Dennis Clayson is a marketing professor at UNI.

 

Given the results of recent national elections, it appears that the nation is split on a number of issues that neither side considers negotiable.

In May 2009, I wrote an article suggesting an amicable divorce between the two sides, with a partitioning of national assets between the two groups based on what was dear to each. It was a rhetorical device to outline the differences found in a split nation, and to make a larger point about ideology applied to everyday life.

Looking at the recent election, it may be time to revisit the idea.

The winners of the last election will get to keep the parts of America they like best. It seems only fair that the winners get to take the first cut.

Outside of a few states, Obama’s America gets the large cities. Without question they get to keep Detroit, Buffalo, N.Y., Cincinnati, Cleveland, Miami, St. Louis, El Paso, Texas, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Newark, N.J. None of these municipalities have had a conservative (let alone a Republican) administration for as long as anyone can remember. These are also, according to the Census Bureau, the cities with the highest poverty rates.

In Iowa, Obama’s America also keeps the largest cities. As the last several elections have shown, they already own them. We get all the western rural counties; the eastern counties can choose to go either way.

Obama’s America gets the Wall Street protesters, and we get Wall Street. They can keep the national-level media, and government unions. They obviously own them outright.

We’ll keep the "bitter clingers," those who hold onto their guns, Bibles and Judeo-Christian values. Obama’s America can keep the god-of-the-week, and cars that run on soy grease and electricity and are generated from anything except coal and nuclear power.

We get the coal and nuclear power plants. We also get all the coal and oil fields along with the uranium deposits. Obama’s America has no interest in these or doesn’t want anything to do with them.

We get to keep the Constitution. Obama’s America can have the "living document," along with political correctness, laws regulating "hate" speech, and the government protected right to sex without consequences that has magically morphed into a "women’s issue."

We get to keep "the rich" and it is especially important that we retain the "older white males." These two groups pay the overwhelming share of taxes, and we would like to keep them. In fact, we will institute a yearly holiday, much like Veteran’s Day, when "the rich" and "older white males" are thanked for their service to the nation.

We will keep the scientists and artists who could survive without a government grant. Obama’s America could keep schools that could not run without federal intervention.

As radical as this may sound to the other America, we are willing to give Obama’s nation all federally controlled, protected, and financed health care. Our nation will do whatever we can to turn health care into a free market.

We will keep rights that are God-given. Obama’s America can keep the rights granted by the government; the right to health care, of an education, to housing, and the right to whatever else that could win any given election.

We get to keep the part of the federal government that maintains the rule of law, and is prohibited from making transfer payments. Obama’s America can have all the rest.

We will gladly trade Washington D.C. and New York for North and South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming.

Let everyone move to whatever nation they wish and then close the border.

What do you think the two nations would look like 20 years from now? Which one would be indistinguishable from any third-world country?

Do you think there would be a fence between them? Would the fence keep people out, or like North Korea and East Germany, would the fence be there to keep unhappy people from fleeing their centrally government-managed paradise?

(100) comments

MAC
MAC

I've heard this metaphor so many times, it sounds like the same old song...different lyrics, but the same old, worn out tune.

The running of this country should be left to we who "own" it. The rest of you are just renters...and should just shut up, take what we allow when we "give" you work, pay your taxes and do what your told....or get out. After all, even though much of our wealth has been past to us from generations before and we have done little to earn it other than being born at the right place, at the right time to the right parents...we are entitled (or should be) to decide what is best for "our" country. You are poor, uneducated, un-propertied and cannot possibly have any idea of what is "right".

Save the poetic political parable, Professor. Just tell me what you REALLY mean.

xdfred2
xdfred2

What are you even talking about?

cclarkson
cclarkson

Try increasing your ability to view reality and not your/FOX/GOP alternate reality and that should help understanding those (like MAC) who talk from/in reality.

whtnationalist
whtnationalist

All 50 states have petitions to the White House to leave the Union. Iowa is at: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-iowa-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/Yz60Zvtk Obviously not many people know about this yet as only 25% toward goal of 25,000 signatures. While largely symbolic it drives home the frustration with an out of control federal government. Right now each American is stuck with over $50,000 in federal debt. That means each tax payer is stuck with over $100,000 in federal debt. Each of us could buy a home for that, instead it goes to the feds for redistribution and waste. Leaving the USA would leave that debt behind.

cross1242
cross1242

"whtnationalist" remember the election on November 6th? You lost it. All the petitions are is the last gasp of those who lost that election trying to change a result that you don't like.

xdfred2
xdfred2

Sure. Right. Was there talk of secession when Bush was elected? Either time?

cclarkson
cclarkson

I think there may have been some 'predicting' it to occur but don't recall it actually occurring.

xdfred2
xdfred2

"cclarkson - 22 hours ago
I think there may have been some 'predicting' it to occur but don't recall it actually occurring."

XD: There's that thinking again. Doesn't work for you. Just like the striped shirt and plaid pants don't.

cclarkson
cclarkson

@xdfred comment below:

1. Since I can supply a link to a news commentator who did predict such w/o it occurring as predicted... my thinking seems to be working just fine ;)
2. Given your false assertion in that regard in below post all you do is provide more evidence that it is your own 'thinking' that doesn't work for you. ;)
3. Stripes and plaids workout fine on the golf course -- so your universal 'thinking' ain't working out so good on that one either. ;)

whtnationalist
whtnationalist

Anyone who has seen the Bosnian conflict knows that enclaves (cities) inside enemy territory do not work. Anyone who would find their city in enemy territory should flee immediately to friendly territory. If the country splits it will likely be the center breaking away from the coasts. The USA will be reduced to the Left Coast (east) and Mexifornia. Our country will be from Mississippi River to Mexifornia border. From Canadian border to Gulf of Mexico. We will control fuel, electricity, pipelines, food, transportation. If Obama can find enough soldiers to attack us we will cut off electricity and pipelines. His left wingnuts can starve and freeze.

whtnationalist
whtnationalist

What most do not know is that many states have agreements with the United States on joining the Union as a state. Many, like Wyoming, automatically revoke statehood if the Constitution is violated by the feds. Others, like Texas, have the right to leave the Union any time they want. I do not know what agreement Iowa has, I will have to go to the state archives to find out. Nothing seems to be online.

cclarkson
cclarkson

You seem to base conclusions and advice on things you do not know are so, that really are so (for instance that Iowa has an official language) AND on things you think are so, that are not so.
even Wikipedia recognizes that Texas has no right to secession (nor does any other state).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas#Statehood

want another link let me know

xdfred2
xdfred2

And who grants that so called right of secession?

cclarkson
cclarkson

There is NO RIGHT to secession and if you don't want to take my word for it take S.C. Justice Renquist's:

http://www.foxsportsradio.com/pages/onair.html?feed=104668&article=10573337

cclarkson
cclarkson

Correction to below post that should be Scalia not Renquist

whtnationalist
whtnationalist

I said Iowa has NO official language. Which is why there is nothing baring the state from providing forms in many languages.

As to right of secession, that is in the contracts. Wikipedia articles carry no legal weight. An opinion from the Secretary of State for Montana does carry legal weight. Read more about it at the official site: http://sos.mt.gov/News/archives/2008/February/2-19-08.htm

cclarkson
cclarkson

And you are WRONG
I repeat:
Try to keep up... English language has been the official language for aprx. 10 years: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,46948,00.html

http://www.us-english.org/view/348 sates in quoting Iowa code (point 2) "English language is hereby declared to be the official language of the state of Iowa".

RE: your "in the contracts" please supply a link that speaks of 'right to secede'... your current Montana site does not do that.... my response to their constitution and 'right to bear arms' is SO WHAT... if the right to bear arms CHANGES in our nation then the states must adapt... JUST like they did when state constitutions discriminated against African Americans and women and inter-racially married.

And so AGAIN I repeat:
You seem to base conclusions and advice on things you do not know are so, that really are so (for instance that Iowa has an official language) AND on things you think are so, that are not so.
And if you don't like Wiki then take Justice Scalia's opinion:
http://www.foxsportsradio.com/pages/onair.html?feed=104668&article=10573337

cross1242
cross1242

There is only one such agreement. Texas could be broken up to into five states. The rest of your comment is baloney.

Leo46
Leo46

Just think, Texas could have 10 Senators instead of 2, if it split.

Phil
Phil

Yes, and with the exploding Latino population 8 or 9 of them would likely be Democrats.

whtnationalist
whtnationalist

Follow the information provided by Secy of State Brad Johnson of Montana. I think I confused Montana with Wyoming. However Wyoming probably has a similar agreement on becoming a state.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1973142/posts

whtnationalist
whtnationalist

You can download the Sectary of State for Montana's letter regarding agreement to join the United States and the Constitution: http://www.progunleaders.org/Heller/SoS%20Washington%20Times%20Letter.pdf

Here is the text for those unable to view pdf files:


Dear Sir;
Overturning Heller Could Breach Statehood Contracts.
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in over 60 years in which
the Court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the Court's decision will
have impact far beyond D.C.
The Court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals
to keep and bear arms, or it merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National
Guard. This latter view is called the "collective rights" theory.
A collective rights decision by the Court would violate the contract by which Montana entered
into statehood, called the Compact with the United States and archived at Article I of the
Montana Constitution. When this bilateral contract was entered into by Montana and the U.S. in
1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the
right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly an individual right.
There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights
interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent
with the declared Montana constitutional right of "any person" to bear arms.
As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the
contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the Court in Heller would invoke an era of
unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the U.S. and
Montana, and many other states.
Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a Resolution, posted at progunleaders.org,
raising this contract violation issue. The U.S. would do well to keep its contractual promise to
the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of
the statehood contract.


Sincerely,
BRAD JOHNSON,
Montana Secretary of State

cclarkson
cclarkson

And so the individual 'right to bear arms' can be limited to 'squirt guns' and they STILL have the right to bear such arms. LOL

Just like some states had the 'right to determine who votes' and that right had to FALL INTO LINE with including blacks, women.
Just like some states had the 'right to determine who marries' and that right had to FALL INTO LINE to include interracial couples.

And I'm pretty sure there were some 'Secretary of State' that didn't like those either. LOL

xdfred2
xdfred2

cclarkson - 6 hours ago
And so the individual 'right to bear arms' can be limited to 'squirt guns' and they STILL have the right to bear such arms. LOL

Just like some states had the 'right to determine who votes' and that right had to FALL INTO LINE with including blacks, women.
Just like some states had the 'right to determine who marries' and that right had to FALL INTO LINE to include interracial couples.

And I'm pretty sure there were some 'Secretary of State' that didn't like those either. LOL


XD: Baloney! Apples to oranges. But what else can one expect from an Obamabot?

cclarkson
cclarkson

@xdfred comment below:

So other than demonstrating you can't follow logical comparisons (in this instance on constitutional rights and how they are changed in part {state level} when changed in the whole {fed level}, can't logically sustain an assertion (in this instanceabout your fruit issue -- perhaps a bit bananas there ??), and that you seem a bit hungry... you have anything pertinent??

cross1242
cross1242

Since Clayson says he’s repeating ideas from a May, 2009, column, I looked back at my response to his May 10, 2009 column. The primary thing I noticed from my response then was that Clayson was apparently ripping-off someone named “John J. Wall” and his idea about a “divorce agreement” between the American left and right.

Meanwhile, the original John J. Wall piece has been circulating around and around the internet. (Either that or John J. Wall has advanced no further in law school since 2009.) So, Clayson has dug up his derivative work for another whack at his imagined foes on the left.

However, in the intervening time, many other authors have responded to the ideas Clayson uses in both the 2009 column and today’s column. Therefore, I shall be derivative too and just provide reference to the many responses to John J. Wall. Here are some of them:

http://dailymull.com/1775/An-Open-Letter-to-John-J-Wall-Concerning-Our-Divorce-Settlement

http://thisruthlessworld.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/a-liberal-responds-to-a-conservatives-divorce-agreement-for-america/

http://bravonewworld.blogspot.com/2010/08/response-to-rights-divorce-agreement.html

http://hepzibahpyncheon.blogspot.com/2009/02/divorce-proposal.html

http://richmerritt.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/a-patriotic-rebuttal-to-a-conservative-law-student/

There are more. However, I’m sure my derivative point is evident by now.

xdfred2
xdfred2

You were wrong then as well as now.

cclarkson
cclarkson

LOL
Clayson puts forth a lot of hot air in attempt to 'raise a test balloon' and the 'muse' (or is that amuse) about what the 'view' would be in the future for the vantage point of this 'hot air' test balloon.

This 'divorce' scenario (nation is split on a number of issues that neither side considers negotiable). Clayson 'generously' says 'the winners' get first cut. LOL
Trouble ole boy is like last time
a. "the winners" (adhering to the framework of our nation) choose ALL the nation (one nation under God indivisible)
b. "the losers" twist reality (Constitutional, factual, social, political, economical, moral, religious) issues of the day to manufacture a 'divorce' scenario to bolster their SELF interests and not NATIONAL interests.
Trouble ole boys is the latter (which includes you), like last time, are the one's saying "close the border" -- and thus demonstrate from the git go who of the two would be the "centrally government-managed" 'paradise' people would flee from (the one's closing the border from the start).

BOAR78
BOAR78

AMEN! Im so tired of the "money handed down" theory it makes me sick. Fact is if you work and become a "reliable" worker and American you can become independent. Just look at the states with the most debt, end of story. Maybe im to old school and shouldnt own up to my mistakes.

whtnationalist
whtnationalist

I don't have any study at hand but it seems most rich people earn their wealth, they don't inherit it. For example Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. Even those who inherit money must work at replenishing that money. Like investing in new businesses and creating jobs. Otherwise the wealth gets used up in a generation or two for living expenses. And don't forget the HUGE inheritance tax about to come back at the first of the year. Personally I would like to see a flat tax. It is true that tax loopholes exist. For example some people avoid paying Social Security by taking dividends from a business instead of wages.

cclarkson
cclarkson

LOL
Clayson puts forth a lot of 'hot air' to float a 'test balloon' about the need to “revisit the idea” of a 'national divorce'.
As a nation we have been there, done that re: 'national divorce'.

As 'it' went the first time so goes the second time:
1. The 'winners' (given they aren't floating hot air balloons of 'secession') in taking 'their cut' choose/commit to the WHOLE and not the dice and slice language/mentality of Clayson. The 'winners', as before, commit to the Constitutional “more perfect union” which encompasses a vast diversity of people/ideas, while the “losers', as before, commit to self-focus (lamenting any need/call for respecting a diverse perspective/people) and settling for an homogeneous population (the first time around that being 'white men' and this time around it being – using Clayson's rhetoric - 'old white men') with 'wealth/means/property' (aka as Clayson says 'rich').
2. The 'losers' (epitomized by Clayson himself) say they commit to the Constitution so long as it is DEAD – which means of course: so long as 'we' the 'losers' don't have to 'lose' by giving anything to form/achieve a more perfect union. Which is to say they don't know beans about committing to the Constitution. They don't seek 'union' they seek 'divorce' (which means a focus not on 'us' but on 'me' - look at how many times Clayson writes "we get" and how he twists reality to justify "we get").

There was and is no 'divorce' from the fact that as a nation (individually and collectively) we are a union committed to the proposition that 'divine unalienable rights” (including life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) are for all people and that we pledge our efforts to secure them such. This is not 'Lincoln's America' nor 'Obama's America' it is OUR America.

Finally, I find it amusing that Clayson speaks of 'closing the border' and then muses over what the future would look like (third-world, unhappy, keep people out/in, central government). Those who 'close the border' are the ones who create the negative conditions cited– I think our Statute of Liberty is a beacon/reminder to be more 'welcoming' (less homogeneous and more diverse in population as well as perspective).

cross1242
cross1242

Here is a great satire on those who are actively petitioning for secession:

http://pinterest.com/pin/51369251971193690/

Axolotl
Axolotl

Just got to love the perambulations of Clayson, and wonder if it's his uh, skills, that started Buffett's 'divorce proceedings' from Lee. I can see no other possibilities.

xdfred2
xdfred2

Big word. I'm impressed.

cclarkson
cclarkson

Glad to see big words impress you -- and here, given the sheer magnitude of your postings that fall into this category, I thought you were only impressed by that which is jejune.

Phil
Phil

LOL! Sore-loserville on steriods this week.

By the way, since "red" states on average get back more in government funding than they pay in taxes, and since Wall Street caused the "Great Recession" and Bush gave the tax cuts and wars that kept us from having the debt paid off by now - you get the ALL the federal debt too Clayson. How's that sound?

charlieborwn
charlieborwn

What's most bothersome, Phil, is you and others that really think the wars and "Bush tax cuts" (which Obama inisted must be extended) are responsible for the debt that has increased to $16.2 Trillion in the last 3.5 years. Continued raising of the debt ceiling, another in a line of Quantitative Easing stupidity, (printing more dollars - with NOTHING backing them) continue to spend more, create more federally funded programs and somehow, some way, by some "slight of hand", the rich can pay off the debt of this nation. Well, maybe...if you take ALL of the earned income of the wealthy for the next 100 years.

Were liberals exempt from math classes in public school for the last 30 years?
Obama has had one term as president. He's beginning his second. He owns the economy, the wars, the debt. He spent a small fortune campaigning twice, demanding that he wanted the job and was best suited for it. Stop whining about Bush. He's been gone 4 years now. You got what you wanted. Unfortunately, those of us who did not have to suffer along with you.

garyk
garyk

Um...those things (wars and tax cuts) ARE what created an unsustainable debt. Wanting the truth to go away so as to fit your conservative fantasy won't change anything.

xdfred2
xdfred2

Wrong.

Phil
Phil

No, charlie, what's bothersome is that you don't understand simple facts, math, or how government or wars work. Go here and look at the chart at the bottom:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/05/deficit-chart-republicans-hate

Now that we have confirmed that Bush/Repub policies caused the deficit, let's explain how government and wars work.

Obama couldn't just bring every soldier home day 1 of his administration - it not possible - but even if it were it wouldn't end all the costs associated with the wars.

Obama can't unilaterally change the tax rates - Congress has to do that and we all know how the Repubs have blocked that the past few years.

Obama can't unilaterally change the prescription drug program in Medicare - Congress has to do that.

Obama can't immediately undo all the destruction to the economy Bush/Repub polices caused, and when the Repubs in Congress won't even vote for bills they previously supported to help the economy because they want to defeat Obama - well that shows where their loyalty lies.

Yes, it is Obama's job to clean up the overwhelming mess Bush and the Repubs created. But its also the job of Congress. Why don't you tell you Repub buddies in Congress to own up to their failure and try to work on making things better for America.

Then go study the chart some more and how the numbers are computed.

And if you're suffering, go back and look at who caused the suffering, not the guy who is trying to treat it.

xdfred2
xdfred2

Obama can't immediately undo? What? I thjought wonder boy promised to fix everything in his first term?

"On Feb. 2, 2009, President Barack Obama explained his chance to fix the economy to host Matt Lauer on NBC's "Today": "I will be held accountable. I've got four years. ... If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition."

Then there's the list of government backed scams:

1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16. Schneider Electric ($86 million)
17. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
18. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
19. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
20. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
21. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
22. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
23. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
24. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
25. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
26. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
27. GreenVolts ($500,000)
28. Vestas ($50 million)
29. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
30. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
31. Navistar ($39 million)
32. Satcon ($3 million)*
33. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
34. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)


But Obama sure can talk a good game.

xdfred2
xdfred2

Excuses excuses excuses.........

Blame Bush blame Bush blame Bush. Congratulations.

cclarkson
cclarkson

@xdfred comments below where he says: "excuses, excuses, excuses... blame... blame... blame" and then puts forth an Obama quote containing a "..."

RESPONSE:
LOL As you 'excuse' yourself in trying to 'blame' Obama ----- answer me this what is contained in the "..." that you leave out??? LOL You try to excuse your poor postings and you 'blame' Obama and can't even get the facts RIGHT as you attempt it.

NO EXCUSE for such shoddy posting and the BLAME for it... rests entirely on your LAME use of 'facts'. A lame blame game that reveals your poor grasp of facts... as usual.

cclarkson
cclarkson

LOL -- All you have is a claim that 'math' doesn't add up and 'liberals' are exempt or don't understand the 'math':

Here is some of the 'math' (including economy, inherited from previous admin., bailout federally funded programs effect):

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/documents/20120229_essentialecon.pdf

Here is some of the 'math' by presidential party (debt increase):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/US_Debt_Trend.svg

Here is some of the 'math' on historical income growth under president leadership:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-why-elections-matter-one-gra

Here is some of the 'math' on "the wars and 'Bush tax cuts'" effect on the debt:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/

P.S.
Phil stating the 'fact' re: Bush as he asserts who 'gets the debt' in Clayson's 'whining' ("sore-loserville") isn't 'whining' (plaintive cry) it is putting forth a claim based upon 'fact' (aka proactive not plaintive), Whining would be complaining about something or put forth statements as "have to suffer along with you."

reojoe
reojoe

George C- Bush raised the debt FAR HIGHER than our current Commander in Chief of the U.S. military did/has as a percentage.

Just think surplus, to trillions in debt, versus trillions in debt to a few trillion more.

Learn to think for yourself, ok?

unigrad2008
unigrad2008

He did? I heard on FM radio that our current Commander in Chief has raised more debt for future generations :(

Why don't you think before you post Rush! WOW!

cclarkson
cclarkson

@unigrad comment below

To answer your question: yes Bush did, as a percentage raise the debt far higher:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

When Bush took office the debt was 5.7 trillion - when he left it was 10.6 trillion -- an increase of 186%
When Obama took office the debt was 10.6 trillion - it currently is 16.1 trillion -- an increase of 152%
Hence Bush increased it, as a percentage, by 34% MORE.

To address your advice "learn to think for yourself, ok?" Seems best followed by you.

cclarkson
cclarkson

Correction the below post should read:

"...
When Bush took office the debt was 5.7 trillion - when he left it was 10.6 trillion -- thus instead of decreasing the debt (as his post 1948 predecessors did {excepting Reagan, his father}) it increased to 186% of inherited debt
When Obama took office the debt was 10.6 trillion - it currently is 16.2 trillion -- an increase to 152% of inherited debt.
..."

cross1242
cross1242

"carlieborwn" you're still in the land of mythology regarding current events.

"which Obama inisted must be extended" No, that's not right. Obama wanted the cuts extended ONLY for those with under $250,000 income. He wanted to cut them out for those above that. It was the Republicans who insisted that the rich got to keep their tax cuts too.

"responsible for the debt that has increased to $16.2 Trillion in the last 3.5 years" Actually with the country headed for depression courtesy of the Bush policy of "going easy" on Wall Street" something had to be done to prime the economic pump. And, based on the fact that Republicans never complained about the deficit spending under Bush, it's evident that they don't really object to deficit spending but just to what the money is being spent on.

"Continued raising of the debt ceiling," This is just a Republican talking point. Most countries don't have debt limits and the Republicans didn't mind increasing the debt limit when Bush was president.

"with NOTHING backing them" -- Constitutionally, the bonds are backed by the "full faith and credit of the United States." So far, that's been the best guarantee around for insuring repayment.

Somehow, you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that the right-wing view of the world was rejected in the late election.

xdfred2
xdfred2

Obamabots making excuses already?
Unemplyment just stepped up.
GMAC on the ropes here in town. Hostess closed across the U.S.
Bengazigate gets smellier and smellier.

And Obama? Doing nothing but talking, without saying anything.

xdfred2
xdfred2

"Somehow, you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that the right-wing view of the world was rejected in the late election. "

Barely. "He who robs Peter to pay Paul and has the press in his pocket can always count on Paul"

xdfred2
xdfred2

"with NOTHING backing them" -- Constitutionally, the bonds are backed by the "full faith and credit of the United States." So far, that's been the best guarantee around for insuring repayment."

What a crock! Our credit rating keeps getting lowered, and our money is worth less than in 2008.

cclarkson
cclarkson

@ xdfred comment below:

"We have changed our assumption ... because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues," a quote from S&P on the downgrade and judging by polls it lays more properly on the GOP doorstep (with an assist from the Tea Party):

http://www.politicususa.com/downgrade-gop-approval.html

baldeagle
baldeagle

cross you may want to revisit the Clinton administration and some of his policies before you start pointing fingers at Bush and Wall Street. Check out Barney Frank as well.

Sandra Bell
Sandra Bell

The Right can handle the debt Bush created and o's belongs to the left. Most of those are on welfare expect for Hollywood so it's likely the Right will have their's paid off waaaay ahead.

Phil
Phil

Sure they will, they'll just pass another round of tax cuts!

LOL!

By the way, look at the chart I linked to. There won't be much for the left to pay off since most of the past 4 years will still go to those on the right.

Sandra, did you know there are more WHITE people on welfare than there are minorities on it?

xdfred2
xdfred2

Phil, everyone knows that. But on a percentage basis, which segment of the general population has the "Great Society" enslaved and condemned to poverty? The one libs think can't get by on their own.

cclarkson
cclarkson

@xdfred comment below "which segment of the general population has the 'Great Society' enslaved and condemned to poverty"

Here are the FACTS re: your 'enslaved and condemned to poverty' false assertion:
http://www.currydemocrats.org/in_perspective/economy_better_under_democrats/economy_does_better_under_democrats.html

or

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/02/1127055/-Which-party-is-best-for-the-economy-It-s-not-even-close

The DEMS increase EVERYONES standard of living better than Repubs, and the economy as well and decrease the debt while they do it.

Now of course you can argue with the facts and demonstrate that 'alternate reality' you live in,
OR... dismiss without response to the facts with "blah, blah, blah", "wrong", "sure talks a good game" and demonstrate that 'alternate reality',
OR... engage from that alternate reality in a bit of projection onto others of what you are doing with "what a crock", "added nothing", "Doing nothing but talking, without saying anything",
But the only thing you consistently reveal is your 'alternate reality' (aka fictional) reality.

xdfred2
xdfred2

Blah blah blah.

Obama's had 4 years to deal with these issues and no results. But he sure talks a good game.

Phil
Phil

Yeah right, no results. I war ended, another ending. Economy 1,000 times better shape than where the Repubs left it. Stock market doubled. Oil production up (USA is projected to be leading oil producing nation by 2020).

But no results. Your right wing media is lying to you again freddy. But what's new, thats what they do.

xdfred2
xdfred2

Oil production up ON STATE LANDS. Fed lands are shut down, thank you Obama and co.

cclarkson
cclarkson

@xdfred comment below

The FACTS are that oil production ON FEDERAL LANDS are UP... thank you Obama and co.:

http://www.bingaman.senate.gov/policy/03282012fs_chart1.pdf

Now you can of course argue with the facts and demonstrate that 'alternate reality' you live in. LOL

cclarkson
cclarkson

@xdfred comment below

Also these quotes from the political.fact website link http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/16/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-oil-production-down-14-percent-ye/

"• From 2004-08, well into Bush’s tenure, oil production on federal lands and waters fell in four of five years, for a net decrease of 16.8 percent.
• From 2009-11, the Obama years, oil production rose two of three years, for a net increase of 10.6 percent."

and,
"From 2009 to 2010, oil production from offshore sources rose by 14.9 percent. Prior to that, before Obama’s presidency, the offshore volume fell for several years, and it was erratic even during a phase in which it rose, EIA figures show.
Yet onshore oil production generally rose on federally owned land -- and did again in 2011, by 3.7 percent. Offshore production that took the hit, falling 16.8 percent."

Your alternate reality is not FACTually based.

xdfred2
xdfred2

For cluelss. Obama and co. are cancelling leases on fed lands. See Utah.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxdaFbRWII

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/01/20/fact-checking-president-obamas-claims-about-domestic-energy-production/

cclarkson
cclarkson

@xdfred comment below

Sorry Freddy that the election seems to have you so upset that you be talking to yourself.

1. The leases in Utah still don't prove your point.
2. The fact is fed lands are not 'shut down' but producing more.
3. So under Obama oil production on fed land is UP and while protecting them. He's like... like... SUPER President... huh!!

xdfred2
xdfred2

Soros loser? He spent a fortune and got the status quo.

Go Home Obama
Go Home Obama

The left can keep the millions of obama voters on food stamps, looking for handouts at every corner, and the truly lazy. this is the lefts base. i wonder what the % illiterate, and welfare people are that voted for obama? has to be upwards of 99%. you get all the thugs, the prison folk, and the rest of the truly idiotic. we get hard working people. The end.

cclarkson
cclarkson

LOL"looking for handouts at every corner" and yet IT IS THE RED STATES that garner the 'handout' at the Fed. level in disproportionate fashion; IT IS THE RED STATES where people voted for Romney.
LOL
The alleged "hard working people" in these states voted for ROMNEY. The alleged 'truly lazy' who voted for Obama are the ones who disproportionately PAY THEIR WAY.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/the_red_state_ripoff.html

and the same is true THIS ELECTION cycle:

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=electoral+map+2012+results&view=detail&id=5205C551A359622072F10D913279FCD599C3D876&first=1

So 'go home' what do you base your assertion "welfare people... voted for obama?" LOL All you have is rhetoric with NO FACT and THE FACTS indicate they voted for Romney.
The end.

LOL LOL "truly idiotic".

xdfred2
xdfred2

See above about how/why red states get more money. What exactly does that mean? That the people ask for more fed money? No. Congressman/senators throwing pork around to buy votes.

cclarkson
cclarkson

And see my reply my reply above

xdfred2
xdfred2

cclarkson - 13 hours ago
And see my reply my reply above


XD: All you posted was spin.

cclarkson
cclarkson

LOL
No there were facts concerning states, the amount in fed taxes paid, and fed benefits received.
However, since you post from an apparent alternate reality view, where facts equal 'spin' and spin equals 'facts' (want a delineation/demonstration of how so??) it is not surprising your below post confused, once again, the two.

Phil
Phil

Another sore loser.

Look at the states that voted for Romney, bastions of education like Mississippi (worst in the nation), Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky.

I'll use your logic - looking at the states that voted for Romney I would say 99% of the ignorant and uneducated were his voting base.

Seems to me your post proves that.

reojoe
reojoe

So, what's your solution to solve our problems?

xdfred2
xdfred2

Bengazigate is getting smellier and smellier.

Phil
Phil

I think this says it all about your imaginary "Bengazigate".

"Republicans are indescribably frustrated by the fact that Barack Obama, whom they regard as both illegitimate and corrupt, went through an entire term without a major scandal. They tried with “Fast and Furious,” but that turned out to be small potatoes. They tried with Solyndra, but that didn’t produce the criminality they hoped for either. Obama even managed to dole out three-quarters of a trillion dollars in stimulus money without any graft or double-dealing to be found. Nixon had Watergate, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had Lewinsky, and Barack Obama has gotten off scott-free. This is making them absolutely livid, and they’re going to keep trying to gin up a scandal, even if there’s no there there. Benghazi may not be an actual scandal, but it’s all they have handy."

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/15/gops_scandal_envy/

Your right wing media is lying to you AGAIN.

NOTHING will come of this - NOTHING. Except more egg on Fox News face.

How did that Romney landslide work out? LOL!

xdfred2
xdfred2

WHat a bunch of lies! Fast and Furious was about as dirty as it gets until Bengazigate popped up. And how much of the stimulus money actually went to 'shovel ready' projects? Next to none.
Solyndra? More payola, but wit Holder and the press in your pocket, what do you expect. Same deal with Corzine/MFGlobal.
And you stick up for all this?
Salon, huh?

reojoe
reojoe

How many more times can you be manipulated before you jump ship from people who are dead set on telling you inaccurate information?

Phil
Phil

xdfred2 - 17 hours ago
Excuses excuses excuses.........

Blame Bush blame Bush blame Bush. Congratulations.

-- Gee, and all Bush and folks like you did is blame Clinton - for 8 years. You still blame him for Bush's failure to protect us on 9/11.

This was the worst economic downturn since the Repub Hoover sent us over the cliff in 1929. You just don't realize how terribly right wing economics destroy our economy.

Your right though - I should blame Bush - I should blame the REAL cause - idiotic economic policies and beliefs of ALL Repubs and conservatives. Just like the last economic catastrophe the Democrats have to clean up the HUGE crap heap the Repubs dumped on our economy.

reojoe
reojoe

NO ONE blamed Clinton! Don't you remember that such a thing was only invented by Obama?

whtnationalist
whtnationalist

I think it is funny how people argue over who caused the national debt. The reality is that both parties did it over many administrations. Both parties hand out money as a way of getting elected. From business tax credits to welfare and everything in between. The bottom line is that the USA is running out of lenders who would buy treasury bonds to finance the on going deficit. The main lender, Social Security Trust Fund, is about to start drawing down. It will no longer be lending the feds money. Social Security has plenty of money in the trust fund, it is far from broke. It's just hat the feds won't be able to live off our social security taxes anymore.

cclarkson
cclarkson

I think it is funny how people look at the FACTS surrounding the increased debt (such as http://zfacts.com/p/318.html ) and then think those presenting those facts are 'arguing' and not just supplying the facts.
I too think it is funny that some look at the FACTS and then want to argue that the facts don't point out what they point out. LOL

In short: those pointing to the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 aren't 'arguing' and those who insist 2 + 2 = 5 either are arguing against the facts or are living in an alternate reality.

xdfred2
xdfred2

That pretty much added nothing.

cclarkson
cclarkson

LOL said like one of those who argue against the facts and lives in that alternate reality LOL

xdfred2
xdfred2

Like I keep asking, what's going to happen when fed checks start to bounce?

FiftyFive
FiftyFive

I suspect the newly formed Republican country would not be as properous as they would hope.

States that voted for Obama make up 66% of the nation's GDP. The per capita GDP of Blue States is 15% higher than Red States. Blue States make up 13 of the top 15 states in GDP per capita. Inversely, Red States make up 12 of the bottom 15 states in GDP per capita.

Another problem would be the fact that the new republican country would be 45% women and 55% men. I wouldn't want to live there. Dating was hard enough for me when it was 50/50.

cclarkson
cclarkson

Plus of course the fact that the new republican country would not longer be able to avail of the disproportionate benefit they currently receive by paying LESS taxes to the FED and receiving MORE benefit to offset their lower GDP per capita and the other remaining states would benefit from no longer having to shell out MORE to shore up the needs of the former states. LOL

The old adages: 'don't bite the hand that feeds you' and 'don't cut your nose off to spite your face' come to mind. But then they exist in an alternate reality where who KNOWS what those common sense adages mean? LOL

xdfred2
xdfred2

And why is that? ARe states asking for more money? Or are senators pushing more funding to their states to buy more votes?

cclarkson
cclarkson

Or do people just need services in those RED states and those in the BLUE ones just prone to help others?? LOL

xdfred2
xdfred2

"cclarkson - 13 hours ago
Or do people just need services in those RED states and those in the BLUE ones just prone to help others?? LOL"

XD: Wrong. Libs definition of charity is to call for another government handout program. Libs are known to still have th efirst dollar they ever scammed. All one has to do is compare tax returns to see who is more charitable.

cclarkson
cclarkson

@xdfred comment below:

So instead of actually having a point based on fact (for example like how on avg.red states give less while reaping more benefit and blue states the opposite being true) all you can do is to issue allegation, definition, challenges without ever presenting a shred of fact.
Thinking that is pretty much the definition of 'sore loser' in any dictionary (happy to demonstrate with fact -- can you with your 'definition'??).
As to charity... I think it always better to focus on my own and not others', esp. if it is in false judgemental fashion of "handout" for that says more about the one needing to make such judgemental (cf. Matt. 7:1).

Lynnk2104
Lynnk2104

What is funny about reading the posts, everyone has an angle for what is happening. Is there anyone here who posted, have any powers to fix the mess (either inhereited from Bush or generated by Obama)? I don't think so, so until you can go to Washington and kick some A**, why beat it to death here. Admit it, outside of voting you are powerless (outside of calling your Congressman or Senator). What solutions can you bring to the table?

cclarkson
cclarkson

The power to fix the mess begins HERE (dialog among the people) so that THERE (the people work as government) the problems can be addressed.
Thinking we the people and/or our vote is powerless IS a great deal of the problem. We need to dialog, explore FACTS behind current and past solutions, along with their effectiveness, more not less. And 'calling your congress or senate representative' ain't a bad idea either... I know the willingness to be heard at such a level has swayed my vote across party lines.

xdfred2
xdfred2

Funny how as Obamacare waivers end, layoffs and lay downs begin:

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/11/16/hows-that-obamacare-waiver-workin-out-for-ya/

Isn't homeland security dept. doing great these days?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/18/homeland-security-promotes-welfare-to-new-immigrants-in-government-welcome-materials/

xdfred2
xdfred2

Elections have consequences:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1954447051001/the-consequences-and-costs-of-obamas-re-election

BIL
BIL

Wow, looks like Clayson is ready to take his ball and go home.

"god-of-the-week"
LOL, what does that even mean?

"much like Veteran’s Day, when "the rich" and "older white males" are thanked for their service to the nation"
Yes, being wealthy, WHAT A SACRIFICE, so worthy of being honored for their selfless service of enriching themselves. I'm not trying to vilify the rich because we DO need capital and incentive, but to liken them to veterans is a spit in the face of veterans.

"We will keep the scientists"
Republicans believe in science? Since when?
"All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell." - Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), a member of the House Committee on Science and Technology

"it is especially important that we retain the "older white males." [...] pay the overwhelming share of taxes, and we would like to keep them"
A. Asian-Americans are the wealthiest racial demographic, so they must pay more taxes, and yet they voted overwhelming for Obama. Weird!
B. Aren't a lot of older people retired, meaning they don't pay taxes? What a bunch of lazy moochers!

Poor sad Clayson. Why doesn't he write a column about Benghazi? I heard that's a winning issue for Republicans. LOL

jeffclothier
jeffclothier

Feel free tolead the exodus, Professor. You'll be saving the US taxpayer a lot of money, as the overwhelming majority of those whose net income from government programs exceed their per capita tax contribution are to be found in red states, whereas blue states' contribution to overall tax revenue far exceeds the government largesse their residents receive.

In short, off you go. Good luck, and take your "takers" with you. And don't worry, We'll put your soon-to-be-former state government salary to good use when you leave.

Dave88
Dave88

I'm just waiting for everything to get better. The election has come and gone, Obama won hopefully we do not have to continue to hear him whine about Bush even though Obama expanded the patriot act among other things after campaigning against it. Ok liberals quit worrying about what Clayson writes about, celebrate the victory! Everything will be better right?

cross1242
cross1242

Yes, but I doubt that you'll ever admit it.

xdfred2
xdfred2

If and when it happens, yes. But so far........

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.