Now, five or ten years ago, such a board would have been overran with neothugs and theocons spouting off incomprehensible policies having something to do with wetbacks and Presidential blow-jobs.
Well, the "top-rated articles" on this site seem to be left-leaning, at least during the two or three days I was looking the place over. But there's still plenty of the former.
In fact, I believe I have found the perfect voice of RightWingNuttia, Arizona Chapter. Someone calling himself "Average american." (No word on why he uses little "a", hates America?)
Anywho, let's take a look:
"Thank god [sic] for Bush and yet another tax cut. If not for the earlier tax cuts this economy would have come to a screaching [sic] halt. There is so much waste in Washington and at the state level that it is truely discusting. [sic]"
How about that, eh? Someone who still believes in "trickle-on" Reaganomics, despite decades of evidence showing supply-side doesn't work, never has, and inevitably results in massive deficits.
Clinton raised taxes on the wealthiest 1% of this country, and we had the longest sustained expansion of our economy in history, along with record surpluses. Bush took less than 3 years to spend it all, and run up debt like his drunken days at the Houston Hooters.
"I know when I was short on money, (which really never happens anymore since I am a republican white guy) I would have to choose what things I would cut out of my budget."
I think this is supposed to be funny; kind of the knowing wink to the neocon reader (yeah, we're Aryan and we're cool) and some kind of dig at the liberal (meaning nigger-lovin', pro-illegal, intellectual elites) audience.
However, the sentiment is dead-on despite being unfunny. Republicans used to choose things to cut out of the budget; but that was when a Democrat held the executive branch. Now that they control all three branches, nothing will ever be cut out of the budget. Let massive debt run free! Watch as our trade dollars flow freely to China, and our jobs to India!
"And don't feed me this we spend billions a month on the war, it represents very little of our actual national budget. We spend far more on poor people who will always be poor because they make bad decisions about their life than we ever have on this war."
How sweet, another Flying Monkey who knows absolutely nothing about our national budget. All that's missing is a diatribe on how we spend 20% of our budget on foreign aid (it's less than 1%, Dear Follower.) Let's give him the benefit of the doubt: the war represents "very little" of our budget because Bush and Rummy refuse to put the war in the goddam budget! So those massive and growing deficits you see? They don't even include war spending.
So I'm sure you're a big fan of the "Deficit Reduction Act" your theocon brethren have written up, right? The massive cuts in benefits to the poor? It's the only way to balance the budget, wouldn't you say?
Except it also includes huge tax giveaways to the rich, not only matching any possible savings dollar for dollar, but surpassing it. That's right, Mr. american, it makes the budget deficits worse, and has the added bonus of stealing from the poor to enrich wealthy Republicans like yourself. Beautiful, ain't it?
(Let's not even get into our military spending; your precarious grasp on our budget will completely slip away after hearing how we spend more on our military than the next top 10 spenders combined.)
Our fearless rightie is building to his major point:
"I know that this latest tax cut will not effect [sic] a whole lot of you, it is designed to help your employers, that's right, the rich people who are the ones who sign your pay check. Investment tax rates needed to come down. That way the rich white bastards can hire more of you lazy whinners [sic] and pay you even more money and force you into a higher tax bracket. Maybe then you will see the devistation [sic] that high taxes really ravage on this country by holding it back from it's [sic] true potential."
I've been trying to avoid the obvious, but... do you really think this supposed Republican success story, who earned his inheritance the old-fashioned way, really makes over $100K a year, but doesn't know how to use a dictionary? I find it highly unlikely.
However, it is nice to see a Rethug admit the Bush tax cuts do not target the middle-class. Despite what Cheney and TurdBlossom try to push, Average american has gotten hip to the game; millionaires need our help. Why, some of them had summer homes in New Orleans and hotels in Indonesia! They were hit much harder by these tragedies than some poor, black folk who lost a trailer, for Gawd's sake!
Trying to drag out some kind of message from this pile-o-hate, I believe Mr. american is saying "Giving rich, white males public welfare will result in higher incomes for undeserving trash races." Does that rhetoric wash? In a word, no. Even FactCheck.org, repeatedly shown to be biased against liberals, says this about the shrinking middle-class:
"On Aug. 26 the Census Bureau released its annual survey of income in the US. These more up-to-date figures show that Kerry may well have been correct when he said the middle class is shrinking, using present tense.
There's no standard definition of "middle class," so we looked at households with pre-tax income of between $25,000 and $75,000 -- a group occupying roughly the middle half of the Census income distribution tables. As we noted before, that group grew smaller during the economic recession of 2001 and the initially slow recovery of 2002. Now the new Census figures indicate it continued to decline in 2003, and while this time some of the middle group were moving up, a larger portion were moving down. ... Since Bush took office, the middle-income group has declined by 1.2 percentage points , and now constitutes less than 45% of all households.
At the same time, households with less than $25,000 in income have grown by 1.5 percentage points, and now make up 29% of all households. So a large number of households have slipped out of the middle group and into the lower-income range over the past three years."
Back to Mr. NutJob:
" By the way, if you feel that tax cuts are bad, there isn't one single provision stopping you from paying more. Write the biggest check you can and send it on to the government. If you really cared like you claim too, you would be personally sacrificing to help pay for all these social programs instead of the government having to take it from you.
Makes me sick. You want to help so damn much, don't force the government to do the dirty work for you, do it yourself."
With this logic, I assume you are currently on your way down to the Marines recruiting station to sign up for the war, yes? There isn't one single provision stopping you from signing up. Makes me sick. You want the war so damn much, don't force the government to do the dirty work for you, do it yourself.
"I refuse to pay more. I will come up with every damn loophole I can find to avoid paying for immoral social programs that steal digity away from all races, all creeds, all peoples."
So this ethically-challenged racist now dares to use the word "immoral" in the same sentence he brags about stealing from the government? This is a page out of the Wal-mart playbook; massive propaganda about "buy American" while pressuring its suppliers to move its workers to China. I'll bet Mr. american uses the phrase "rule of law" when he talks about Clinton, but he's a proud scofflaw when it comes to supporting the military with our tax dollars.
"Thank you Mr. Bush for giving me some reason to earn more, I want to take advantage of every cut you make. The rest of you can line up in a single file line or tandom [sic] to kiss my big, rich, white wallet."
Maybe, Mr. american, Bush would disagree with you here. You see, Bush is a pious man, so he would want you to be a good Christian and maybe think about giving to others and sharing your enormous wealth...
...awww, who am I kidding? We both know that Bush and Cheney give to charity about the same frequency that Halliburton hands us a legitimate invoice.