ABC news anchor caught on hot mic claiming ABC spiked the Epstein story because, among other things, they were afraid they would not be able to get interviews with the Royal family. Wow. And all of this happened in 2016. Remember who was running for pres in 2016, and whose husband was alleged to be involved in the Epstein story? I wonder how many young girls were victimized in the intervening three years?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoBKxN07b_k


That was on top of using fake combat footage off of Youtube and representing it as the Turkish attack in Syria. Pitiful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf8PvDMPgI8

jlisenbe: WOW! Now the truth comes out! But its kind of like closing the barn door AFTER the cows got out....damage is done not by lying, this time, but by omission with extreme prejudice! Every time this kind of crap comes out, it just reinforces what all of us already know: The media is EXTREMELY BIASED.....anyone who says it isn't is only fooling themselves. This is not the way journalism is supposed to be, I don't believe.....Like I have said before, why can't it be "Just the fact, Ma'am"?

The media is EXTREMELY BIASED.....anyone who says it isn't is only fooling themselves.

I agree.

so, you have just realised this, journalists are the product of a liberal education system, their thinking is compartmentalised, not only to sensationalise, but to push the liberal agenda

so, you have just realised this,

We've only been saying it for years. Keep up!

Same could be said for conservative media also. Everyone seems to be biased one way or another. Should be interesting when public hearings start for the dufus impeachment inquiry next week. Almost as amazing as the way conservatives now blame Epstein on liberals, while staunchly defending the dufus as the evidence mounts for bribery, extortion, conspiracy, and of course obstruction.

Same could be said for conservative media also.

It could be if a person could find an instance where conservative media purposely buried a story in the same way that ABC news did.

Anyone want to take a wild guess as to how much coverage CNN and MSNBC have given this story? Anyone want to take a guess as to how much coverage they would have given it if it had been FoxNews that did it?

It could be if a person could find an instance where conservative media purposely buried a story in the same way that ABC news did.

The reporter said the story couldn't be verified in the first place and in the second you raised all kinds of sand when they had no evidence on Kavanaugh.


Anyone want to take a wild guess as to how much coverage CNN and MSNBC have given this story? Anyone want to take a guess as to how much coverage they would have given it if it had been FoxNews that did it?

About as much as the dufus stuff that's been buried in magazine vaults and no tell what Fox buries that's bad news for the dufus. You wingers sure love to make hay over stuff and ignore your own.

The reporter said the story couldn't be verified in the first place and in the second you raised all kinds of sand when they had no evidence on Kavanaugh.

That's not what they told the reporter three years ago. Listen to the video. They didn't want to offend the royal family. What they are saying now is about what you would expect a guilty party to say.



About as much as the dufus stuff that's been buried in magazine vaults and no tell what Fox buries that's bad news for the dufus.

Fine. Tell us what stories they have buried.

That's not what they told the reporter three years ago. Listen to the video. They didn't want to offend the royal family. What they are saying now is about what you would expect a guilty party to say.

That's what she is saying now, and if they didn't want to run an article smearing some one without EVIDENCE what's the problem?


Fine. Tell us what stories they have buried.

We know for FACT the dufus story about paying a porn star to keep her quiet was bought and buried before the election. Guess that's not the same thing though.

and if they didn't want to run an article smearing some one without EVIDENCE what's the problem?

I don't know why. They endlessly ran accusations against Kavanaugh with no more evidence than they had in this case, which was the testimony of a woman who said she was a victim, except that in her case, according to the video, she actually had pictures. Dr. Ford had nothing other than a suspiciously faulty memory.



We know for FACT the dufus story about paying a porn star to keep her quiet was bought and buried before the election.

How do you know that? Are you suggesting the media did that? If so, what is your evidence?

Let's cut the crap and stop playing dumb (https://www.newsweek.com/national-enquirer-60-trump-damaging-stories-ronan-farrow-catch-kill-1467445). What you ain't playing dumb?

National enquirer buried 60 damaging stories about donald trump before election, ronan farrow claims

So you are seriously suggesting that the National Enquirer would bury big time news like that? And you say because someone named Ronan Farrow said so? That's all you've got? Man, that's pretty lame.

I suggest NOTHING since they admitted as much (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/12/national-enquirer-trump-payments-david-pecker-catch-and-kill) and MORE. (https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-friendly-ami-admits-to-playmate-hush-payment-to-influence-2016-election) This is old news you know.

OK. Fair enough. They should be thoroughly discredited and bashed. I would agree to that. So how about ABC news? Should they also be discredited?

No, but I question why the reporter didn't follow through on the story and gather evidence. That's her JOB. To be fair though not running a story because it was not corroborated is a good thing.

No, but I question why the reporter didn't follow through on the story and gather evidence. That's her JOB. To be fair though not running a story because it was not corroborated is a good thing.

She didn't because she was not allowed to. No corroboration? Kind of like the wonderful corroboration they did NOT have with Kavanaugh?

Where is your evidence she was not ALLOWED to corroborate her story?

Where is your evidence she was not ALLOWED to corroborate her story?

On the video it says she was not allowed to run the story by her bosses.

On the video it says she was not allowed to run the story by her bosses.


The video is from Russian Television, an arm of the Kremlin.

ABC did the right thing demanding corroboration. Robach never provided it.

The video is from Russian Television, an arm of the Kremlin.

ABC did the right thing demanding corroboration. Robach never provided it.

It's a good example of right wing spin, as they never pass up a chance to bash the left, and feed each other red meat for the cause. They're good at it, and never quit!

The video came from an ABC source. It was filmed in studio and leaked by that person to Veritas, which has no connection with Russian anything. Funny how ABC wanted corroboration for that but not for the many unsupported stories they ran about Kavanaugh.

To continue the story, ABC notified CBS they suspected a former employee then employed by CBS, Ashley Bianco, to be the leaker, so CBS, in the day when we supposedly want to protect whistle blowers, then fired that person. Now it seems that she was not the leaker after all. Sue, Ashely, sue!! As they say, "The beat goes on."

Quote from the video. ""It was unbelievable what we had. Clinton, we had everything," Robach was caught saying. "I tried for three years to get it on to no avail." Yeah. I'm sure the fact that they "had" Clinton during the 2016 election had nothing to do with them spiking the story.

The ABC content is contained within the video linked. Splattered over the rear of the set is "RT America", that is Russian Television aka "America Pravda". There is even a warning posted below on YouTube advising RT is funded by the Russian government.

Project Veritas, founded by James O'Keefe with The Trump Foundation as a major supporter, is a far-right fringe organization with a reputation for doctoring videos and even creating conspiracies.

If Clinton had not been mentioned, (which might have been inserted by O'Keefe), I doubt you would have any interest in the issue.

Your conclusion simply reveals your hatred of all things Clinton.

The ABC content is contained within the video linked. Splattered over the rear of the set is "RT America", that is Russian Television aka "America Pravda". There is even a warning posted below on YouTube advising RT is funded by the Russian government.

Here you go. Feel better? The video in question was run on RT and a number of other sites, but the video did not come from Russia. As for Veritas, it would not make any difference if they were communists. The video plainly shows that ABC squashed the story. I still wonder how many girls were victimized because of ABC's refusal. The story is not just about Veritas posting the video. The story is also about CNN, MSNBC, and others ignoring it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H-m01dou2Y&t=75s

I can tell you, with some authority: Conservatives, Right "Wingers", U.S. Veterans, Libertarians, Republican, Fascists, Christians, Russians, decent people all over, people from Arkansas, American patriots, some socialist, some Democrats, and a woman named Tulsi ARE NOT THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT HATE MRS. CLINTON! I have a liberal friend in N.Y. State that cannot stand her guts! MRS. CLINTON IS WIDELY HATED AT HOME AND ABROAD!

mrs. Clinton is widely hay hates at home and abroad!


She's not even close to the hatred generated by Trump at home and abroad.

She's not even close to the hatred generated by Trump at home and abroad.

Quite possibly true.

She's not even close to the hatred generated by Trump at home and abroad.

HC got more Americans to vote for her than did the dufus, so that alone tells you that despite the right wing noise machine smearing her for decades she still is Americas choice between her and the dufus. The rules is the rules however, and it is what it is, but that has never shut up the right wing noise machine and it's left hating agenda, and ignore the words antics and behavior of the dufus despite the growing evidence he is a self enriching lying and conniving crook.

You wingers are loony if you expect us or anybody but your own to believe anything that you guys come up with without a whole lot more than exaggerated allegations and lunatic spin.

One more rant, she lost, get over it

You wingers are loony if you expect us or anybody but your own to believe anything that you guys come up with without a whole lot more than exaggerated allegations and lunatic spin.

Especially when you have ABC news solidly in your corner.

I've been over HC's loss Clete, but that doesn't mean we let the dufus run roughshod and do whatever he wants. Especially MORE illegal stuff. The evidence mounts.

The hearsay, opinions, and second/third hand reports are indeed mounting up.

The hearsay, opinions, and second/third hand reports are indeed mounting up.
All the videos and tweets of him bragging etc. don't count?

All the videos and tweets of him bragging etc. don't count?

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Surely you don't think it's against the law to brag? Are you saying he has been bragging about breaking the law? If so, I'd like to see that.

W.G.: I did see a video of Joe Biden bragging about getting the Ukrainians to end their investigation of his son Hunter....that we did hear and see.

I really don't care: If Trump broke the law, and it can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, he should leave Office of his own volition BEFORE DRAGGING THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE MUD.....If he did that, even people that dislike him would at least have a grain of respect for him....and if he did do the crime, and doesn't have the decency to leave office, no one should ever have any respect for him.

What I don't want to see is all this IMPEACHMENT stuff go off and the country become more polarized than it already is, if that is possible, and then have Trump never leave Office!: The whole purpose of this IMPEACHMENT action is to get Trump removed from Office and that, alone, connotes that the Democrats have enough of a case to make that happen......However, if they don't, and this is another form of the Russia Investigation, that got nowhere, then the Democrats should take a drubbing in Nov., '20 just for crying wolf again!

I remember Watergate clearly: It messed this country up for a long time! I just hope this one isn't a farce: We don't need it if it is. However, if it is not, we don't need Trump as POTUS!

I've been over HC's loss Clete, but that doesn't mean we let the dufus run roughshod and do whatever he wants. Especially MORE illegal stuff. The evidence mounts.

You have laws, don't you. If he does something illegal you can impeach him. Unfortunately, it is not against the law to be stupid and show it in public, it is not against the law to be a braggart. It seems he may have overstepped over Ukraine

You have laws, don't you. If he does something illegal you can impeach him.

WRONG! You offer yourself as some sort of expert on American law. Well, you sure got this one wrong. An illegal act is NOT required for impeachment.

Athos: You know it! If Trump did commit an IMPEACHABLE act, he can be IMPEACHED.....and HE SHOULD leave Office, if that happens.....there is just too much risk to the country to try and stay on as an ruptured duck at that point. I don't think he will leave if IMPEACHED but he should.

W.G.: I did see a video of Joe Biden bragging about getting the Ukrainians to end their investigation of his son Hunter....that we did hear and see.

No you didn't. No such video exists. Did you make this up yourself or did you get it from a right-wing fringe website?


beyond a shadow of a doubt, he should leave Office of his own volition BEFORE DRAGGING THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE MUD

It's already been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that he bribed Zelensky by offering $141 million in military supplies for Z's starting a phony investigation. The same action violated the law when Trump demanded dirt on his political opponent Joe Biden. Two sides of the same coin. Two violations.


and this is another form of the Russia Investigation, that got nowhere

The Mueller investigation proved Trump obstructed justice ten times. That investigation is not dead yet.

WRONG! You offer yourself as some sort of expert on American law. Well, you sure got this one wrong. An illegal act is NOT required for impeachment. No, high crimes and misdemeanors, whatever that means, and it can be a political process if the will exists, I am aware of that, and no doubt Trump is guilty of being stupid

One thing that's most frustrating about you wingers is your LACK of doing your homework. (https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=biden+bragging+about+having+a+ukrainian+f ired&&view=detail&mid=8FAF84ABAB93475C44608FAF84ABAB93475C4460&rvsmid=D028B587C0404AB35A77D028B587C0404AB35A77&FORM=VDQVAP)There is so much stuff out there documenting everything that's gone on with that episode I just don't understand how you could get it wrong. You see all these crooks go to jail, get kicked out of office, get fired, quit, and still you make stuff up. The dufus gets banned and fined over his charity work, and HC gets an "A" rating and grows her charity. Whose the bad guy? The Clintons.

I can forgive the wingers for not reading the Mueller Report, but not the congress specifically repubs. They read it of course but bought the party line that defends the dufus. Frankly that's just too much to ignore as Roger the Dodger Stone is finding out. Yup add his name to the list of grifters in the dufus orbit.

No Clete, the dufus is guilty of a lot more than just stupidity. That's not the real issue. Will he get away with it is the issue.

Tal, can you tell us any one specific piece of evidence that proves Trump's guilt?

You could start with what the Mueller Report actually says as opposed to the cover up the dufus and Barr actually are spinning. Then you would know you're being lied to, given the bipartasan conclusion reached by the Senate about Russian cyber attacks, based on the Intell community hearings before the senate.

That leads to a question of why the dufus wants Ukraine to find a server he thinks they have clearing Russia of such actions they have been accused of. Start there and do your own due dilligence, before you dismiss obvious facts. Tell me where is his evidence that his version of events is even credible, given the FACTS that this was debated, investigated and DEBUNKED.

I suppose that it's a given that the internet gives even right wing loonies a voice, but the option is to vet stuff for yourself in a search for FACTS. That's what this whole exercise against the dufus is all about, finding the FACTS and presenting them to the public and seeing if indeed charges should be filed against him, given to the senate, and they will decide what's to be done about it.

Frankly I'm excited to see what's done about the 13 testimonies gotten so far that not only corroborates the WBers story, but reveals the extent of the dufus's involvement in advancing his own self interest.

LOL, after all the hollering about HC's emails, this administration has finally absolved her of wrongdoing. It was a smear campaign to help repubs win the WH! (My conclusion)!

Tal - as usual your two excellent summaries above are must reading for the loonies because they are based on FACTS, something the Republicans have long discarded.

There was a FACT in there? Facts and unsubstantiated allegations are not the same.

If the dems want to win the White House, they better come up with something better than Biden, Sanders, or Warren. Warren wants a Med for all program with no idea of how to come up with the extra two or three tril a year to pay for it. Sanders is a socialist better suited for Venezuela. Biden can't remember where he is half the time. Good luck with those three.

Thanks Athos, I have come to the conclusion that repubs KNOW their constutents can't, or don't read so they can fill them with all kinds of nonsense. I know for FACT the dufus figured that out years ago and knew he could lies his A$$ off about anything and no one that voted for him would care and half don't KNOW!

Those sheeple just wanted a shepherd even if it is a wolf in disguise. The repubs have defected to the Dufus Circus out of FEAR of the Thumpers! (https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/white-evangelicals-love-trump-aren-t-confused-about-why-no-ncna1046826)

I know for FACT the dufus figured that out years ago and knew he could lies his A$$ off about anything and no one that voted for him would care and half don't KNOW!

Kind of like Obama did with you concerning Benghazi?

Kind of like Obama did with you concerning Benghazi?

I'm not surprised that's your rebuttal, since it seems that's all you got. You never were interested in FACTS, or EVIDENCE just in getting your agenda across and manipulating an outcome for yourself. Don't you realize your zeal diminishes the credibility of the holier than thou stance you seek to take? Sure the right wing noise machine and Fox News have covered the Clintons with mud and she still rises above it all while you elevate a lying cheating dufus to the top.

Don't ever question facts and evidence while you blow that right wing smoke up your own nose. Now we know why you really held your nose and voted for the biggest crook to ever be elected to anything in history.




Trump delivered evangelicals from the shame of losing, and they will back him again in 2020 to avoid losing again. So perhaps we should take evangelicals at their word that they will support Trump come hell or high water, rather than twisting ourselves into knots trying to figure out why.

Kind of like Obama did with you concerning Benghazi?

Nope, not like that at all. If you can't see the difference, there's little hope for you.

//Later edit - typed before seeing Tal's response. His was better//

You never were interested in FACTS, or EVIDENCE just in getting your agenda across and manipulating an outcome for yourself. You really want me to believe that you are not out to "manipulating an outcome for yourself"?


Don't you realize your zeal diminishes the credibility of the holier than thou stance you seek to take? They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. You never heard that "holier than thou" expression until I used it about you about a dozen times. So allow me to say, "Thank you for the flattery."


Don't ever question facts and evidence while you blow that right wing smoke up your own nose. Now we know why you really held your nose and voted for the biggest crook to ever be elected to anything in history.

Like voting for HC was some sort of an act of holiness? No wonder I had to hold my nose. The smell is getting pretty bad with ideas like that.

We'll find out when the hearings become public. I look forward to it. Either way, let justice be done.

No Clete, the dufus is guilty of a lot more than just stupidity. That's not the real issue. Will he get away with it is the issue.

He is getting away with stupidity every day Tal, that is evident and anything else he has done is because of his stupidity, that is the root cause. So yes, it is the real issue since if he behaved otherwise there would be no evidence

He is getting away with stupidity every day Tal, that is evident and anything else he has done is because of his stupidity, that is the root cause. So yes, it is the real issue since if he behaved otherwise there would be no evidence

Trump is stupid? With the current economy, we must need a lot more of that stupid.

It wasn't his business acumen to take over an already good economy that was healthy and growing, but he did as repubs always do when the dems are god stewards of the finances, they take the cream for themselves and their buddies and leave everybody else with a few crumbs. It's been a pattern for decades.

Sure he gets to brag to the red meat crowd and keep them fat and all riled up, but the rest just wait for election day. If he makes it that far. So go ahead and quote those scripture and try to tell me a God who don't like ugly won't take this dude to the hell he deserves one day. That is where the you say the criminals, liars, adulterers, and thieves go don't they?

Trump is stupid? With the current economy, we must need a lot more of that stupid.

Trump's economy is an extension of what began during Obama's administration.

His tariff policy is a disaster waiting to happen, already causing business failures and bankruptcies.

Trump promised to eliminate the national debt during his term. With his tax cuts for the wealthy, the debt has skyrocketed by about 2 trillion dollars. And of his promised benefits from the tax cut, NONE have occurred.

The economy is best fairly called the Obama-Trump economy.

Although, in my opinion, Obama faced an enormously more difficult economy than Trump did. Obama's actions were instrumental in warding off what could have been another Great Depression. Trump, in my opinion, has done very little to help the economy, and plenty to harm it.

Facts are fine: FACT: Media gets caught in bias.....is that not ALSO a FACT? And, its not just FOX, either: You remember the REPUTABLE DAN RATHER and his slander of George W. Bush, right? Just one example that comes to mind...just an outright lie....there are many others.

My contention: MEDIA has long since forgotten journalism...and it doesn't matter if its Right or left: FACT IS there should be NO RIGHT OR LEFT IN REPORTING: JUST FACTS! I don't tune-in to hear your opinion or your bias, just THE FACTS!

Trump's economy is an extension of what began during Obama's administration.

His tariff policy is a disaster waiting to happen, already causing business failures and bankruptcies.

Trump promised to eliminate the national debt during his term. With his tax cuts for the wealthy, the debt has skyrocketed by about 2 trillion dollars. And of his promised benefits from the tax cut, NONE have occurred.

The economy is best fairly called the Obama-Trump economy.

Although, in my opinion, Obama faced an enormously more difficult economy than Trump did. Obama's actions were instrumental in warding off what could have been another Great Depression. Trump, in my opinion, has done very little to help the economy, and plenty to harm it.

Suggesting that Trump is responsible for the economic cycle shows as much understanding of economics as Trump has, which is little. I think Trump's trade war is harming not only the US economy. Beggar my trading partner is never good strategy

You have to admit that todays journalists would be hard pressed to find some good facts about THIS president (Though righties have little problem defending him from relentless leftie attacks) who does wierd wacky stuff and lies an awful lot. Should those things NOT be reported? Then we have an almost a daily dose of those tweets, and personal attacks. Are these not news?

Then Vac, there is the ultimate correction for those biased news shows you hate...your remote! Use it as liberally as necessary. Remember also this is silly season, elections and candidates dominate the news and you should expect wild and wacky stuff and mudslinging BS everywhere. Nature of the beast. Popcorn and Netflix is a viable solution, grand kids if you got 'em another.

One thing though you have to accept especially a year before an election is there are politicians running for office, and we already have a dirt digging dufus who is also running to keep his job, and he does have opposition, so it's bound to get rather nasty as we get closer to JUDGEMENT Day.

My contention: MEDIA has long since forgotten journalism...and it doesn't matter if its Right or left: FACT IS there should be NO RIGHT OR LEFT IN REPORTING: JUST FACTS! I don't tune-in to hear your opinion or your bias, just THE FACTS!

Pretty good observation, Vac.

Truth is, if Trump was Hillary, the liberals on this board would all be singing her praises for this amazing, record-setting economy we now have. I'm not a Trump fan, but to say he has not done well with the economy just reveals your biases. Some of you would argue the point if wages increased by 20% and unemployment was at 1%. You'd still find something to complain about.

Now if you want to complain, you can bring up the budget deficits. I'll join you on that one. Of course that has been a legitimate complaint for ten years or more.

BTW, it's Monday again. Hope everyone has a good week. It's good to be alive.

I doubt that HC could take all the credit for this economy either, but we both agree whomever took office would have something to work with besides a global financial crisis. I have no doubt that even Obama could have survived if the recovery were much less than what it was while he was in the WH. That's one of the things a good economy papers over rather well the underlying social issues we had moved to the background and were distracted by the lack of money. The Tea Party got a shot of steroids so we got the dufus fueled by years of hate HC. That dynamic has been building since repubs regained the house and senate and just awaited a repub in the WH. McCain and Romney just didn't have that oomp repubs needed to unseat Obama, but they sure took his power in the congress, and if the dufus survives he may well have the same thing happen to him. If he does indeed survive with his senate sycophant's scared to buck him no matter what he does.

Ever wonder how his racists chants have energized the right since he announced he was running? Well they have energized the left also and from the protests the day of his inauguration to the mid terms to now it should be a great turn out and that doesn't bode well for repubs or the dufus if he does squeak by AGAIN.

Does anyone think that the era of 24/7 NEWS COVERAGE is suffocating us? I know, Talaniman: We have a channel changer! But we have to be a bit crazy to indulge in EVERY little bit of gossip that comes over the air waves: Its like eating until you burst! My brother once said: "if you look into a bucket of jelly beans and you only want the black ones, then you will only see the black jelly beans....you become blind to the rest"......I think we become tone deaf to portions of NEWS that don't fit our DESIRED NARRATIVE. We end up "cherry-picking" the news.....not a healthy thing to do.

Also: Sensationalism SELLS! How many times have we heard about "BOMBSHELL" news that turned out to be mere firecracker duds? This, too, is disingenuous.

Also: Sensationalism SELLS! How many times have we heard about "BOMBSHELL" news that turned out to be mere firecracker duds? This, too, is disingenuous.

That's another good point. News channels are businesses out to make a profit. That can create problems.

Now that's something we can all agree on.

Now that's something we can all agree on.

Hooray!!

Here, here! An agreement: Bickering, insulting, and offending, as we go but we are AMERICANS!

My Daddy would be 95 years old if he was alive today/96 come January, and a Vet: I hope all of you remembered to thank a veteran today! We owe them so much.....and despite everything, all of our differences, WE HAVE SO MUCH TO BE THANKFUL FOR!

Here Here, another agreement.

Here Here, another agreement.

Yes indeed.

Does anyone think that the era of 24/7 NEWS COVERAGE is suffocating us? I know, Talaniman: We have a channel changer! But we have to be a bit crazy to indulge in EVERY little bit of gossip that comes over the air waves:

This is interesting coming from you V7. You yourself have promoted the craziness in one of your posts here (below). The gossip you engaged in was an outright untruth. Biden was telling the Ukrainians to investigate Burisma, not his son. The son part was later claimed by Trump supporters to smear his political opponent, Joe Biden.


I (V7) did see a video of Joe Biden bragging about getting the Ukrainians to end their investigation of his son Hunter....that we did hear and see.

Nobody but you "saw and heard it".

Here is an under reported story. (https://www.newsweek.com/tammy-duckworth-veterans-day-tijuana-mexico-deported-1471118)

Athos: There is a YouTube video of Biden bragging about stopping the investigation of his son.

There is a video showing Biden bragging about getting the prosecutor fired. The reason for the firing is less clear.

jlisenbe: From REALCLEARPOLITICS (you know, the same one with quick-Silver who predicted Hillary defeating Trump): There is a video of Biden bragging at the CFR Meeting about withholding aid to the Ukraine to force the firing of the top Ukrainian State Prosecutor, Viktor Shokin…..The same Viktor Shokin who was leading an investigation into the affairs of a natural gas firm that had hired Hunter Biden...…..Now, in all honesty, why did Biden single out this particular prosecutor? The answer is obvious.

Athos: There is a YouTube video of Biden bragging about stopping the investigation of his son.

Then provide a link to this so-called video. If not, admit you are wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjXAxzddS4o

This is part of a BBC report. Start at about the one minute mark. They are critical of Biden and Trump both. It has the video of Biden saying he got the prosecutor fired. He also adds he was withholding funding until Ukraine did what he wanted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjXAxzddS4o

This is part of a BBC report. Start at about the one minute mark. They are critical of Biden and Trump both. It has the video of Biden saying he got the prosecutor fired. He also adds he was withholding funding until Ukraine did what he wanted.

ARE YOU SERIOUS? This video clearly states that "there is NO evidence that Biden stated the prosecutor was investigating his son". NONE! Nada!

In fact, it is stated TWICE! What's wrong with you two? Can't you hear? See?

It's one thing to believe something. It's quite another to offer proof of something that absolutely proves the OPPOSITE! This is typical right-wing BS, offering false statements as true.

Let me know when you find that video and it contradicts the one I provided. Meanwhile let's get some facts (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/) about this obvious dufus conspiracy theory. (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/23/20879611/joe-biden-hunter-biden-ukraine-corruption-prosecutor-burisma-donald-trump-whistleblower-complaint) I think I may have provided you similar links before so get the dufus LIES out of your head my friends.



But though Biden may have taken credit for it, this was hardly his unique idea. “Everyone in the Western community wanted Shokin sacked,” Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told the Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-anticorruption-effort-in-ukraine-overlapped-with-sons-work-in-country-11569189782). “The whole G-7, the IMF, the EBRD, everybody was united that Shokin must go, and the spokesman for this was Joe Biden.”The people of Ukraine wanted Shokin gone as well, and demonstrated for his removal around the time of Biden’s threat. Shortly after that demonstration, Shokin was dismissed.


Trump hopes to distract from the whistleblower by pushing a conspiracy theory

ARE YOU SERIOUS? This video clearly states that "there is NO evidence that Biden stated the prosecutor was investigating his son". NONE! Nada!

In fact, it is stated TWICE! What's wrong with you two? Can't you hear? See?

It's one thing to believe something. It's quite another to offer proof of something that absolutely proves the OPPOSITE! This is typical right-wing BS, offering false statements as true.

If only I could teach you how to read. Your life would be so much better. Vac and I both made reference to a video about Biden boasting about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired. You asked where the video was. I gave it to you. It plainly shows what I referenced and the reporter said the same thing. I never said there was any evidence that his son was involved. So calm down. You asked for the video and you now have it. You're going to have a heart attack one of these days by letting your imagination get so carried away with you. Now if you want to put a quote up where I made a false statement, then go for it. I'm not aware I made one.

In fact I'll help you out. Here's my statement. "There is a video showing Biden bragging about getting the prosecutor fired. The reason for the firing is less clear." There is nothing false there. Now maybe it's your turn to admit to a falsehood? There was a time when I thought the connection with his son was very clear. I would now say a person might imply it, but I don't know of any hard evidence to make that connection.

Vac and I both made reference to a video about Biden boasting about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired. You asked where the video was. I gave it to you.

"There is a Youtube video of Biden bragging about stopping the investigation of his son". Word for word from V7.

It is OBVIOUSLY NOT the video V7 was referring to! You imply it is.


You asked for the video and you now have it.

WRONG! I clearly asked for the video showing Biden bragging about stopping the investigation of his son. You sent a video that had nothing to do with the issue - even time marked. This bit of mis-direction is par for the course for you.


In fact I'll help you out. Here's my statement. "There is a video showing Biden bragging about getting the prosecutor fired. The reason for the firing is less clear."

That was NOT the issue between V7 and me. How dense can you be?


There was a time when I thought the connection with his son was very clear. I would now say a person might imply it, but I don't know of any hard evidence to make that connection.

Why didn't you say that in the first place?

That was NOT the issue between V7 and me. How dense can you be?


That reply of mine was not to you. It was to Vac. And this is the post immediately before you asked for the video where Vac says, "There is a video of Biden bragging at the CFR Meeting about withholding aid to the Ukraine to force the firing of the top Ukrainian State Prosecutor, Viktor Shokin…"

That's the video you were given.

That reply of mine was not to you. It was to Vac. And this is the post immediately before you asked for the video where Vac says, "There is a video of Biden bragging at the CFR Meeting about withholding aid to the Ukraine to force the firing of the top Ukrainian State Prosecutor, Viktor Shokin…"

You neglected to include, "Now, in all honesty, why did Biden single out this particular prosecutor? The answer is obvious"

That sort of alters the meaning, n'est pas?

The video he was referring to was obvious to everyone on the planet. "Biden bragging at the CFR meeting about withholding aid to the Ukraine to force the firing of the top Ukrainian State Prosecutor." How many times do you think he did that? Good grief.

Digress: About Biden: CAN YOU SAY "DIRTY"! If he said it once about getting the top Ukrainian Prosecutor fired, he said it a bunch! This guy repeats himself constantly....Biden is probably the "OLDEST" man, mentally, of any man you would ever meet for his age. He did a "Quid Pro Quo" with the Ukraine: there can be no doubt about that, either. But I think his boy, Hunter, is a little smarter than his old man, at least once he stopped snorting cocaine up his nostrils (I guess he's stopped? Who knows!): he saw the knife coming and he is trying to pull back from "foreign" business dealings, he says.

I remember when he tried to lynch Justice Thomas during the hearings about Anita Hill: Biden was such a dufus! Judge Thomas came back from a lunch break and broke a cinder block over Biden's incredibly hard head when he said the whole process was racially motivated! Thomas knocked the wind out of Biden, who was grandstanding like a real horse's arse: Biden put his tail between his legs and got really quiet from then on.....That episode let me know all I needed to know about Biden: LOSER!

Vac, I think they are nearly all dirty, at least to some degree. Biden, Trump, Warren, Pelosi, Schiff, Harris, Obama, HC. Which one is not dirty? Sanders might be less so, but he's foolish. Pence is clean, I think. Not sure how efficient he is. Most of them are hiding skeletons, just like most of us.

In related news, black unemployment, at 5.4%, is now at a record low. This is the sixth time that has happened under the Trump administration. I know we will all join in and congratulate him for that fine achievement.

jlisenbe: People have to Give The Devil His Due to Trump for achieving this level of employment! I suspect it will also earn him votes, too.

It's funny how you two have walked back V7's statement that the Ukrainian prosecutor was investigating Biden's son. Funny isn't the best word. More like, pathetic and a clear case of lying.

In a way, I'm glad you did. It encourages me and others to reduce any credence you may have had. Sorry, V7, you're hanging around with the wrong crowd and are being painted with a dirty brush.

It's funny how you two have walked back V7's statement that the Ukrainian prosecutor was investigating Biden's son. Funny isn't the best word. More like, pathetic and a clear case of lying.

Kind of in a nasty mood today? Well, at any rate, I haven't walked anything back. Don't have to since I never said that. In fact, I was very careful NOT to say that. "There is a video showing Biden bragging about getting the prosecutor fired. The reason for the firing is less clear." That is a 100% accurate and truthful statement unlike your statement quoted above.


In a way, I'm glad you did. It encourages me and others to reduce any credence you may have had.

Hmm. Kind of puts the shoe on the other foot now, doesn't it?

I haven't walked anything back. Don't have to since I never said that.

It's simple enough to go back and look. I'll refresh your memory.

I challenged V7 to provide the video he claimed showed Biden bragging about stopping the investigation of his son. Within minutes, you posted a link to a video which showed nothing of the sort. Then why did you post it immediately after my challenge to V7? Kind of suspicious, eh?

It's simple enough to go back and look. I'll refresh your memory.

I challenged V7 to provide the video he claimed showed Biden bragging about stopping the investigation of his son. Within minutes, you posted a link to a video which showed nothing of the sort. Then why did you post it immediately after my challenge to V7? Kind of suspicious.

I posted the link after the post I showed above. I don't defend Vac. That's his job. At any rate, your post above was flatly wrong. End of story.

In related news, black unemployment, at 5.4%, is now at a record low. This is the sixth time that has happened under the Trump administration. I know we will all join in and congratulate him for that fine achievement.

What was it at the end of Obamas term?
(https://www.bustle.com/p/black-unemployment-rates-under-trump-vs-obama-show-sarah-sanders-latest-claim-was-way-off-10116487)
https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/black-unemployment-rate-2009-to-2017-1.jpg

https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/black-unemployment-rate-2009-to-2017-1.jpg

Still higher than white unemployment. Still trying to give the dufus ALL the credit as usual. Pretty insulting to black people! Ask me how I know!

I posted the link after the post I showed above.

No you didn't. It came immediately after mine.

//Later - to Tal's chart//
Excellent post, Tal. Gives the lie to the TrUmpites and their constant bragging about black unemployment like they invented it.

Still higher than white unemployment. Still trying to give the dufus ALL the credit as usual. Pretty insulting to black people! Ask me how I know!

Yeah, just like it was during Obama's eight years. I did not give Trump all the credit, but I did give him credit.

Insulting to black people? On what planet would record low black unemployment be insulting to black people??? Are you kidding?


No you didn't. It came immediately after mine.

This was your post you spoke of. "Then provide a link to this so-called video. If not, admit you are wrong." That was addressed to Vac, not to me. But have it anyway you want. The video clearly showed Biden bragging that he had threatened to withhold funds unless Ukraine did what he wanted done. It does not say why. It is just what I said it was.

The video clearly showed Biden bragging that he had threatened to withhold funds unless Ukraine did what he wanted done. It does not say why. It is just what I said it was.

That was not the issue. It never was.

Talaniman: O.K., you want someone to ask you HOW DO YOU KNOW why the low unemployment #'s are insulting to Black people?

Talaniman: Are you a Black man?

Talaniman: O.K., you want someone to ask you HOW DO YOU KNOW why the low unemployment #'s are insulting to Black people?

Talaniman: Are you a Black man?

Are you complaining blacks are over-represented in unemployment? Are you complaining not enough intention is given to this phenomenon? You will no doubt recall when there was 100% employment of blacks, but then in those days there were other social issues which occupied the mind and I don't think poverty was among them

Talaniman: O.K., you want someone to ask you HOW DO YOU KNOW why the low unemployment #'s are insulting to Black people?

Talaniman: Are you a Black man?

It's not the number it's an orange guy who takes ALL the credit for events he has done nothing to earn then tells everybody what he has done for you. That's insulting, since black unemployment is still higher than white unemployment like it's always been. Like the previous guy who just left cut the numbers in half and gets NO credit, but you are quick to give it to the dufus NOW. I provided the link before of US unemployment which clearly shows as does the above chart the trend lines were steadily going downward for employment period, so maybe you can say he hasn't screwed that up yet in his 3 years but you cannot say he built THIS economy. If you did your homework, you would also so large swaths of America still have not recovered, or are sluggishly recovering with many ghost towns because mines, plants, and factories are closed, have closed, or will close soon. That's still happening as people transition from one economy to the another.

So yes, a black man would be and is insulted by such rhetoric. The numbers bear that out, and quiet as it's kept, black people aren't the only ones insulted by this lying cheating dufus you give so much credit too, who really can only claim lying, cheating, stealing. and being a big mouth insulting BULLY.

Give him the credit he deserves for that too! Obviously you don't care because you think he is doing it for YOU right?


Are you complaining blacks are over-represented in unemployment? Are you complaining not enough intention is given to this phenomenon? You will no doubt recall when there was 100% employment of blacks, but then in those days there were other social issues which occupied the mind and I don't think poverty was among them

Have no idea what you mean unless you are speaking of the slave days. Everyone is an economic slave here nowadays.

That's insulting, since black unemployment is still higher than white unemployment like it's always been.

So it was also insulting during the eight years of Obama?


Like the previous guy who just left cut the numbers in half and gets NO credit, but you are quick to give it to the dufus NOW.

I give Obama credit for doubling the national debt and producing an economy which did grow slowly.


If you did your homework, you would also so large swaths of America still have not recovered, or are sluggishly recovering with many ghost towns because mines, plants, and factories are closed, have closed, or will close soon.

Was even MORE the case with Obama, but I didn't see you complaining then. Why is it that you complain now, even as records are being set, but didn't complain with Obama? Even now you won't complain about Obama. Why is that?

So it was also insulting during the eight years of Obama?
I give Obama credit for doubling the national debt and producing an economy which did grow slowly.

That's the point it did grow slowly, and in eight years some debt is necessary considering where he started. Look around at the ever growing debt and extrapolate where it will be under the dufus at his pace. What the dufus pays the bills? Show me.

[/QOUTE]Was even MORE the case with Obama, but I didn't see you complaining then. Why is it that you complain now, even as records are being set, but didn't complain with Obama? Even now you won't complain about Obama. Why is that?

Were you here when Obama was the prez? I have often invited you to read those archives before you talk what you don't know, or make stuff up to fit YOUR narrative while not being much on data research or HOMEWORK. (https://www.thebalance.com/trump-plans-to-reduce-national-debt-4114401) I mean you think that stating an obvious FACT is name calling by gosh.

From the link



On September 8, 2017, Trump signed a bill increasing the debt ceiling. Later that day, the debt exceeded $20 trillion for the first time in U.S. history. On February 9, 2018, Trump signed a bill suspending the debt ceiling (http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/08/news/economy/debt-limit/index.html) until March 1, 2019. It was $22 trillion. In just two years,Trump has overseen the fastest dollar increase in the debt of any president (https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296).


Trump's Fiscal Year 2020 budget projects (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ap_4_borrowing-fy2019.pdf) the debt would increase $5 trillion during his first term. That's as much as Obama added while fighting a recession. Trump has not fulfilled his campaign promise to cut the debt. Instead, he's done the opposite.



Sooner or later your going to let go of your nose and smell the CURRENT stink yo boy is brewing instead of bashing Obama.

PS notice sometimes my links have embedded links for more DATA.

Were you here when Obama was the prez? I have often invited you to read those archives before you talk what you don't know, or make stuff up to fit YOUR narrative while not being much on data research or HOMEWORK. I mean you think that stating an obvious FACT is name calling by gosh.

I have spoken frequently of Obama. You just don't like all I say. He doubled the national debt. He did stave off economic disaster, though how extreme it was still is in question. He had the weakest post-recession recovery in a hundred years, but the economy did grow slowly in his eight years.

From the link


On September 8, 2017, Trump signed a bill increasing the debt ceiling. Later that day, the debt exceeded $20 trillion for the first time in U.S. history. On February 9, 2018, Trump signed a bill suspending the debt ceiling until March 1, 2019. It was $22 trillion. In just two years,Trump has overseen the fastest dollar increase in the debt of any president.


Trump's Fiscal Year 2020 budget projects the debt would increase $5 trillion during his first term. That's as much as Obama added while fighting a recession. Trump has not fulfilled his campaign promise to cut the debt. Instead, he's done the opposite.
Sooner or later your going to let go of your nose and smell the CURRENT stink yo boy is brewing instead of bashing Obama.

Your data is not correct. Obama had almost 3 tril of def spending his first two years. Trump's first two years were about half of that. But I would agree that he and the dem congress should have their butts kicked for that incredible overspending. Most of that deficit does not come from the tax cuts (about 150 bil a year), but from simply spending way too much money. And if the tax cuts did stimulate the economy, then they could very well end up paying for themselves.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306
https://www.thebalance.com/cost-of-trump-tax-cuts-4586645

As to the current stink, if you're talking about Schiff and Pelosi, then I agree completely. The smell is atrocious.

You question my data then show your own, that's the way it works as you well know otherwise your making stuff up and you wouldn't want me to think that now would you?

You can boohoo all you want, but as the testimony of credible witnesses parade before the American people the dufus will have to explain himself and his actions for illegally with holding duly process and approved funds for his personal gain, eerie similar to the way he ran his chariity casinos and university SCAMS.

For a president to withhold such funding does require going through a formal process, that includes a formal notification of the congress...oh wait they haven't gotten that far yet..! If you missed the hearings live they can be seen on CSpan.

You didn't study the Mueller Report, haven't followed the transcripts, and won't watch the hearings, but Nancy and Adam suck. My that's an informed opinion. Hard to argue with that! /SARCASM font engaged set at HEAVY and dripping/

You question my data then show your own, that's the way it works as you well know otherwise your making stuff up and you wouldn't want me to think that now would you?

Uhm...I did.


You can boohoo all you want, but as the testimony of credible witnesses parade before the American people the dufus will have to explain himself and his actions for illegally with holding duly process and approved funds for his personal gain, eerie similar to the way he ran his chariity casinos and university SCAMS.

You talking about those guys who can only tell what someone else told them they thought they heard a different person say? Yeah, that's real credible. I would call it incredible that we are wasting our time with them. If yesterday is all the dems have, then it's over with.

You talking about those guys who can only tell what someone else told them they thought they heard a different person say? Yeah, that's real credible. I would call it incredible that we are wasting our time with them. If yesterday is all the dems have, then it's over with.

Well when the guys who know the first hand stuff are allowed to testify we can clear this up real quick can't we. The dufus said NO, and that's that!. I missed your data somehow, sorry please provide it again.

Well when the guys who know the first hand stuff are allowed to testify we can clear this up real quick can't we.

It's always tomorrow. Someone else. Some other testimony. Just wait til next week.


I missed your data somehow, sorry please provide it again.

There are two links.

Patience Hopper grass, it's a slow process, and I got the links. From your links


On September 8, 2017, Trump signed a bill increasing the debt ceiling. Later that day, the debt exceeded $20 trillion for the first time in U.S. history. On February 9, 2018, Trump signed a bill suspending the debt ceiling (http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/08/news/economy/debt-limit/index.html) until March 1, 2019. It was $22 trillion. In just two years,Trump has overseen the fastest dollar increase in the debt of any president (https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296).


Trump's Fiscal Year 2020 budget projects (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ap_4_borrowing-fy2019.pdf) the debt would increase $5 trillion during his first term. That's as much as Obama added while fighting a recession. Trump has not fulfilled his campaign promise to cut the debt. Instead, he's done the opposite.

Thought I didn't read my own links dude?

On September 8, 2017, Trump signed a bill increasing the debt ceiling. Later that day, the debt exceeded $20 trillion for the first time in U.S. history. On February 9, 2018, Trump signed a bill suspending the debt ceiling until March 1, 2019. It was $22 trillion. In just two years,Trump has overseen the fastest dollar increase in the debt of any president.


Trump's Fiscal Year 2020 budget projects the debt would increase $5 trillion during his first term. That's as much as Obama added while fighting a recession. Trump has not fulfilled his campaign promise to cut the debt. Instead, he's done the opposite.

As you can see very easily by looking at the chart on my first post, Obama borrowed a great deal more his first two years than did Trump.

Also note the first sentence of your first quote. "Trump signed a bill." Guess who sent him the bill? If you guessed the democrat House, then you get to move to the front of the line. Trump is an idiot for not balancing the budget. So are the dems in the House. Can we agree on that?

"Trump signed a bill." Guess who sent him the bill? If you guessed the democrat House, then you get to move to the front of the line. Trump is an idiot for not balancing the budget. So are the dems in the House. Can we agree on that?

Jl, when did a demonrat balance a budget? You expect the impossible, or at least the highly improbable. Liberals love OPM, it is there for their taking, but the US budget is beyond balancing, it would take a change in philosophy, better to repudiate the national debt

Jl, when did a demonrat balance a budget? You expect the impossible, or at least the highly improbable. Liberals love OPM, it is there for their taking, but the US budget is beyond balancing, it would take a change in philosophy, better to repudiate the national debt

Actually, Clete, Bill Clinton and a repub House were the last ones to balance a budget. They actually had a surplus for a couple of years. I really think we will go on with this til the wheels fall off the cart.

As you can see very easily by looking at the chart on my first post, Obama borrowed a great deal more his first two years than did Trump.

Yeah recessions teetering on depression GLOBALLY will do that. He saved the whole world dude.


Also note the first sentence of your first quote. "Trump signed a bill." Guess who sent him the bill? If you guessed the democrat House, then you get to move to the front of the line.

And if you guess a repub senate and WH had to go along with the house bill you can join me at the head of the class.


Trump is an idiot for not balancing the budget. So are the dems in the House. Can we agree on that?

I knew he was blowing smoke when he said it during the campaign, because any idiot knows you can't cut the military and engage in a few wars/conflicts or whatever you want to call it, cover all us old farts retiring with our sick a$$es, and have Mother Nature raising heck. LOL, you thought the dufus was a Clinton? (https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/)

I would agree with your premise but you seem to skip the repubs in the senate as part of the idiocy...AGAIN! Why?

He saved the whole world dude.

That's questionable.


I would agree with your premise but you seem to skip the repubs in the senate as part of the idiocy...AGAIN! Why?

Because all spending bills must originate in the House.

And go to the senate for approval or reconciliation, or they can introduce their own version. Nothing gets to the Prez without going through the senate. When repubs had the House for 2 years under the dufus where was their balanced budget bill, or the 6 years under Obama?

LOL, you thought the dufus was a Clinton? (https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/)

actually he was once or at least a friend and demonrat voter, but he sniffed the wind, and when Obama was elected he became a republican or a pelican, take your pick.

And go to the senate for approval or reconciliation, or they can introduce their own version. Nothing gets to the Prez without going through the senate. When repubs had the House for 2 years under the dufus where was their balanced budget bill, or the 6 years under Obama?

Yes! I agree with you completely. They are both totally irresponsible when it comes to spending. There is no level of taxation that can raise another trillion dollars without wrecking the economy, so spending in all areas must be cut.

Like the sequester from the Obama era that cut 10% across the board?

There is no level of taxation that can raise another trillion dollars without wrecking the economy, so spending in all areas must be cut.

That was the major point of the Trump "tax cut". Squeeze the government programs to death through falling revenues.

Like the sequester from the Obama era that cut 10% across the board?

That's a great idea, but sadly it would not balance the budget. You would have to cut spending by nearly 30% to balance the budget. That's just how bad it is. The Trump tax cuts would add less than 200 bil back into the budget. You would still be 800 bil over budget. We cannot tax our way out of this problem. Spending cuts are coming. The only question is whether we will grow a brain and institute them in a sane manner, or will we do like Greece and have them forced upon us.

That's a great idea, but sadly it would not balance the budget. You would have to cut spending by nearly 30% to balance the budget. That's just how bad it is. The Trump tax cuts would add less than 200 bil back into the budget. You would still be 800 bil over budget. We cannot tax our way out of this problem. Spending cuts are coming. The only question is whether we will grow a brain and institute them in a sane manner, or will we do like Greece and have them forced upon us.

I'm for forcing them on you, only an austerity program like Greece will bring reality. So get rid of tax loopholes and tax havens which benefit the rich, like Trump, and make the rich pay their true share of tax, next institute a universal health scheme and remove the price gouging doctors from the system, revise the liability system so noone can get rich, just compensated and make the military do with last year's model rather than buying new ones

I'm for forcing them on you, only an austerity program like Greece will bring reality. So get rid of tax loopholes and tax havens which benefit the rich, like Trump, and make the rich pay their true share of tax, next institute a universal health scheme and remove the price gouging doctors from the system, revise the liability system so noone can get rich, just compensated and make the military do with last year's model rather than buying new ones

That's so funny. You call for an austerity program like Greece had. Then you parade the tired old dem talking points. Make the rich pay their "fair share". The top 20% of income earners are paying more than 85% of the income taxes, but you want them to pay their "fair share"? Then we'll really cut spending by instituting...a huge new spending program like universal health care? Well, that is a "scheme" for sure. Revise the liability system? That probably needs work, but how does that cut fed spending?

You were critical of the cuts of sequestration, but then you want to supposedly call for austerity? Ten percent would only be a start. EVERYTHING would have to be cut. Welfare? Yes. National parks? Yes. Congressional staffs. Yes. Military? Yes. Size of military? Yes. All federal services? Yes. EVERYTHING will have to be cut PAINFULLY and there can be no new spending until the budget is balanced. That's exactly why it's not being fixed. It's gotten so out of hand that fixing it is going to be very, very difficult, and no politician wants to have to do something painful until the time arrives when he has no choice.

You do not understand the depth of the problem. We are spending 4.7 tril and only taking in 3.6 tril. In my view, it's hopeless. It won't get fixed until the wheels fall of the cart and we have to fix it. We, as a nation, have become too lazy and stupid to expect anything else to happen. Blame Trump? Blame the dem House? Try blaming us.

And before someone stupidly brings up the Trump tax cuts, that is less than 200 bil a year. It is less than 20 cents on the dollar to the budget deficit. We are now taking in more than a trillion dollars more in revenues a year than we did in 2012, and yet the budget is not even close to being balanced. The problem is spending, and it will have to be cut dramatically and painfully. If you don't believe that, then you don't know what you're talking about. Just that simple. If you don't believe that, then contradict the math, but do it honestly. Good luck with that.

But the House can't pay any attention to that because they are too busy with this stupid witch hunt of impeaching Trump over who knows what. We need to get rid of the whole bunch and bring in some people who are committed to doing the right thing.

And good morning to everyone!

https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762

Good morning my friend, from your link,


"Revenues would be much higher without the Trump tax plan. It was also lowered by the extension of the Bush tax cuts (https://www.thebalance.com/president-george-bush-tax-cuts-3306331) and the Obama tax cuts (https://www.thebalance.com/obama-tax-cuts-3306330). They were meant to fight the 2001 recession (https://www.thebalance.com/2001-recession-causes-lengths-stats-4147962) and the 2008 recession (https://www.thebalance.com/the-great-recession-of-2008-explanation-with-dates-4056832). They were supposed to spur the consumer spending (https://www.thebalance.com/consumer-spending-trends-and-current-statistics-3305916) that drives almost 70% of economic growth (https://www.thebalance.com/components-of-gdp-explanation-formula-and-chart-3306015).


But most people didn't even realize this happened since the tax cut (https://www.thebalance.com/tax-cuts-definition-types-and-how-they-work-3306328) showed up as reduced withholding instead of a check. Instead of spending the cuts, people used some of it to pay off debt. The recession scared people into saving more and using credit cards (https://www.thebalance.com/average-credit-card-debt-u-s-statistics-3305919) less. So, the budget didn't expand enough to spur economic growth (https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-economic-growth-3306014).


Now that the recession is over, those tax cuts should be reversed. Taxes should be increased, not cut. An economic expansion is the time to pay off the debt, not add to it."

Makes sense to me.

Now that the recession is over, those tax cuts should be reversed. Taxes should be increased, not cut. An economic expansion is the time to pay off the debt, not add to it."

Makes sense to me.

1. Makes sense to me too.
2. You criticized Mr. Obama for his tax cuts. I'm impressed!
3. Fed income tax revenues (not counting social security) have increased by about a trillion dollars (a 60% increase) since 2010. How much more revenue do you want? You keep talking about tax rates. You would be better off to look at revenue levels.
4. If this website's projections are correct, then if we would simply freeze fed spending at current levels, we would have a balanced budget by 2024. If we would cut spending by only 10%, then it would happen a year earlier. 10% would not be fun, but if I had good reason to do so, my wife and I could cut our spending by 10% and we'd be OK. So can the fed government.
http://www.polidiotic.com/by-the-numbers/us-federal-deficit-by-year/
5. Federal spending has increased by 400% in only thirty years. Does that sound good to you?
6. Tax increases? So you are saying that you're ready for your income taxes to be increased?

You criticise me for liberial oriented thinking, and yet, I live in a place where some of these things have been achieved. Admitedly the economy is smaller and there are less social ills to be dealt with, but, military spending is only 2% of GDP, which is one of the keys. There is something dysfunctional about a government that continually spends more than it receives. Cutting 10% won't do it, to achieve equilibrum the cut must be 25%, but a large part of spending is interest, no wonder Trump wants interest rates to be lower.