, I quote from this thread:

Contraception did not cause Detroit and Cleveland to lose population; that happened because living people - singletons like myself as well as entire families - packed up and left. Years of bad foreign policies, worse political leadership, and worst quality control brought those two cities to their knees in the mid- to late-1970s. By the early 1980s, when I was first entering the workforce, unemployment was catastrophic from Cleveland over to Toledo and clear up into Saginaw and Flint. It’s not called the Rust Belt for nothing.

ABC can be blamed for some social ills, but it didn’t cause the American automotive and steel industries to collapse.

Luna

Racism may well have been a cause, but poor government and poor economics might also have.

 

[LisaA]

Detroit was destroyed by Racism. I watched it happeen. I know you saw that silly video Whats-his-face put out. It’s not grounded in truth.

You should quit watching FOX news. Really you should.

Please explain how racism destroyed Detroit. That is one theory I never heard.

As to Fox News I find those who complain about Fox News have absolutely nothing to base it upon other than Fox gores a lot of those Leftist oxes that the alphabet soup news won’t touch.

As to the video, funny how Congress is set to investigate the GSA based on “that silly video” so I guess if there isn’t any truth to it, they will expose the lies.

As was well stated, since you don’t seem to have any facts at hand strawmen, ad hominems and name calling will have to serve as support for your point of view.

Lisa