huffingtonpost.com — This exclusive clip is from the latest episode of "Bill Moyers Journal" which airs tonight. In the episode, Moyers goes after FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey -- one of the key figures using large industry donations to fund "Tea Party" rallies around the country, such as the the 9/12 march in Washington DC last week.
Sep 18, 2009 View in Crawl 4
moz34Sep 20, 2009
No, you most definitely started with the blanket statement. Just because you amend your argument in response to my criticism does not mean it was originally a blanket statement.Rich people aren't taxed that heavily anyway. It takes money to put money in tax shelters.
thecoolestguySep 20, 2009
@Moz34,--It's rather misplaced to call the clients idiots when there are hundreds of banks in trouble, including very large and reputable ones.---It's not misplaced. Most people can be gulled into becoming idiots, and the only way they'll learn is to lose a lot of money and see that what they had rested their hopes on was an illusion.In the same way, the leftists with their belief in the illusion that high social spending/taxes policies are sustainable, and going to eventually have to face reality when the US faces its "California moment", and has to deal with the trillion $+ deficits and cut all of its social programs.
anakseriaSep 20, 2009
maggie1405, despite the fact that you are of a political leaning different from mine, I'm glad to see someone with the ability for rational thought from your side of the political spectrum.There are 2 main questions I've been meaning to ask folks of your persuasion, just because I want to better understand your point of view:1. Why do you consider the current situation as a fight to save the Republic? What do you feel are the things causing this nation to move away from what you consider to be its founding ideals?2. Given the grave economic situation that this country (and much of the world) was in late last year, what do you thing could have been done other than a massive injection of capital by the goverment? To prevent a catastrophic meltdown of the economy?
5urr3al5amSep 21, 2009
you've ram-rodded yourself into a corner- ensnared by the very stereotyping you claim others are doing -- nice job
5urr3al5amSep 21, 2009
Just go out and work a little harder and pull yourself up by your own bootstraps -- that's the moral of the story
Closed AccountSep 22, 2009
AT Charlotte_WebWhat?!? And miss all the fun and hear about people that love to be taxed? No way!
Closed AccountSep 22, 2009
Proof:The first major confrontation over Social Security occurred in the early 1980s during the Reagan presidency. Reagan had promised to balance the federal budget. But the budget that he sent to Congress in 1981, because of the heavy expenditure on the military, would have led to record deficits, despite deep cuts in social expenditures. David Stockman, Reagan's budget director, decided that the only possibility of avoiding these huge deficits would be to raid Social Security. Rather than state this openly in the budget, however, he included forty billion dollars in "future savings to be identified." As Stockman later admitted, this was nothing but a euphemism for budgetary reductions to be won by "storming the twin citadels of Social Security and Medicare" (Stockman, The Triumph of Politics, p. 124-125).Source: Monthly Review, Oct. 2007
5urr3al5amSep 22, 2009
you are the very definition of a racist -- none of what I've typed , look back for yourself, has any racist words or tones in them what so ever. Yet you link what I've said to a person, group, or party affiliation through what - or by what? race - your very own racist undertones and hate filled speech.
boombyeSep 23, 2009
You talking about the same guys who helped waste trillions before they opposed a bail out?