This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Call the Bluff

Bruce Krasting's picture




 

 

 

I damn near fell of my chair (laughing) yesterday watching Timmy Geithner on CNBC. When asked if the President was willing to go over the fiscal cliff if the tax RATE on the top 2% were not increased, the Treasury Secretary snapped back, “Absolutely”.

 

Maria Bartiromo was also floored by this; she spent the next hour telling the world she thought Geithner’s position was clear evidence that the US would be going over the cliff. She had big shot Senator, Richard Shelby (R- Al) on air. She showed him the clip with Geithner making an ass of himself; the Senator looked like he had swallowed a wad of tobacco while he watched.

 

I was convinced that Geithner had made a blunder, a slip of the tongue that would later be clarified or retracted. Not the case. Last evening, Treasury put out a Blog about what a great job Tim did on TV (link). I took this as a confirmation that Geithner did not make a gaffe on air, his words were carefully chosen. When he said he was “Absolutely” certain that falling off the cliff was in our future if tax rates don’t go up, he meant exactly what he said.

 

 

Given that Geithner will be out of his job running Treasury soon, I’m sure that he went on TV with the blessings of Obama, and he had a scripted message from the President. There will be no negotiations on tax rates, the top rate is going to 40%, or we will be sailing off the cliff. What an idiotic bargaining position.

 

At this point, I don’t think there is any significant opposition to increasing tax revenue from America’s wealthiest folks; the question is how to achieve it. Raising marginal rates is one option; cutting deductions can accomplish exactly the same thing. Geithner and Obama will not consider adjusting deductions; the reasons are a mystery to me. It appears that the President wants to “punish” some folks rather than to find a compromise that achieves the desired results.

 

So I agree with Bartiromo, unless the President backs off, we are going cliff diving in 20 days.

 

I believe the President has started a war, No real bullets or sabers in this war, but there will be casualties none-the-less. The question is, “Who is going to get hurt?” The thinking by all of the pundits is that a fall of the cliff will fall squarely on the shoulders of Republicans. If they stand up to the Administration on tax rates, the Republicans will get slaughtered in the Congressional elections two years from now.

 

The facts force me to conclude that Obama is, in fact, using the cliff negotiations to bend Republicans over and force them into submission. The goal is to destroy the Republicans, and have the House, Senate and the White House all Democratically controlled in twenty-two months. Harry Reid would be in charge of the Senate, Nancy Pelosi would be running the House, and the President would have the last two years of his administration with the government controlled by “friendly” hands. A disaster in the making.

 

If tax rates go up on the wealthy, as the President has demanded, then it will generate approximately $68B per year. Every year, taxpayers take advantage of $1.1 Trillion of deductions. Minimizing/eliminating deductions could easily achieve the same revenue increases that Obama wants. Nor would not be difficult to target the limitations on deductions to those who are enjoying high incomes. What the President wants can be achieved without raising marginal tax rates. So what is the problem?

 

In my simple mind there is no reason not to consider attacking the problem by limiting deductions. Therefore, I conclude that politics is the problem. The President does not want to solve the cliff or the budget; he wants to punish Republicans.

 

Two states, California and New York make up 20+% of GDP. These states have a big say in the makeup of the House, they have the biggest electoral votes. They have been solid supporters of Obama with both money and votes. And now Obama is going to piss on them.

 

Income taxes in lovely California are now at an economy numbing 13%; NY is slightly behind the idiocy in California at 9%. If Obama gets his way, the combined tax bite on income will be 52.5% in Cali and 49.5% in NY. Add to this mess the 3% surcharge for Obamacare, and the 8% sales tax in these two states. Welcome to Sweden.

 

The chips on the Obama plan fall heavily on NY and Cali. Another big state, Texas, will reap the benefits, as it has no income taxes. Texas is as “Red” as a state can get, so when Obama is saying he is supporting his base, he’s just lying.

 

 

I think the Republicans should call the President’s bluff. Lets take a walk over the cliff; see what happens when we get to the other side. It can’t be much worse than 50%+ tax rates in the most productive states in the Union. Will Republicans get hammered in the bi-elections as a result? Maybe. But one thing is sure, if the President gets his way on tax rates today, and we also have the Republicans lose the House in two years, it sets up the possibility for a return to a more conservative frame of mind for the country when the next Presidential election comes around. If Obama gets his way, the economy will pay the price. In the process, any legacy that Obama might have had will have been converted into something like Herbert Hoover’s. So who is bluffing whom?

 

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 12/06/2012 - 10:48 | 3039096 SmoothCoolSmoke
SmoothCoolSmoke's picture

Obama trying to stick it to the Tea-Pubs?  Well, what goes around comes around Bruce.  The TPubs have spent the last 2 years engaged in the same activity.  But, I think the cliff-dive has another purpose...... to get at the defense cuts.  Our defense spending INSANITY is the biggest TPub sacred cow of all. 

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 14:27 | 3039843 Imminent Crucible
Imminent Crucible's picture

The reason Obama is set on going over the cliff is simple and obvious: Once the tax cuts expire and spending cuts execute, Obama can step in and cobble together some compromise with Boehner---and then claim he cut taxes! The Fiscal Clifford is just political theater. Look, we just got the first-time unemployment claims report this morning; they claimed it was "down" to just 370,000, which was dreary enough. But the true, NSA number was over 498,000 new claims! Half a million freshly unemployed Americans.  They didn't all live in Rockaway Beach.

So there's not a chance that either side of the dog and pony show will actually do anything to reduce the deficit. They can't. Both the markets and the economy are now addicted to fresh injections of new credit at every level. Anything less than full steam ahead will pull back the curtain and expose the Depression.

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:14 | 3039221 4exNinja
4exNinja's picture

Exactly!!

They just paid one of the Army's food suppliers $1.5b (!!!) when it was replace with another company...to "ease the transition". What a joke! That's $1.5b stolen from tax payers for all I care. And all because some crook of an ex-General wanted to make an Xmas present to his new employer. Disgraceful...

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 10:46 | 3039081 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

For those of us that provide real goods and services, the reset can't come fast enough.  These professions have very real inputs and require hard work (unlike bullshit paper-pushing).  Compensation for our labor has been shit next to salaries in the financial sector, so fuck it, reset this shit-show.

Turns out, a pair of balls does indeed beat just about anything, grow some Bruce.

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 14:58 | 3039973 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Hey, the Kings were always 'paid' well.

Not so much their human cattle.

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:12 | 3039217 4exNinja
4exNinja's picture

Agree 100%!

Salaries in the US are pretty messed up at the moment, and the tax code favors whoever pays those sock puppet politicians the most (clue: Wall Street). 

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 13:25 | 3039076 odatruf
odatruf's picture

Here's why Bruce:

The deductions in the tax code are how both sides give back to supporters. They are what is most often used to grease skids and show favor.

If top rates are increased and the deductions are left in place, then the value of those deductions goes up. Meaning getting one is even more valuable in the future. Meaning the rent seeking game continues

If rates go down and deductions are eliminated, then this leverage and previously paid for advantage goes away.

I won't hammer the point. You'll connect the dots on your own.

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 10:41 | 3039061 4exNinja
4exNinja's picture

Increasing taxes on the top 2% hurts the economy well less than taking it from the middle class...so I actually think it's a good idea. It won't solve the budget crisis on its own of course, but it's a good start. Next in line should be the closing of loop holes and those crazy subsidies for companies that really don't need it (*cough* Exxon *cough*). In fact, increasing the tax rates without following through on the rest is pretty pointless in the first place as it's a drop on a hot stone...

Also, stating total taxes are 50% plus is dishonest becaue it doesn't apply for the majority of people...or companies fo that matter.

I agree with you though, let's go over the cliff...at least we'll be flying for a second ;)

Btw, the GOP didn't lose because of their stance in regards to the economy...and neithier did it make Obama win. The election came down to the GOP's (batshit crazy) stance on immigration and social issues...and their increasing irrationality when it comes to science. I don't want anyone near the nuclear codes if he believes the earth is only 6k years old...

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 12:54 | 3039545 Augustus
Augustus's picture

Were all of your brainwashing sessions as enjoyable as the first one?

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:31 | 3039299 Hedgetard55
Hedgetard55's picture

Congatulations! You have won the ZH Douchebag Post of the Week!

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:41 | 3039328 4exNinja
4exNinja's picture

So instead of posting something intelligent all you have is an ad hominem attack...clever :D

 

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 15:16 | 3040061 acetinker
acetinker's picture

I'm still trying to get my head around "ludacris".  I'm not a grammar nazi- but this article ain't about pop stars.  Now, repeat after me l-u-d-i-c-r-o-u-s, Ludicrous!

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 14:52 | 3039950 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

public ridicule is a valid response whether you like it or not

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:21 | 3039247 skipjack
skipjack's picture

Altho well aware of the 2 party farce, the Rethugs lost because of: 1-vote fraud and 2-the Rethugs also ran obama, as WB's graphic points out.  There was no distinguishing between the two except for the gay marriage and abortion BS.  Otherwise, we'd have had Hoover #2 instead.  So let's not kid ourselves that Obama has any kind of "mandate".  Let's also talk about the total propaganda push by the MSM that refuses to call Obama out on anything.

 

Secondly, let's talk about the liberal insanity about science...the global warming/climate change sham/fraud, the sham about "abortion is reproductive health", and the total forcing of GMO crops and frankenfish on the populace.  Get back to me when liberals are sane and actually use science instead of feeeelings.

 

Thirdly, what about immigration - do you really think we need more third world welfare recipients to flood in ?  Really ?  Do you or your kids want a job that pays more than minimum wage ?

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:28 | 3039268 4exNinja
4exNinja's picture

Climate change isn't a "fraud"...and it's funny to see the party claiming to be for "individual liberties" being against abortion. In both cases liberals are correct.

Do you wanna know who else doesn't believe climate change is a fraud? The insurance industry! Their risk models take it into consideration because they are the first people seeing the cost of ignoring that FACT.

As for immigration: Look up the data...Mexicans are leaving! Why? Because their economy is doing better than the US ;)

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 13:11 | 3039594 Sparkey
Sparkey's picture

You are right, Climate change isn't a fraud! The fraud comes in with the idea that people can do something about it, it is utter insanity to believe humans are capable of regulating the climate, we are close to the end our own, collective, insanity will be the catalyst that shuts the curtain on this, sad, tale of Hubris, arrogance, ignorance, and greed!

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 12:50 | 3039531 Bear
Bear's picture

Mexicans are not leaving ... They are still coming Fast and Furious(ly)

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 12:36 | 3039468 psychobilly
psychobilly's picture

"and it's funny to see the party claiming to be for 'individual liberties' being against abortion. In both cases liberals are correct."

My body, my choice.  Someone else's responsibility.

Hardly a pro-liberty mantra.  More like the thought process of a mewling infant.

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:59 | 3039383 earnyermoney
earnyermoney's picture

Abortion. There seem to be 2 individuals in that story. One individual has liberties, the other not so much according to liberals.

As for climate change, I'm not worried. Every liberal I know advocating this line of thinking is not worried enough to alter their lifestyle. They live in 6K plus sq. foot homes, drive multiple gas guzzling SUVs. Hypocrits all.

As a liberal surely you've heard of evolution. We'll adapt and find cheaper solutions than the liberal BS Al Gore was pushing with his Carbon Credit trading scheme.

 

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 12:07 | 3039408 4exNinja
4exNinja's picture

Well, the insurance industry disagrees with you...and they're putting their money where their mouth is.

Tell me, what's an example of a "cheaper solution"? It's pretty clear we can't continue to pump as much CO2 in the air as we currently are. 

Claiming climate change isn't happening is ludacris...it's completley ignoring FACTS.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:01 | 3042560 Tursas
Tursas's picture

Yep - climate change is true but instead of CO2, it is caused by the accumulating hot air above Congress and White House... 

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 20:25 | 3041101 Landrew
Landrew's picture

I have a new friend. I will say it really isn't worth your time to educate people here. If people have little understanding of science and history it is impossible to debate unitl you educate. But it's nice to know there are many on here who agree with you and  know both topics at a very high level.

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 12:31 | 3039473 Roosting Chicken
Roosting Chicken's picture

If I may...

I am a scientist and I may not know much about all this money talk but I do know climate change as I spent more that a year researching it for a symposium.  I'll try to sum it up the facts:

1) CO2 is in equilibrium with the oceans.
2) There is not enough exploitable fossil fuel to double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere because:
a) CO2 absorbtion spectrum is logarithmic and doubling has little to no effect on radiation absorption, the rest leaks out of the atmosphere and b) is absorbed by the oceans.
3) While CO2 has steadily increased, a) Humidity has decreased and b) temperatures have increased, decreased, and remained the same (no correlation).  This is the opposite of the greenhouse theory which holds that increased temperatures increase humidity.  NASA and NOAA NCDC data both refute this.
5) Temperatures in the past (pre-industrialization) have been much higher and lower than they are now.
6) Climate is cyclical, not linear, on several time scales and has been long before anthropogenic CO2 came along.
7) Solar and ocean cycles are the drivers of the climate. Water vapor is the thermostat. Water vapor has a cooling effect, not greenhouse effect.

Climate Change is real, but it is natural and cyclical, not anthropogenic and linear.  The most obvious cycle is the 60 year cycle, but there many bigger cycles compounded on top of that that last for ten and hundreds of thousands of years.  Temperatures bottomed out at the turn of the last century, peaked in the 40s and bottomed out in the late 70s and peaked again in 2000.  That is your 60 year cycle. 

Here's where it gets interesting, Maurice Strong and John Holdren are the godfathers of the climate change movement, only they started with the global cooling scare of the 70s, then moved to warming in the 90s when that didn't turn out, and now climate change.  The reason is the theory that the world is overpopulated.  The idea is to slow down or reverse population growth.  they influenced policy makers and in turn that influenced the de-industrialization of the U.S., starting in the 80's.  the one sure way to slow pop growth is through austerity.  Now we are seeing the end game coming to fruition.  The guise was to have you believe industries were polluting and killing the planet.  There is a big difference between pollution and climate change.  Never confuse the two.

Hope I cleared that up a little.  The sad part, as evidence in these comments, is that climate science is ultimately giving all science a bad rap.  I hope you can seperate those two too.  Climate science is junk science.  It is all based on correlations and interpolations and suppression of opposed findings, not the scientific method.

 

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:14 | 3042639 Tursas
Tursas's picture

Roosting Chicken - you got it absolutely right!  It is that yellow oven up there that used to rotate around the earth until late 90's when Pope suddenly, after pondering its ancient sentence for a few hundred years, released it to its current more meaningful place! http://www.galacticwind.com/climate/2012/Q1.html#4

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 12:40 | 3039497 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

"The sad part, as evidence in these comments, is that climate science is ultimately giving all science a bad rap.  I hope you can seperate those two too.  Climate science is junk science.  It is all based on correlations and interpolations and suppression of opposed findings, not the scientific method."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Correct, but I'd argue that all science is dogmatic in this way (many agree with the dogma or they don't get funding), but I suggest you speak with someone in the energy sector.  The population issue will take care of itself as it takes very quantifiable measures of energy to actually do anything (especially grow food).  No question the system is under stress, but that is good, because we evolve (bring those fusion reactors online) or die.  Either way, the "problems" are then solved for many.

Hedge accordingly.

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 12:45 | 3039508 Roosting Chicken
Roosting Chicken's picture

Any time a population reaches a certain threshold, it crashes (because of limiting resources).  That value is K, and we are fast approaching it.  If you were TPTB would you rather have a natural population crash or a controlled population crash?  A natural population crash is indiscriminate. 

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 13:09 | 3039588 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

It doesn't require reaching those limits.

Several times, in different experiments where the limits were removed,

nature depopulated various species ,via pandemics and neuroses.

Looking at the world right now,one could conclude that nature is again at

work, on homo sapiens this time ,at least on the neurotic and psychopathic

side,no doubt the pandemics will follow shortly.

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 12:48 | 3039520 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

There is no such thing as a "controlled population crash" unless you are specifically refering to genocide.  To say there are such things is to say that human behavior and the laws of Nature and physics can be controlled on a massive scale.  Ahhh the arrogance of man, good luck with that.

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 13:04 | 3039572 Roosting Chicken
Roosting Chicken's picture

"It used to be easy to control a million people.  Now days it is much easier to kill a million people than control a million people" - Zbigniew Brzezinski, the most influential foreign policy advisor in for the last forty years, member of the trilateral commission. 

The way I see it is they can slow pop growth through austerity, and the dots do connect, or they can reverse pop growth by going all out at once.

Arrogance indeed.

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 12:14 | 3039426 knightowl77
knightowl77's picture

the climate has been changing for millions/maybe billions of years...all without benefit of man....it will keep changing...

 

adapt or die

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 12:21 | 3039444 4exNinja
4exNinja's picture

It hasn't changed at the super fast rate it's changing now...that's the whole point. And of course it doesn't given the severe impact humans have. To put it into perspective, last time we had a change of that magnitude it took over 1500 years to happen...not a mere 70 years.

For crying out loud, 10 of the hotest years recorded were since the year 2000. 

And again, what's your solution? It's pretty clear we can't go on indefinitely as we are now. And no, giving everyone gas masks and rafts isn't the solution...even if it would be cheaper.

Climate change is a fact, whether you like it or not...

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 14:31 | 3039856 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

AGW went on vacation.

The temperature hasn't gone up in 14 years while the CO2 levels have continued to rise.

Time to bring back the population scare or maybe some new manmade-up threat.

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 20:02 | 3041028 Yes We Can. But...
Yes We Can. But Lets Not.'s picture

The Climate Goons were yapping about Global Cooling when I was in grade school.  I look forward to these creeps one day getting what they deserve.

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 13:05 | 3039571 ceilidh_trail
ceilidh_trail's picture

Did you know that Long Island is a pile of sand left there by a receding glacier? Ie- the glacier was there a long time and then it melted. Uh, you know, it got warmer outside. We have only been measuring the surface temperatures of earth for maybe a century with anything accurate. A lot goes into where the thermometers are placed. Near an asphalt parking lot or in a woods. Lots of games intentional or unintentional have been played with this data. Don't be so gullible for the msm lie. The atmosphere is dynamic, not static.

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 12:59 | 3039542 ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

It hasn't changed at the super fast rate it's changing now

Now, there's a scientific statement if I've ever read one. Of course climate change is a fact, because the fucking climate changes all the time everywhere. 500 years ago, northern Europe was in an ice age. Then, the climate changed into a different pattern. The whole reason it's called "climate change" now instead of "global warming" is because (A) the globe is not in fact warming to any meaningful degree and (B) the climate is always changing so people like you can refer to "climate change" and then blame it on man-made CO2 to pursue their wet-dreams of further government control and taxation of our daily lives.

Here's an article written by advocates of global warming/climate change:

http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp

Look at the temperature chart about halfway down. Looks scary doesn't it? But if you look at the y-axis you will see the temperature over the past 30 years has been varying by +/- 0.8 degrees Fahrenheit. Oscillations of 0.8 degrees F is statistical noise, and yet the climate change Cassandras (like you) would like Big Daddy Government to step in and do something about it.

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 15:13 | 3040051 Roosting Chicken
Roosting Chicken's picture

That's right, government control and taxation on the global scale.  Who would be in charge of a carbon tax?  Not the U.S., it would be the U.N..  And whoever you pay your taxes to controls you so you can kiss sovereignty goodbye.  NWO? Just another tool in the toolbox.  The three branches are already in place, NATO, UN, and the IMF (or World Bank?).  Global taxation is the only link missing, well, after the IMF takes control of the money once the dollar crashes.

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 14:16 | 3039780 Imminent Crucible
Imminent Crucible's picture

Dupes like 4skinNinja aren't much interested in facts. They pretty much run on their feelings, with just enough cherry-picked, hockey-sticked, goal-seeked Hadley Climate Research Unit data to support their canards. I don't see Al Gore selling his yachts and houses and moving into an ashram, and I don't hear many trees complaining about how the atmosphere is overloaded with carbon dioxide.

The climate is definitely changing. Crap, it's a heck of a lot colder today than it was back in August. My feet are freezing, but Hide the Decline.

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 12:52 | 3039537 Tom Servo
Tom Servo's picture

LOL - climate fact'er.  The Roman and Midieval  warm periods, and the little ice age don't fit with your narrative, but hey, in your world correlation = causation.  Glad it doesn't in my world.  the warmest year on record here was 1939.  Climate changes, i agree.  North africa used to not be a desert.  The hubris of mankind.... sad really...

 

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:19 | 3039239 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

"I don't want anyone near the nuclear codes if he believes the earth is only 6k years old..."

 

Perhaps, but personally I'd prefer someone that did have a conscience and perhaps even believed in an ultimate judgement of their actions by a higher authority to be near the nuclear codes.

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 13:55 | 3039703 Dan Conway
Dan Conway's picture

I don't care about their positions on the age of the earth.  What I do care more about is the answer to this question:  Is the USA the enemy?  I don't want the person with the codes to hate this country like the current guy. 

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:22 | 3039255 4exNinja
4exNinja's picture

Morals and ethics aren't imposed by religion...they are imposed by society ;)

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:40 | 3039324 JailBank
JailBank's picture

Have you seen the society that has been culitvated in the last few years? Morals went out with the belief that you should be responsible for your actions.

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:43 | 3039333 4exNinja
4exNinja's picture

Got some examples? 

When it comes to economic stuff I agree...but that's because of greed, something that's always been around. 

Either way, it's clear that religion isn't the key driver behind morals anyway...society as a whole is. And morals change all the time because society does too.

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 17:18 | 3040551 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

"And morals change all the time because because society does too."

Quite true.

Within the last several decades, smoking and drunk driving have been moralized, while out of wedlock childbirth and torture have been demoralized.

It is now more acceptable to torture a human than an animal.

Don't know why you were downvoted.

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 17:11 | 3040518 FrankDrakman
FrankDrakman's picture

Your knowledge of history could scarcely fill a thimble. Why don't you start by finding Kenneth Clark's "Civilization" series; it's probably out on YouTube somewhere. He traces the history of man through architecture, and if you compare the episode on Chartres with the one on NYC, you might realize just how profoundly ignorant you sound.

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 14:08 | 3039744 Imminent Crucible
Imminent Crucible's picture

"Got some examples?"

...Lady Gaga, Madonna, Cher, Justin Bieber, Barry and Mooch, Steve Foxconn Jobs, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, a 70% illegitimacy rate among blacks, virtually everyone in Hollywood, etc, etc...

I think you have it exactly backwards. There's no historical record of a nation with a moral system but no religion. America has largely jettisoned religion (with the exception of Mammon Worship) and the public morality is in freefall. Hence, a bad religion, or no religion, leads to a rotten morality, which yields a rotten society.

"Greed has always been around." No duh. And so has every other form of immorality. But we haven't always had such a broad public fervor for moral rottenness.

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 19:32 | 3040934 Bollixed
Bollixed's picture

"America has largely jettisoned religion "

It's about goddamn time. Religion is the last refuge of a scoundral.

Not your religion, of course. I'm talking about those other religions...

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:36 | 3042763 Imminent Crucible
Imminent Crucible's picture

Well, of course I'm a scoundrel, you scoundrel. But you could at least spell it correctly.

It's kind of like Mark Twain: "I don't mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy."

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 12:25 | 3039458 JailBank
JailBank's picture

Liberal parents obsessed with letting children 'express themselves' are killing-off good manners, it has been claimed A decline in traditions like sitting down to eat dinner together and using common courtesies such as 'excuse me' stems from lazy parenting, according to a survey of grandmothers. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2243883/Grandmothers-blame-lazy-... Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Thu, 12/06/2012 - 11:18 | 3039220 Cycle
Cycle's picture

Glitch.

 

 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!