Letter: Republicans: The party of 'no'

Letter: Republicans: The party of 'no'

There are 399 comments on the Burlington Free Press story from Dec 15, 2010, titled Letter: Republicans: The party of 'no'. In it, Burlington Free Press reports that:

Writing as an indepen dent Vermonter whose grandfather served for two decades as Vermont's Re publican secretary of state, it seems to me a tragedy that the national Republi can Party is becoming the party of 'NO.' 'NO' to anything President Obama supports, thus 'NO' to true bipartisanship.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Burlington Free Press.

First Prev
of 20
Next Last
Nicetry

Brattleboro, VT

#1 Dec 16, 2010
Democrats: the party of yes. Yes we will raise your taxes. Yes we will spend it foolishly.
TruthTeller

Williston, VT

#2 Dec 17, 2010
Nicetry wrote:
Democrats: the party of yes. Yes we will raise your taxes. Yes we will spend it foolishly.
You must be really angry at the republicans that have raised your taxes over and over, and borrowed and spent over and over, eh!
estanson

Windsor, VT

#3 Dec 17, 2010
TruthTeller wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be really angry at the republicans that have raised your taxes over and over, and borrowed and spent over and over, eh!
next post you will be railing against the BUSH tax cuts...
the lib playbook play #2...stay a moving target...
Nicetry

Brattleboro, VT

#4 Dec 17, 2010
TruthTeller wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be really angry at the republicans that have raised your taxes over and over, and borrowed and spent over and over, eh!
After 8 years of Bush we had a lower tax rate and a national debt which was within a couple of percentage points of the debt to GDP at the end of the Clinton era. You see what you democrats fail to see is that the GDP grew by a very healthy four trillion dollars in the Bush era.

So now you democrats who have nearly doubled the debt in just a couple of years want to have some credibility complaining about the republicans. You certainly don't lack gumption as bizarre as the argument appears in the light of a rational discussion.
Plant Manager

Williston, VT

#5 Dec 17, 2010
Nicetry wrote:
<quoted text>
After 8 years of Bush we had a lower tax rate and a national debt which was within a couple of percentage points of the debt to GDP at the end of the Clinton era. You see what you democrats fail to see is that the GDP grew by a very healthy four trillion dollars in the Bush era.
So now you democrats who have nearly doubled the debt in just a couple of years want to have some credibility complaining about the republicans. You certainly don't lack gumption as bizarre as the argument appears in the light of a rational discussion.
Stop the lying right wing kook. Sorry but the debt went out of sight under bush. Both of them, not to mention raygun ronnie -- who borrowed and spent more money then all the presidents from Washington to carter combined.

The really bizarre thing is you you character without a pot to pee in being republicans. The party really ought to be the M&M party; Millionaires and Morons.
TruthTeller

Williston, VT

#6 Dec 17, 2010
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
next post you will be railing against the BUSH tax cuts...
the lib playbook play #2...stay a moving target...
Stop driveling son. It makes you look like a Village Idiot. there is no reason to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires -- to be paid for by people who will never have a chance to be one of the rich.

You really need to reform yourself, if you want to make it into heaven.
Walt Kronkite

Dover, NH

#7 Dec 18, 2010
News Flash: The big O just joined the party of no, so guess now he blows, NO?.
Concerned

Bennington, VT

#8 Dec 18, 2010
These figures were the latest I came across-thought they were interesting

Social Programs relating to Benefits and giveaways- 1.6 Trillion

Broken down by expenditures:
Education- 97 Billion
Healthcare for the poor- 250 Billion
Healthcare for the Elderly- 298 Billion
Unemployment Insurance- 346 Billion
Social Security- 523 Billion
Veterans Benefits- 70 Billion

Social Programs relating to physical provisions- 130 Billion

Broken down by expenditures:
Energy- 400 Million
Environmentalism- 28 Billion
Housing- 9 Billion
Public Transportation- 67 Billion
Community Development- 26 Billion

Overall the social services budget is nearing 70 percent of the Federal budget.

Just how much of the Federal Budget do you want spent on giveaways?
taxman

Dover, NH

#9 Dec 18, 2010
Plant Manager wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop the lying right wing kook. Sorry but the debt went out of sight under bush. Both of them, not to mention raygun ronnie -- who borrowed and spent more money then all the presidents from Washington to carter combined.
The really bizarre thing is you you character without a pot to pee in being republicans. The party really ought to be the M&M party; Millionaires and Morons.
No lie at all. Under Bush the national debt as a percentage of the GDP was 63%. Clinton 59%.....Obama 93% and estimated to go over 100% in 2012.

Ronnie did spend a lot since he approved major spending by the democrats in exchange for the tax cuts he wanted. The spending increased but so did the tax revenues as trickle down proved to be true.

Oh how you must hate to hear the truth. Even Obama now agrees that tax cuts are important to stimulate the economy.
TruthTeller

Williston, VT

#10 Dec 19, 2010
taxman wrote:
<quoted text>
No lie at all. Under Bush the national debt as a percentage of the GDP was 63%. Clinton 59%.....Obama 93% and estimated to go over 100% in 2012.
Ronnie did spend a lot since he approved major spending by the democrats in exchange for the tax cuts he wanted. The spending increased but so did the tax revenues as trickle down proved to be true.
Oh how you must hate to hear the truth. Even Obama now agrees that tax cuts are important to stimulate the economy.
Stop the right wing kook lying. You have used the right wing game of avoiding the fact that taxes have gone up the middle class under the right wingers. The other fact you avoid is that trickle-down only works for the rich. Its a failure for everyone else.
TruthTeller

Williston, VT

#11 Dec 19, 2010
Walt Kronkite wrote:
News Flash: The big O just joined the party of no, so guess now he blows, NO?.
No. But hey thanks for showing us that you did not listen to what he said.

Since: Jan 09

Bennington, VT

#12 Dec 20, 2010
TruthTeller wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be really angry at the republicans that have raised your taxes over and over, and borrowed and spent over and over, eh!
"Republicans raied you taxes" YES if Howard Dean was a Republican. BD {before Dean} familys in the 25% federal bracket paid 5.75% Vermont state now the Vermont rate is 7.9% for same tax bracket.
estanson

Windsor, VT

#13 Dec 20, 2010
thank you for displaying rules 1 & 3 of the lib posting playbook...
TruthTeller wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop driveling son. It makes you look like a Village Idiot.
Rule # 1 dont address arguments, just insult...
if intelligence critiques dont work, ratchet up to racism and if all else fails class warfare
TruthTeller wrote:
<quoted text>
there is no reason to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires
Lib Rule # 3 ...ignore reality, all facts aside...its fair to call cuts for those above 1/4 million as not only MILLIONARES but BILLIONARES...
ignore the fact that these are not all individuals but couples and businesses...forget that small business are job creators, forget that environmental groups are corporations... add playbook rule #1 that anyone who makes more than 250K is EVIL!
TruthTeller wrote:
<quoted text>
to be paid for by people who will never have a chance to be one of the rich.
this one is the best...
as if we all get a chance to be rich, just some peope haven't gotten their turn?
also, how can you possibly explain a tax cut for ALL being "paid for" by the poor who pay no taxes anyway?
(FYI, I dont expect a rational response....I am just baiting you to repeat the rules...)
Another NO

Sunapee, NH

#14 Dec 20, 2010
This NO is more than a little puzzling, NO to the Child Marriage Protection Act?
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/201...
"House GOP Crushes Bill That Would Protect Against Child Marriage"
Concerned

Bennington, VT

#15 Dec 20, 2010
Another NO wrote:
This NO is more than a little puzzling, NO to the Child Marriage Protection Act?
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/201...
"House GOP Crushes Bill That Would Protect Against Child Marriage"
Actually from reading the article it seems the bill was aimed at protecting girls "around the world". That makes no sense as the U.S. can't pass a bill requiring other countries to do anything. Part of the article noted it would encourage the president to support or promote the effort world wide-
Ok not a bad idea, but do we need a bill to give the president direction or encourage them to promote an idea, can't they just promote the idea?
If one goes by the article yes, this is a confusing bill and I can see why it was voted down-does seem to be needed.
Perhaps going to the congressional site and reading the bill might clarify the matter instead of just reading a media source.
promotion

Sunapee, NH

#16 Dec 20, 2010
Should we be sending aid to any country that that condones child marriage? It is a violation of article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states,‘Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of intending spouses’. A child cannot consent.
Maybe their objection was funding faith-based organizations to implement the plan? I could understand that.
Oh, wait, they are Republicans, faith is how they keep their voting base stupid enough to keep making rich people richer and praise the lord Jesus are they stupid. In Kentucky they are rebuilding Noah's ark, Tax-Free at a "biblically correct" theme park called Ark Encounter which will teach how the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
Maybe there are just too many Morons, I mean Mormons for this to pass, those freakshow cultists sure do cherish their polygamous child marriages.
obvious

Sunapee, NH

#17 Dec 20, 2010
Maybe we should start with Utah and Texas before we go worldwide?
TruthTeller

Williston, VT

#18 Dec 21, 2010
j w mcsherry wrote:
<quoted text>"Republicans raied you taxes" YES if Howard Dean was a Republican. BD {before Dean} familys in the 25% federal bracket paid 5.75% Vermont state now the Vermont rate is 7.9% for same tax bracket.
Dean has been gone for years. Its your republican buddies who not only kept the tax rate up, they increased the sales tax too. Now stop playing stupid.
TruthTeller

Williston, VT

#19 Dec 21, 2010
estanson wrote:
thank you for displaying rules 1 & 3 of the lib posting playbook...
<quoted text>
Rule # 1 dont address arguments, just insult...
if intelligence critiques dont work, ratchet up to racism and if all else fails class warfare
<quoted text>
Lib Rule # 3 ...ignore reality, all facts aside...its fair to call cuts for those above 1/4 million as not only MILLIONARES but BILLIONARES...
ignore the fact that these are not all individuals but couples and businesses...forget that small business are job creators, forget that environmental groups are corporations... add playbook rule #1 that anyone who makes more than 250K is EVIL!
<quoted text>
this one is the best...
as if we all get a chance to be rich, just some peope haven't gotten their turn?
also, how can you possibly explain a tax cut for ALL being "paid for" by the poor who pay no taxes anyway?
(FYI, I dont expect a rational response....I am just baiting you to repeat the rules...)
Thank you for proving just how stupid you poor republicans are. Son, you will never be rich. The system is rigged. You can't get there. You might with luck become comfortable, but you will never be one of the handful that owns 95% of the nation's wealth. Get an education and maybe you will figure it out.

Since: Jan 09

Middlebury, VT

#20 Dec 21, 2010
TruthTeller wrote:
<quoted text>
Dean has been gone for years. Its your republican buddies who not only kept the tax rate up, they increased the sales tax too. Now stop playing stupid.
Which does not give credit to the Democrat controlled legislature. I would also point out the sales tax effects everyone who buys things. While again let me point out the Dean tax increase is what is a typical Democrat. Let us sock it to the working class.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 20
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Vermont Government Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News On Native GroundFUKUSHIMA Reminds Us of the Rea... Mar '16 APEFARANGUMINDEBD... 2
News Bernie Sanders' Iowa showing excites Vermont su... Feb '16 Community Disorga... 3
News Single payer advocates propose expansion of Dr.... Jan '16 FEDERAL CIRCUS OF... 2
News Sanders' Face on Underwear Line (Oct '15) Nov '15 DILF 32
News Ben & Jerrya s Co-Founder Shares Bernie Sanders... (Oct '15) Oct '15 Lawrence Wolf 26
News Some Vermonters may get religion as vaccine out... (Sep '15) Oct '15 Hi sexy 3
News The Fourteenth State: Vermont's eugenics experi... (Aug '15) Aug '15 harp 1
More from around the web