Wednesday, April 23, 2014
PLACERVILLE, CALIFORNIA
99 CENTS

Can’t tax our way out of this situation

EDITOR: Mr. Longhofer is on his tax crusade again. With him there’s never too much spending just too little taxing.

He complains that I don’t want to raise taxes. He supports the high tax cradle-to-grave economic model that has Europe in a state of slow motion collapse. For now let’s overlook the intellectual bankruptcy of the Euro-socialist model of government he so loves and just look at the practicality of solving our problems with taxes.

The recent ending of the temporary payroll tax cut that Obama put in place to stimulate the economy is being widely credited with causing the U.S. economy to have negative growth for the last quarter. So any across-the-board tax hikes are obviously out of the question.

No problem for Mr. Longhofer who will solve that by taxing the rich. Well, let’s look at that. The rich don’t have enough money to make a dent in our trillion dollar plus deficits even if you took everything they had and locked them up in camps. Now with the payroll tax restoration being credited with our latest downturn and the rich not having enough money even if you took it all, anybody with the least amount of common sense will realize that we are in a situation that we can’t tax our way out of despite Mr. Longhofer’s earnest desire that we do just that.

GEORGE ALGER

Placerville

Letters to the Editor

LEAVE A COMMENT

Discussion | 86 comments

  • James E.February 08, 2013 - 12:27 pm

    I don't want to tax just the rich. I want to tax everyone (including Alger/Longhofer/Phil/Paddy/DB/Evelyn/Dee, and especially Cookie). I want the loopholes closed, subsidies to oil, farms, big pharma, solar, you name them, all cancelled. I want a small tax on every stock purchase, I want those who hide their money in the Caymans, Switzerland, etc., to avoid taxes to have to pay the taxes plus a humongous fine. Only the poor get a pass. Everyone else needs to pay the bills. Oh, yes, coupled with reduction in government spending, especially defense currently getting $700 billion a year -- think they can defend us from guys who put bombs in their shoes and underwear with $600 billion a year. In WWII we faced the massive military power of Germany and Japan. Now, guys with shoes and underwear. So, how can we get a start? Cut the private chefs for the generals, close the golf courses, and also close the private hideaways for the generals. Then, more importantly, there are weapons systems the services don't want, but they continue to cost big bucks because those in Congress don't want them cut (really BIG bucks can be saved on these not wanted weapon systems). Finally, with all the bucks saved from the military, increase the retirement pay for full colonels -- it's the least America can do to thank me for my service. In his letter, Mr. Alger still hasn't come up with just one single dollar in tax increase. I wonder if he knows the deficit fever is starting to die down in DC. Even Republicans are beginning to see that a balanced approach (cutting government plus revenue increases) are the only sane way to deal with our deficit over time. I'm not a good swimmer, but if stranded on a desert island with Mr. Alger, I would try to swim into the sunset.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampFebruary 08, 2013 - 12:49 pm

    STOP!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 08, 2013 - 1:03 pm

    Phil, sorry, got carried away (but some good ideas in there nevertheless).

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 08, 2013 - 1:13 pm

    ADDED: Phil, could you contact Mr. Alger and tell him to stop. I keep telling him to stop when I reply to his letters, but he just keeps going like that bunny who sells batteries.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampFebruary 08, 2013 - 3:20 pm

    George, you are 100% correct. James, you are 100% correct. Now, each of you STOP, or you'll each get out and walk.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampFebruary 08, 2013 - 3:34 pm

    LINK - News Poll - Voters back spending cuts to boost economy by huge margins

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 08, 2013 - 4:19 pm

    Geeze, Phil, that was a Fox News poll. Give us all a break. And, I thought you wanted discussion on austerity/balanced approach to stop?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampFebruary 08, 2013 - 4:24 pm

    I do hope, James, that you are not bleeding from the eyes, ears and nose. Sorry!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 08, 2013 - 4:26 pm

    Phil, for your information I won't be answering Alger's latest letter to the editor, as I informed him that I was finished with him if he didn't care enough about the deficit to propose even just one dollar in taxes. Ergo, as he hasn't, I'm done with him.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampFebruary 08, 2013 - 5:05 pm

    James, I'll post the buck. Carry on.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 08, 2013 - 5:06 pm

    Phil, I am bleeding just a little from the nose, but think I'll be OK if you don't reference any more Fox news polls. Thank you.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 09, 2013 - 9:13 am

    Looking for the best place to leave THIS 27min. video, I've concluded there is no one "best place". But I BEG you to watch it. Put aside 27 minutes for it this weekend. The only clue I'll give is that I herewith declare myself irretrievable in love with Dr. Ben Carson, whose 1991 book (1990) Gifted Hands I read about 20 years ago. Truly inspirational. If, after having watched the video TO THE END you are disappointed, feel free to shout out.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 09, 2013 - 9:15 am

    OFF

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 09, 2013 - 9:20 am

    PARDON ABOVE SLOPPINESS (caffeine insufficiency): "... irretrievably in love with Dr. Ben Carson, whose book (1990) Gifted Hands ..."

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 09, 2013 - 10:10 am

    Evelyn, I watched the 27 minute video. He is a good speaker. I do not agree with him on one thing -- the Health Savings Accounts (HSA) which he proposes to begin at birth. How does someone earning minimum wage and who will continue earning minimum wage have enough money to put into the HSA? But, let's say they put in $5 a month (all they have after paying the bills) and when they are 50 their account contains $3,000. A serious illness strikes them and the hospital bill is $25,000. Looks like they are out of luck and there is no government fall back because everyone is on HSA and that's the only health program in the nation. HSA is a scam.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 09, 2013 - 10:14 am

    ADDED, actually they won't even get into the hospital as the hospital money man will meet them at the door and declare that $3,000 is insufficient to pay the anticipated hospital bill, so they will be turned away. Of course, the well to do with their massive HSA account will not be turned away. Moral? It's not good to be a little person and get sick in the USA.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 09, 2013 - 10:24 am

    Thanks for watching it, James. Yes, Carson and I aren't in perfect unanimity, but he does hit a extraordinary number of high notes. One thing I'm learning -- slowly -- is that 100% agreement is not a prerequisite for appreciating the truth another person brings to the table. (I find Carson's journey out of childhood deprivation awe inspiring.)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Dink LaneFebruary 09, 2013 - 3:36 pm

    I wonder if we realize that you, me and our fellow readers have lost sight of the "Union's Goal." Mr. Alger argues that our Government is spending too much. Mr. Longhofer is said to want 'more' tax dollars. What is the GOAL? To let the wealthy hold on their dollars? Or is it to bring this country to screeching halt? Do we want to protect corporations, plutocrats and what Thomas Jefferson refer to as "The artificial aristocracy that is a MISCHIEVOUS INGREDIENT IN GOVERNMENT"? .... Do we want ONLY 'certain' people to have "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness"? Or should everyone get a chance? Everyone have an education? or only those who can afford it? ..... Phil wants you guys to stop..... How about STARTING with what you WANT for this country?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 09, 2013 - 3:57 pm

    Mr. Lane, I don't say that I want just tax dollars -- I want a balanced (tax and cuts) approach over time so that austerity doesn't kill us or massive tax increases kill us. What do I want for our country? I want everyone to have a chance. Just not the well-to-do kids (also known as the children of the rich). I know it's radical but a free college education (or technical training) for everyone. And, how would we pay for this. Let's start with the $2.2 billion dollars we are going to spend for tanks the Army doesn't need or want (see my earlier comment below). To handle our free spending Congress, perhaps we could all chip in and get one of those French guillotines (pre-tested by the French in 1792) for the Mall near the Washington monument. Wonder how long it would take to chop off 535 heads so we could start again?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 09, 2013 - 4:41 pm

    James! We may be friends after all. You start the guillotine fund and I promise to chip in.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 09, 2013 - 4:44 pm

    Spectator viewing preference SHALL be determined proportional to size of donation. I'm going for a front row seat.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieFebruary 09, 2013 - 8:48 pm

    I wonder how predictable my rebuttal to the guillotine proposal has become...?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 09, 2013 - 9:45 pm

    What was your rebuttal, Kirk? I missed it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 09, 2013 - 11:06 pm

    Mr. MacKenzie, you aren't going to suggest that instead of drastic head cuttings, we should determine voter preferences and then hold the 535 to account? By the way, it was only a wish and, in reality, there will be no severed heads all over the Mall.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieFebruary 10, 2013 - 9:11 am

    James E. -- Yep, that's basically it. The 3rd leg of the stool is: publish those preferences because I can't hold them accountable if I don't know what we want. Beheading all of congress, literally or figuratively by voting them out, would not solve the problem -- unless we elect 535 mind readers.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 10, 2013 - 9:39 am

    Kirk: Coming at it from a slightly different direction, I believe you are speaking to the point I unsuccessfully tried to make last week when I wrote, "As for imposing our will upon the government, unless we understand how government ACTUALLY works and what REALLY is being done (forget electioneering propaganda) and where REAL POWER lies, we ain't got a chance."

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieFebruary 10, 2013 - 9:47 am

    Evelyn -- I've been giving your statement a lot of thought and I still disagree. I understand the urge to understand WHAT IS. However, it seems impossible to get even a glimpse of that without the taint of partisan or agenda bias, not to mention accountable representation. And even if we were able to get a clear picture of what is, we would still be left with the problem of how to hold representatives accountable for implementing what we want.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 10, 2013 - 10:11 am

    Hate to be the cynic, but our Congress operates on money. Except for perhaps a few individuals, the majority doesn't care what we want. They care only about those who give them money. We could vote them out if they didn't implement what we want, but the new crew would also just respond to those who give them money. So, around and around we would go -- voting out each new crew for another new crew immediately corrupted by money. Evelyn, the real power is big money and I don't think we will ever change that, so just sit back and enjoy the ride. And, Kirk, your theory will never work unless you can figure out how to get money out of our system. And, I think that's impossible unless some future event changes everything and I cannot imagine what that would be.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 10, 2013 - 10:30 am

    Kirk: It is imperative to look beyond party politics; you're right - it's all tainted (corrupt). I believe it is possible to better understand reality, but definitely outside the corporate media and official channels. ********** James: Indeed, the real power IS big money. Mostly its operation is invisible to the public. But I don't think where this is going will be an enjoyable ride.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieFebruary 10, 2013 - 10:43 am

    oops...fat fingered something and left this comment on the wrong thread...James E. -- I share your cynicism. It *is* true that representatives represent money today, mainly because they have no motivation to represent us. Why? Because we do not have any criteria on which to base our vote other than "electioneering" (thanks Evelyn). If we know a representative is doing a bad job of representing us, no amount electioneering would convince (most) us to vote for them. If a representative was doing a good job, no amount of electioneering would convince us to vote them out. I find it baffling that so many argue so strongly against the simple proposition that our representatives and their constituents should not be ignorant of the will of constituents.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 10, 2013 - 10:53 am

    fat-fingered Kirk! I'm definitely NOT arguing "against the simple proposition that our representatives and their constituents should not be ignorant of the will of constituents." But I simply agree with James when he says, "the majority doesn't care what we want."

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieFebruary 10, 2013 - 11:18 am

    Evelyn -- I assume you meant the majority of representatives don't care what the majority of their constituents want. I agree that is true today. But that's because they currently have no reason to care. They want to remain in office...we need to re-connect remaining in office to caring about what their constituents want.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 10, 2013 - 11:29 am

    Yes, "the majority of representatives". Kirk, I hate being a defeatist, and I admire your tenacious belief in the POSSIBILITY of restoring our system to the theory of it's original intent. But if you promise not to tell a single soul that I said this, my (PRIVATE!!!) opinion is that every element of "the system" has become rotted to the very core. Which is not to say that there are no individuals doing their very best. There are. But the chance (I believe) of their saving us is somewhat less than that of the child with his finger in the dike. Having said that, I have no vested interest in being proven right. Matter of fact, I continuously hope to be proven wrong. Please tell me, Kirk, what gives you hope.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieFebruary 10, 2013 - 11:44 am

    Evelyn -- tough question. I'm going to do some high-zen yard work and meditate on it for a while.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 10, 2013 - 11:56 am

    Kirk, they want to stay in office so they will support and act on our wishes? No, our wishes are meaningless. They want to stay in office so they take the money. Again, your theory works only if money doesn't rule the day. Our Congress is corrupt and it will stay corrupt. Now, come up with a new theory that tells us how to get money out of politics. On reflection, impossible, isn't it?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieFebruary 10, 2013 - 3:54 pm

    James E. -- Money does not buy votes. Studies show money only buys access to the game. Representatives get elected by votes. They will care about our wishes if that is the only way they will get our votes. But I appreciate what you are doing, you sly old coot. You are right, I've been talking about this for going on 3 years now. It's past time to take action. Let's make a bet, to really drive home your contribution: I bet we can bend a representative to our will, or vote them out. I usually only go $.25 on bets like this, but the stakes are so high I'll go $1.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieFebruary 10, 2013 - 3:59 pm

    Evelyn -- What gives me hope? The simple answer is: I'm a romantic by nature. I believe the founders were uniquely qualified to create a system of government that works for the people. I believe we finally have the ability to implement that system the way they envisioned. I also believe we have no choice -- either we make our stand now or we will soon be subjected to truly oppressive tyranny at the hands of the political/industrial complex.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 10, 2013 - 4:07 pm

    What DOES money buy? (1) It pays for staggeringly expensive campaigns, which most ordinary folks could not afford on their own. (2) It pays for the PR (think "advertising", a REAL truth telling exercise). (3) It pays for access via lobbyists. (Sorry, but Joe Public doesn't have that kind of money). (4) It pays people to KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT at critical junctures. (5) It has been known to buy elections (and please don't tell me THAT doesn't happen). Aside from these simple examples, money really isn't all that important.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 10, 2013 - 4:10 pm

    Yep, taking a stand would be important, Kirk. But that won't happen here in the Comments section of the Mountain Democrat!!!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 10, 2013 - 5:55 pm

    Mr. MacKenzie, as Evelyn indicates money does buy votes. You can try to bend a politician to your will and oust him/her from office if they don't serve your preferences -- but the politician with the most money will buy the votes needed to win. But, if you insist, how about bending Representative McClintock to your will -- given he only represents the Tea Party we need to get rid of him.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieFebruary 10, 2013 - 7:26 pm

    James E. -- President Obama spent less than Governor Romney. The data I've seen shows money is a threshold thing (ie it buys competitiveness) but not elections. As for Representative McClintock only representing the Tea Party...what data do you have to back that up? How do you know he isn't representing the preferences of the majority of his constituents? We don't, AND THAT'S THE POINT.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 10, 2013 - 7:37 pm

    Mr. MacKenzie, find out the preferences of the majority and get back to me. You may find that the majority do not believe McClintock is representing their preferences and, in fact, he is representing only the preferences of the Tea Party. Let us know as soon as you have the data -- and, yes, we have been going around and around on this for about the past three years, and I suspect we will continue for the next three years.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieFebruary 10, 2013 - 7:47 pm

    James E. -- It's your assertion, you prove it. I was planning to start smaller and closer to home. I live in supervisor district III. That's where I plan to start.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 10, 2013 - 11:33 pm

    Mr. MacKenzie, it's my opinion, but there is no way to prove or disprove it as I have no idea how to determine the preferences in El Dorado County. Perhaps you could enlighten me and us all. No, I'm not going to walk door to door and visit every home in the county asking for their preferences -- especially given a certain percentage will not be truthful (plus those who wouldn't answer the door) which would taint any data I might compile. So, ball in your court again, as it is your theory and therefore you must, after all this time, have all the procedures necessary to determine majority preferences at an .01 confidence level. P.S. Isn't it intuitive that Representative McClintock represents only the Tea Party. He constantly appears at Tea Party events -- not once to a Republican or Democratic event. Guess he only has time for his posse.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieFebruary 11, 2013 - 6:13 am

    James E. -- ".01 confidence"? How did you decide on that precision as being "good enough"?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CatherineFebruary 11, 2013 - 6:14 am

    I'm in Costa Rica, about 100 yards from Ollie's Folly, and while on vacation, I've been reading Meacham's book on Jefferson. I recommend it. If the man were alive today he'd bear a surprising resemblance to none other than John Kerry. (Well, except for the part about bedding the enslaved 14-year-old half-sister of his wife...) Such similar issues in politics, debt, calcification of arguments... A good read!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureFebruary 11, 2013 - 8:16 am

    John Kerry similar to Jefferson. Now THAT's durned funny, right there.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureFebruary 11, 2013 - 8:18 am

    And I never heard that Heinz-Kerry was a pedophile, but I guess it's possible.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CatherineFebruary 11, 2013 - 8:21 am

    I'm no Kerry fan, so I was surprised, too.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CatherineFebruary 11, 2013 - 8:23 am

    It's harsh of you to label Jefferson a pedophile. I'd go with robust opportunist, or maybe high sense of entitlement.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 11, 2013 - 9:30 am

    Mr. MacKenzie, I want to have high confidence in the data, if I'm going to run an official out of office over his failure to act on the preferences of the electorate. But, tell me how exactly how I can determine the preferences of the majority at any level of confidence. Guess we could put a coffee can down at the Bell Tower and people could put their preferences on a little slip of paper and drop it in. Couple of questions: How long would we leave the coffee can there and guess we would only know the preferences of those dropping in the slips, so no way we could say their preferences were the majority. So, again, educate us in the details in determining majority voter preferences. If you fail to answer or divert, guess we are back to it's a great theory, but impossible to implement.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 11, 2013 - 9:45 am

    I want to comment on the Post Office -- In the Constitution -- Article I, Section 8, Clause 7. As we have all heard, the Post Office is in financial trouble. Why? They are required to fund their retirement obligations for 75 years in the future in the next 10 years (since 2006, I believe). This unique requirement was passed by Congress. As it is the only government entity required to fund 75 in the next 10 perhaps we can speculate why: Bleed the Post Office dry to bankruptcy, privatize it (FedEx, UPS???) and crush one more union. The Post Office, per the Constitution, is required to deliver your letter anywhere in the United States for the current stamp price of less than half a dollar -- not the case with FedEx, UPS, or any new faux private post office that Capitalism might provide. Yet, no one seems concerned, and that includes Democrats in Congress. Strange, very strange.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Kirk MacKenzieFebruary 11, 2013 - 11:38 am

    James E. -- I doubt your sincerity in wanting high confidence in the data before voting out a representative when you called for the ouster of Rep. McClintock based on no data at all. However, your question will need to be answered and I'll take a shot at it, with the caveat that what will be used will be based on recommendations from a steering committee and not on my thoughts alone. Social media, telephone polling, and door-to-door polling are all available and capable of producing data with a high rate of confidence. I doubt that will satisfy you, but that's okay with me.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 11, 2013 - 11:48 am

    Mr. MacKenzie, a Steering Committee recommendation is acceptable to me as a start in understanding how this could be accomplished. See, I'm not unreasonable. As for Representative McClintock, I said it was my opinion as I believe he serves only the Tea Party and I have to doubt whether the Tea Party is the majority in El Dorado County.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampFebruary 11, 2013 - 2:47 pm

    just for James - - - - LINK - So God Made A Liberal... . - - - others, feel free!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 11, 2013 - 5:44 pm

    Phil, I watched it and can only agree -- Thank God God made a liberal. Otherwise we would live in a cruel, cruel society. So, everyone, give God a big hand because he/she knows what's right and good.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureFebruary 11, 2013 - 6:27 pm

    Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things". Hmmm, darkness and evil. Yes, indeed, if He can do that, He can also create a liberal.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampFebruary 11, 2013 - 6:34 pm

    Paddy, is James fibbing? Do you think he REALLY watched the video - all of it? If so then he's tougher than I gave him credit for.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 11, 2013 - 6:43 pm

    Phil, I watched every minute of it. Watching it was easier than attacking an entire NVA Division. The general called me in and took me to a map showing a NVA Division coming in from Laos. The general said, "Take your Air Cavalry Troop up there and attack them." So, we flew up there, got on line facing the West, pulled up the nose of our aircraft, slowed to 60 knots, and all together expended all our ordnance. Mission accomplished -- back to the club by 1600 for beers. So, you can see. Watching that video was easy.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampFebruary 11, 2013 - 7:09 pm

    Sure. Whatever. And then there was the time back on the farm when I got up at 3:30 AM, milked cows, changed sprinklers, fed, cleaned the milk barn, unloaded 25 ton of Nevada alfalfa, went deer hunting, killed a forked horn, dressed it, fed again, milked in the evening, changed sprinklers, delivered a breach calf, cleared the placenta, pumped the amniotic fluid out and breathed life in through one nostril, then went to the Coloma Club and sang "Bess From The IRS". Who's tougher?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 11, 2013 - 7:49 pm

    Oh, Phil -- looks like you're tougher. It was the milking cows that tipped it over in your favor.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampFebruary 11, 2013 - 7:53 pm

    Thx, Colonel!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampFebruary 11, 2013 - 7:56 pm

    Oh, BTW - nuclear test in N. Korea tonight and Iranian connection . . . $hit happens.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureFebruary 12, 2013 - 10:37 am

    Trying to decide if I will watch the SOTU Address tonite, but I'm not sure if I have the stomach for it. I know what one can do to inDUCE vomiting, but what does one do when one anticipates vomiting and wishes to prevent it? Should I have saltines and 7UP for dinner? Actually, I wouldn't even bother were it not for Ted Nugent's presence there. I'm sure he'll be a gentleman, but the post Address interview with the Nuge might make it all worth watching.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 12, 2013 - 10:45 am

    Paddy, I had a dream about Ted Nugent at the SOTU speech. In the middle of it, Ted jumps up, pulls out a fake pistol and yells at the president to suck on it. The Secret Service drop him with one head shot. Both sides of the aisle go crazy trying to get out of the chamber. Several are trampled and sadly die. Now, as to whether to watch it tonight, I won't. I always watch for the executive summary on the late night news. Saves a bunch of time.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampFebruary 12, 2013 - 10:45 am

    come on over, Paddy. I'll have a large barff trough in the middle of the living room . . . you too Evelyn . . . James?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • EvelynFebruary 12, 2013 - 10:59 am

    I would if I could but I can't.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureFebruary 12, 2013 - 11:03 am

    There you go Phil, we can all overeat and then purge like they did in the Roman days, except we won't have to stick our fingers down our throats as the voice of our Dear Leader will be sufficient. Lots of fun!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureFebruary 12, 2013 - 11:05 am

    James, I don't think Ted would do something that stupid. Alec Baldwin might though...

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampFebruary 12, 2013 - 11:07 am

    perhaps POTUS will promise relief in this area . . . LINK - Sir David Attenborough Accused Of ‘Ignoring Gay Animals’ In BBC Documentaries - Dr. Brett Mills, head of media studies at the UK’s University of East Anglia, said that while he doubts Sir David was deliberately ignoring homosexuality in the animal kingdom, he has nevertheless identified three shows that perpetuate the fallacy that animal relationships are predominantly heterosexual. - hmmmmm - - - University of East Anglia - - - - seems familiar

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 12, 2013 - 11:19 am

    Ted Nugent loves shooting and killing things. Well, not always. When he had a chance in the 60s, he declined by going to the bathroom in his pants for a week. Good thing I wasn't in command of the recruiting station, as I would have asked the Sergeant Major to give him a steel brush NCO shower. Once completed, I would have welcomed Ted into the United States Army with the comment, "Good try, Private Nugent." But, I wasn't, so Ted weaseled out and is now a Tea Party hero and patriot. What a manly man he is.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • R.J. CarterFebruary 12, 2013 - 11:28 am

    With already over 40 Executive orders to King Obama's credit, I can't wait to hear how he plans on by-passing congress again in his State of the Union Speech tonight....Among other things, I'm expecting yet another stab at our 2nd Amendment....

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 12, 2013 - 11:43 am

    R.J., correct me if I'm wrong but I believe other presidents have used Executive Orders. And, maybe he wouldn't have to go around Congress if Congress would do their jobs. But, who am I to say, I'm just a liberal in the land of Tea/Republicans.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureFebruary 12, 2013 - 11:46 am

    Why James, are you claiming Terrible Ted was something of a draft dodger? Does that put him in the same club as Monica's ex-boyfriend (whom you no doubt voted for-twice)?

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 12, 2013 - 11:49 am

    ADDED: Believe the Executive Order is quite common -- In fact, FDR signed an Executive Order on my birthday in 1937. In recent times, President George Bush signed a bunch of them too. As did Clinton, senior Bush, Reagan, Carter, et al.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 12, 2013 - 11:53 am

    Paddy, yes, same group. But, Clinton doesn't love to shoot and kill things, nor did Clinton go to the bathroom in his pants for a week. Same, but vastly different.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampFebruary 12, 2013 - 12:02 pm

    Colonel, I "snopes'd" your Nugent slander . . . oops! . . . true Nugent anecdote . . . gag me!!! . . . BYE BYE, TED!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureFebruary 12, 2013 - 12:03 pm

    Oh yes, James, I'm certain that Monica's ex-boyfriend was indeed a vastly morally superior specimen. :^)

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 12, 2013 - 12:27 pm

    Paddy, yes Clinton was superior when compared to going to the bathroom in your pants for a week. I didn't mind Ted not wanting to go to Vietnam -- lots didn't, but please, how about bad knees, anal cysts, et al. To poop and urinate in your pants for a week puts Ted at the top of the list of really disgusting draft dodgers. Just try to imagine pooping and urinating in your pants for a week -- puts a different perspective on it, doesn't it. When you see him at the event tonight, look at him and wonder if he's using the bathroom now or is he still using his pants.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 12, 2013 - 12:30 pm

    Paddy, please, don't try it -- your wife and family won't like it.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureFebruary 12, 2013 - 12:46 pm

    It's disgusting indeed James. And bad hygiene too. But Bill's no better. Ted's bodily excretions stayed in his drawers; Bill's ended up all over Monica (sorry ladies). Ted was a dumb, indiscriminate kid (about the same age as Monica, another dumb indiscriminate kid), Bill was old enuf no know better. Disgusting an different kind of way.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Phil VeerkampFebruary 12, 2013 - 12:55 pm

    OK - - - the barff trough is coming out early . . .

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureFebruary 12, 2013 - 1:36 pm

    James, I think Ted has probably moved beyond his voluntary incontinence but for your sake, when I see him, I'll wonder about it. After all, when I see Bill, I still wonder if he's doing interns under his desk. And as far as his cigars...well that's another thing. -Okay Phil, put the barf trough away for now. We're done.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 12, 2013 - 5:05 pm

    Paddy, I notice your mention of cigars. Bet lots of people have forgotten that -- can't beat a cigar that has been soaked in brandy.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Paddy O'furnitureFebruary 12, 2013 - 8:33 pm

    I thought it had been soaked in another kind of intoxicant.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • James E.February 12, 2013 - 8:57 pm

    Gosh Paddy, I have no idea what you mean? Perhaps you can explain it to all of us. But, remember that may be children here so keep it PG.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
.

News

Herard over the back fence: Try fishing at Wakamatsu

By Bob Billingsley | From Page: B1

 
Downtown group coordinates painting, awnings

By Wendy Schultz | From Page: A1

 
More mountain lion sightings reported

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: A1, 8 Comments

Supervisor Nutting trial begins

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1, 77 Comments | Gallery

 
Sanford murder case to jury

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1 | Gallery

 
Gearing tax questions to correct office saves time

By Treasurer-Tax Collector | From Page: A3

.

Opinion

My turn: More than a buzzword

By Special to the Democrat | From Page: A4, 31 Comments

 
Building restored

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4

 
Outstanding dog

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4

.

Letters

National Day of Prayer

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 3 Comments

 
‘Parents, be afraid’ letter

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 27 Comments

Ukranian situation

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 5 Comments

 
Misquote

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 10 Comments

Altshuler framing

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 9 Comments

 
.

Sports

Pitching the ‘Root’ cause of Trojans’ victory

By Mike Bush | From Page: A6 | Gallery

 
Pedal power at the forefront next month

By Jerry Heinzer | From Page: A6 | Gallery

Outside with Charlie: Transitioning

By Charlie Ferris | From Page: A6

 
Sports Scene: April 22, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A7

Roundup: April 22, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A7

 
.

Prospecting

4-H’ers star at showcase

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: B1 | Gallery

 
At a glance: Look for fireballs

By Mimi Escabar | From Page: B2, 1 Comment

Authors to share their stories

By Pat Lakey | From Page: B2, 2 Comments

 
Church to host human trafficking conference

By Pollock Pines | From Page: B3

Grow For It! Flower of Easter

By Barbara Schuchart | From Page: B5

 
.

Essentials

Crime Log: April 1-3

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A2

 
Weather stats 4-22-14

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2

Building permits 4/7-11/2014

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2

 
.

Obituaries

Bobby Lloyd Bridges

By Contributor | From Page: A2

 
Harry Frank Harper

By Contributor | From Page: A2, 6 Comments

Marion “Wayne” Griswold

By Contributor | From Page: A2

 
.

Real Estate

.

Comics

Rubes

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
New York Times Crossword

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Flying McCoys

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Speed Bump

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Tundra

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Horoscope, Thursday, April 24, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Horoscope, Wednesday, April 23, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Working It Out

By Contributor | From Page: A8

TV Listings

By Contributor | From Page: A8

 
Shoe

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Sudoku

By Contributor | From Page: A8