Debt Ceiling: the Senate will vote on a new plan at 1 PM today. Talks are ongoing; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had to postpone the vote from its original time this evening to allow the parties more time to negotiate on the details of a deal.
Fugitive hijacker: the FBI has a very promising lead on D.B. Cooper, the man who pulled off the only unsolved commercial hijacking in US history. Cooper jumped out of the plane he commandeered, but may or may not have survived.
Syria’s uprisings: Hama, the main center of dissent in Syria, was subjected to a large-scale attack by government forces. Government troops killed at least 45 Hama residents.
Anders Behring Brevik: is a huge creep—even more than you’d expect. The man who murdered 77 fellow Norwegians in a bombing and shooting last week apparently got plastic surgery in order to be ready for his post-massacre notoriety.
460,000 weed plants: snatched up by the Feds in Northern California. More than 100 people were arrested in the 50+ weed farms raided by law enforcement agencies.
Climate change researcher: canned by the Obama administration in a move that may be politically motivated, according to some environmental groups. The scientist, Charles Monnett, studies polar bears in areas that the administration might try to open to oil exploration.
We’re killing our own jobs: a poll of Washingtonians indicated that residents of our fair state would favor taxing the rich to close the budget gap and oppose cutting Social Security and Medicare. Each preference had support near 75%.
Bicyclist killed in hit and run: Mike Wang, a Shoreline man, was biking home from work when he was hit by an SUV; he died of his injuries today. The driver of the vehicle remains at large. Wang is survived by his wife and two children.
European Neanderthals: got wiped out by an invasion of homo sapiens African apes.
PB&J burgled: or, more accurately, left behind at the scene of a burglary in North Seattle—the robber smeared peanut butter and jelly all over the house he/she broke into.
Tunnel news of the day: in a surprise move, the Cascade Bicycle Club endorsed a “Yes” vote on the tunnel measure. Just kidding. They did the opposite.
Here’s a new joint from the Physics, who just dropped a new album this week.
The Physics -These Moments (Video by Zac McConnell) from Zac McConnell on Vimeo.
And, in entertainment news, it looks like Cowboys & Aliens is a major flop. Final numbers for the weekend aren’t in yet, but it’s looking like it may even get beaten by Smurfs. Ouch.
“residents of our Socialist state would favor taxing the rich to close the budget gap and oppose cutting Social Security and Medicare…….”
50% of Americans pay ZERO Federal income tax.
while 40¢ of every dollar the Federal government spends
is borrowed,
and will have to be repaid by our children,
who have no say in the decision to borrow Trillions every year.
that is immoral…..
and it CAN NOT LAST
50% is enough to raise taxes on the “rich”,
even to decide to confiscate everything they own eventually….
but that path leads to economic ruin.
do you really want the least productive
least capable
half of the country making all the economic decisions?
the country is at a tipping point,
looming at the edge of a precipice over a raging bottomless ocean.
alas-
the Democrap HomoLiberal Hipster class DO NOT GET IT…..
THE TIMES- THEY ARE’A CHANGING…..
Come gather ’round people
Wherever you roam
And admit the DEBT waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You’ll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin’
Then you better start swimmin’
Or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’.
Come Reid and Pelosi
Please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway
Don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside
And it is ragin’
It’ll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’.
Come Hipsters and Liberals
Throughout the land
And don’t criticize
What you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin’
Please get out of the new one
If you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’.
THE LINE- IT IS DRAWN
THE CURSE_-IT IS CAST
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The OLD DEMOCRAP HOMOLIBERAL SOCIALIST ORDER is
Rapidly fadin’
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’.
The rich should be taxed for being alive. If they don’t like it, they can move to Texas or some similar hellhole, and we can reclaim their land for the public good.
Imagine! Medina as a public park, Broadmoor as subsidized housing for seniors, Bellevue Square converted to cooperative housing for the homeless, with Neiman-Marcus serving as a vocational school and free childcare facility!
We’ve let the rich mooch off our toils for too long. They need to pay their bill, or move on.
@4 I am currently employed (and have been for 4 years) by somebody who doesn’t make over $250k a year. I saw their pay stub on accident.
When I worked for somebody who had inherited money it was awful.
This is amusing
So does that mean that urbists in Roosevelt will eventually overrun the existing native population of SFH dwellers?
Also, I challenge the term “modern” humans…isn’t evolution supposed to be zero-biased.
As you know, Raindrop dear, I work for the power company, so poor people (and rich people, and everyone in-between) do employ me. People need their ‘lectricity.
@1:
NPH is way cooler than an aging Indy any day.
WTF, Norway?
A narcissist and a fantasist, Breivik, 32, refuses to have his prison “mugshot” taken to ensure that the carefully stage-managed photographs he took of himself – in full Masonic regalia or clutching his rifle – are not replaced by more humbling images.
You have a choice in whether you get a mugshot taken in Norway?
Oh, you get a choice here, too, @10: Whether or not you’ve got bruises in the photo.
@4 – I directly employ two people on a part time basis and my household makes less than 250k.
I’m not sure what your point is other than proving you’re someone I wouldn’t want to employ.
@11
Really? Shit, if that’s the case, I guess people just don’t know they have a choice, since we do seem to see a fair amount of mugshots in the news.
Btw, that “conspiracy” about Charles Monnett is looking completely made up.
In addition to writing about polar bears — something he did some six years ago — he also runs a department with a $24 million/year budget that is currently under investigation by the GAO’s Inspector General. And THAT’s why he’s under suspension. Nothing too nefarious about that.
C’mon, get a grip already!
@14:
You’re right, bashing doesn’t make sense.
Taxing, on the other hand, does!
The term “African ape,” even when used ironically, is still an eye-roller.
@13 – try reading 11 again. He’s referring to a different choice.
@4 and 5, a “poor” person employs me every time they consume something. A person that can consume at a middle class pace is far more useful than his employer that makes 400x the money. The widening gap in income (transfer of wealth, getting poor people to borrow money they don’t have and spend in a system the has an increasingly larger amount going to the glorious employer) is killing America.
Eat the rich.
Reading comprehension just ain’t what it used to be, Erica.
“A poll of Washingtonians indicated that residents of our fair state would favor taxing the rich to close the budget gap and oppose cutting Social Security and Medicare. Each preference had support near 75%.”
Hold the presses! 75% of taxpayers, asked if someone other than them should foot the tax bills, say yes?
Who woulda thunk it?
@20 ah, for the days before all these AOL dimwits got onto usenet…
@21: So “majority rules” is okay when deciding whether gay people get those rights enjoyed by others, but not when deciding whether the rich should get nice cushy tax cuts…
Seattleblues, your cognitive dissonance is showing.
@21, assuming you’re not a government employee or a direct beneficiary of any government contracts (you wouldn’t be the first vocal conservative to be “suckling at the government teat”), will you be declining Social Security payments when you’re eligible?
If not, will you stop accepting them once you’ve received a total sum equal to what you’ve paid in over the years, adjusted by some fair-ish method? Feel free to sketch out the method–dollars adjusted for cumulative inflation over the course of your work life, a presumed yield if they had been invested elsewhere, etc.
@23
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
Thomas Jefferson
@24
Social Security, from an investment standpoint is only a decent vehicle. It pays a bit over average inflation, but is unusually safe. The stock market and variants like Mutual Funds, do better. Bonds and CDs and the like do about as well on average.
Of course, it isn’t an investment, but a theft from one generation to support the retirement of another. So long as you have more people being born than getting old, if you can get past the basically unethical nature of the program. But every Western democracy is realizing that this is thoroughly unsustainable in a slow to no population growth environment. Throughout Europe and America we have or will have more retireees demanding benefits than adequate labor base to pay for them.
I would be perfectly comfortable phasing Social Security out over 20 or 30 years, with current beneficiaries getting full payout and later getting little to nothing. But I’d be extremely uncomfortable telling my dad, who paid this iniquitous tax for 50 years, that he shouldn’t get something back from the theft.
@24
I might note that were I in fact a government employee or beneficiary of a government contract, I’d be earning my salary or profit. For those who don’t understand this concept-To ‘earn’ means providing a good or service in exchange for money or other goods or services.
As opposed to those who simply assume that their bad choices entitle them to the contents of other citizens wallets with the IRS acting as mugger on their behalf.
@25: Excuse me, but there is no evidence to suggest that Jefferson ever said or wrote that. Pick your quotes with a little more discretion, Seattleblues.
@26: We will always have more people being born than getting old, assuming that our birth rate doesn’t sink like a lead weight. That is because not everyone who is born ever grows old.
Also, if it is unethical for the government to take people’s money in exchange for providing a basic level of safety and security, we should dismantle the public police and fire departments, right? Or are you speaking out your ass again?
@27: That’s how it is?
Well, parents raising children are providing an invaluable service to society by perpetuating our species, so it is reasonable to provide assistance to them. Out-of-work persons help the market when they actively search for jobs by ensuring a plentiful supply of available labor, so unemployment benefits make sense. And so on and so forth.
@28
There’s an abundance of evidence that the modern welfare state would have appalled the men who wrote the Constitution. Basically, the notion that any one citizen is any way entitled to anothers property is immoral, unethical and un-democratic.
My post at 26 needed editing. What it read was “So long as you have more people being born than getting old, if you can get past the basically unethical nature of the program.” What it should have read was “So long as you have more people being born than getting old, if you can get past the basically unethical nature of the program, it works.” And yes, we have problem when we make promises to people 70 years ago which our current population can’t feasibly keep.
You define personal retirement as a safety and security issue. As you define my ability to find work, or pay my mortgage, or keep my power on, or feed my children. I define all of these as personal responsibility outside of the legitimate realm of government.
The difference between my retirement on the one hand and our collective payment for police or fire departments on the other is obvious. I alone benefit from my retirement. All of my neighbors and I benefit from the police or fire department. We can ethically assess common taxes for commonly enjoyed security. We cannot ethically assess common taxes for my personal security. (Since FDR and LBJ didn’t believe in ethics, or personal accountability, or the United States Constitution they had no problems proposing various programs to destroy this nation. Their hatred of this country has served us all very poorly.)
@29: What, a public safety net would have appalled the men who wrote the Constitution, but they were okay with slavery, huh?
I’d really like to know what you were smoking when you wrote your fourth paragraph, because it must have been some dank-ass shit. Your retirement fund directly benefits only you, just the same way the protection of your property by the police and firefighters directly benefits only you. Social Security, like the aforementioned services, bundles your security with that of everyone else. This is not a difficult concept, unless you’re LEOTARDED AS FUCK.
“We will always have more people being born than getting old”
not so.
Japan and some European countries do not achieve the replacement fertility rate and China is joining that club.
White Liberals, between abortion and homosexuality, do not maintain themselves either.
Darwin could explain to you how important enlightened reproductive policy is…..
SB, put down your Ayn Rand, okay? “Jobs” aren’t magically created by one person, or a class of people. The stability & strength of a nation doesn’t magically appear because the vast majority of its people are “personally responsible.” All of these things arise out of an economy, that is, a structured set of relationships. Every third world country has plenty of rich people. By your philosophy, their people would all magically have jobs as well. If you blame their people as not being responsible, you’re just engaging in passive bigotry. The difference between the first world & the third world is their economic relationships. Prosperous nations have a strong middle class & and a social support system.
Your last crack about Roosevelt & Johnson is a good indicator of your intellectual bankruptcy. If you felt their policies were to the detriment of America, you can argue that. But you don’t. You engage in petty name-calling. The accusation that their actions are unconstitutional is preposterous. It is sad that these kinds of lies are propagated on TV, so slow-thinking idiots can pick them up & repeat them ad nauseum. America is in a bad place right now, not so much because of the actions of President past, but because so many people like yourself are desperate to accept that the earth is flat & the sun revolves around it.
@12
You’re rich. Cough up the taxes, buddy! More, more, more…
Not enough. More.
The ravening maw must be fed.
No seriously. More. Now.
@18: I guess I wasn’t tuned into his cleverness.
@20: Whatever.
@22: Ah, yes: back when alt.sex.stories had more than pedophilia and incest yarns. Those certainly were the days.
@31: i’m twelve and what is this
@14 -I don’t understand how asking wealthy people to contribute back to the society that got them to that place and helps maintain their position is considered bashing them. Also, I know that your republican synchophants say otherwise but just because you repeat talking points ad nauseum, it doesn’t make them true.
@33 – perhaps I should also note that I don’t whine about my tax burden. Considering that I think the USA is pretty awesome to have helped me to get where I am and that I feel I get a good deal for what I pay for, I’m not sure what your point is.
Nobody ‘got’ the wealthy where they are but the wealthy themselves. Parenthetically, if you are well off yourself, congratulations on the discipline and hard work that got you there, since those really are what did it.
If your notion were correct, every citizen would be exactly equal in terms of material success, since their society did everything for them. Since the facts prove otherwise it follows that your notion isn’t correct.
Since it isn’t, punishing the wealthy by asking that they pay for the poor isn’t just bad policy (which it is) but manifestly unjust.
@38 – So you’re saying that this nation doesn’t have:
– a culture that encourages innovation
– Great schools at every level of education
– Police/Fire protection
– Excellent medical care
– A basic social safety net
Because to me, those are highlights of a great nation. The police keep the rich from being robbed and help keep them in that position. Schools help you prepare for advanced careers. Medical care so you don’t die of some easily treatable disease… sounds like society does actually play a role in helping the rich get to where they are. I didn’t say that everyone is equal, but rather that society does play a role. So does luck, so does your own internal gumption, etc, but being in a society that encourages success and supports you as you attempt to rise to the upper tiers is a big thing. It’s not perfect, because I personally think it could do (a lot) more.
You have a crazy idea as to what “unjust” is because your herpderp about “punishing” the wealthy is bullshit, but you’re a crazy loathesome individual in general, so that’s not too surprising,
@38: The government is like a comprehensive form of insurance; everyone pays into it via taxes and everyone is guaranteed a minimum standard of living. Is it also stealing, or somehow unjust, when the health insurance company pays your claim with money they got from other people?
@40
First, your understanding of the government as insurance makes me surmise that Civics classes ain’t what they used to be.
Second, even if it were, I volunteer my premiums to the health insurance company and can (until Obamacare) choose a more suitable financial vehicle to accomplish the aim of affordable health care. (Of course, now I’m forced to buy a specific type of insurance, whether it suits my financial needs or not. THANKS Obama, you ridiculous ass!)
I don’t volunteer my taxes. I pay them, or I go to prison. (Kinda like health care under our dear leader, Heil Obama!) Yes, we all should pay for Constitutionally mandated government activities. No, we absolutely should not pay for the personal welfare of a lazy or poorly planning citizen. That’s not a standard of living. That’s ensuring in a generation or 3 a citizenry wholly unable to care for themselves, at the mercy of various government agencies for their very survival. This assumption of cradle to grave nanny state is, some 8 decades after the odious FDR, the reason we’re even having this discussion. Prior to that treasonous man no decent citizen would have dreamed of having a claim for their individual welfare based on money stolen from their fellow citizens.
@41: The government is not designed to be insurance, but it fills a somewhat analogous role. It may interest you to know that our system of government is intended to “promote the general welfare”. It’s RIGHT THERE in the Preamble (which I have memorized, thanks to School House Rock) to the Constitution of the United States of America. Our government was set up with the intention of making a decent place for its citizens, and our current prosperity (shaken though it is by the events of late) is the result of the GI Bill, one of the greatest government handouts of all time. Without it there would be no middle class as we know it.
Now, you pay your taxes to avoid going to jail. I pay my taxes because I recognize that it’s my patriotic duty to give back to my society. I’ve been given a civilized environment to grow up in and put through school on the public dollar, and I’m currently attending an excellent university that I wouldn’t be able to pay for without the availability of low-interest loans from the Federal government. I don’t make much money just yet (not even enough to need to file!), but I am proud to pay my taxes on my meager earnings. I’d rather be destitute and honest than have grown wealthy by not paying my debts. This kind of thing is why I am a patriot and you aren’t; you hate any thought of putting yourself out, however slightly, for the greater good, no matter how much you have benefited from the sacrifices of others.
Also, if you don’t want to pay taxes, feel free to not let the door hit you on the way out.
@41
OBAMACARE……..? oh, you mean the health care reform bill that was modeled after previous models proposed by dangerous socialists like Mitt Romney and Bob Dole? I shudder to think…
^ “modeled after previous models”. let me be the first to point out how embarrassing that part of the sentence was!
@42 – you said it much better than I. Hat tip and gold star to you sir.
@41- Well Venomlash covered most of the ground, but I want to point out one other thing:
You, Seattleblues, can use the welfare system when you need it. You don’t need it now but you might and if sanity prevails it will be there when you do.
Your argument against welfare is like arguing the federal government shouldn’t spend money building highways in Tennessee because you aren’t planning on driving in Tennessee and if you ever did you’d take a 4×4.