This budget includes no tax increases. Feel free to learn about it a bit.

Oh I guess we are financing the 4% then. Excellent. Please.

Nothing is free.

No, we aren't "financing" it. Please, for the love of god, at least have a cursory understanding of the budget before commenting. It honestly isn't that hard. The proposal is effectively spending/revenue neutral, as is. So sorry to burst your bubble. Maybe next year you'll have something to whine about if you're lucky. Boo MD. Boo O'Malley. Boo balanced budgets.

Chris W., have you ever considered that just maybe revenues are up without increasing taxes or borrowing?

That said, a 4% increase had better well be very justified. I don't like increases in spending just because more money comes in anymore than anyone else. Actually I find it offensive.

Comrad jag, where is the "balanced approach" though? Doesn't Marty (can I call him Marty? Is that OK?) always call for a "balanced approach"? So, let's see: objectively, we've had a couple billion in tax increases - NO spending cuts in this state. Well, let me clarify: no REAL spending cuts. Oh, and a 65% funded pension obligation. You do know all about that right Mr. Smarty Jag? Mr. financial man? MD IS RAPIDLY LOSING CONTROL OF PENSION COSTS at a time when our population is aging and the pension will pay out more.

So what is O'Malley's "bold, balanced plan"? A 4% increase in spending? How about the spending on teacher pensions he shifted to the counties, which are also in the red (like MoCo)? Forgot about that?

Sorry - the facts aren't on your side. You can kick the can down the road until it becomes a keg, then you can kick that keg until it becomes a bathtub. At some point though, you stub your toe.

Craig, you don't know what you're talking about. You want a "balanced approach"? Like maybe cutting 6500 state employees over the past few years? Like that kind of balanced approach???? Read more, guy. You sound like an idiot.

FIFA, revenues are up because he is taking more from the existing tax base. Anyone making over 100,000k got hit with a tax increase. That is why revenues are up. It's quite simple tax more, spend more.

Now, my comment about financing was tongue in cheek, but consider this from the recent Washington Post article.

"As he has in recent years, O’Malley squeezed extra spending out of state revenue in part by shifting funding from special accounts — such as a tax collected on housing transactions and earmarked for environmental work — to the state’s general fund. He again proposed funding some of those projects with borrowed bond money that would be repaid over 15 years"

It's political slight of hand so that he can say he has a balanced budget.
His willing accomplices in the media have the gall to attribute the additional revenue to "an improving economy" when they know as well as anyone else the revenue is from additional taxes and casino profits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/economic-downturn-no-longer-a-major-factor-in-maryland-budget/2013/01/16/c7aebf1e-6008-11e2-a389-ee565c81c565_story.html

Craig does know what he's talking about. The state has been underfunding the Pension System so they can spend that money on pet projects and still "balance" the budget.
The pension fund is only 65%, -$78 billion, of what's required to pay pension obligations. Worse, over the past five years state employees have collectively contributed $2.3 billion of their pay to the system. At the same time politicians and political appointees who manage the fund have lost 98%, $2.25 billion, of that money.
And yet the state has increased required employee contributions by 40%! Because of this employee contribution increase, R. Dean Kenderdine, Executive Director of the Maryland state Retirement and Pension System claims the system will be adequately funded by 2031. Ha. The number of "Active" paying members have already decreased by half a percent, while the number of beneficiaries increased almost 12 percent. These calculations are based on the pension systems' own assumptions and dismal performance.
The fiscal cliff won't happen while I'm alive. It won't happen while these managers and politicians are in office. But it will happen. Unlike the Federal government, the state can't print money.

What a moronic comment. First, learn was fascism is. Second, learn how to read press releases: O'Malley and others aren't saying they're cutting the budget; they're saying exactly what you're saying (which is blatantly obvious). They take great pride in the fact that they've been able to close the structural deficit while also increasing spending on schools, increasing the rainy day fund, etc. All that costs money and everyone is completely clear about that.

"For the first time since the housing market crash, the state will not be required to make significant cuts or to raise taxes to balance spending with revenue. "

It takes a very unique person to take this great news and twist it into whining and complaining. Congrats, "low info" troll.

OMG! jagoff is back with his ignorance.
"First, learn was fascism is." It would be learn WHAT fascism is.

Dear jagoff, you have little clue to what I or anyone else knows. I understand you too subscribe to lies as you have proven before. "Words have meaning" as some other fascist said on numerous occasions. If cutting spending means spending more this year than last, feel free to be a financially ignorant tool as you have shown yourself to be.
Fascism, where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners.
See GM.

Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.”

Sound familiar jagoff?

I so apologize for the typo; I'm trying to get out of work (know what that is, buddy?) at a decent hour and neglected to respond to your oh so intelligent comment without first proofing. Apologies, again.

You think we live in a fascist state? And I bother responding to your psycho babble why? Silly me. You're so right, O'Malley's a fascist and Obama is a Kenyan and I'm a Communist, I'm sure. Whine all you want - the state is doing better and better each year and it just drives you up the wall that the rest of us are successful while the highlight of your day is someone responding to your dumb trolling. Enjoy your mom's basement, Sanchez/Joe/whatever other names you've had before Patch blocks them all for being a waste-of-space troll.

Did you just seriously say the state is doing better? I think you should compare some statistics with other states. I think you'll find Maryland falling behind in almost every category like unemployment, budget deficits, crime, welfare participation, IQ in the governor's mansion, IQ of the democrat voters etc. etc. When I say IQ I don't mean your test scores I mean your grip on reality of what actually is happening in the world and not what you want to believe is happening in the world.

Rob, when your IQ exceeds your age, please post again.

Typical lib response. Tell me, can a lib actually respond to anything with any real facts or are you so committed to your religion that you dare not even try to see the outright ridiculous failures of it?

Rob, go win an election or move. Those are your only choices, agreed?

Go read some statistics and then come back and complain. Otherwise, you Repugs just will continue to lose. It has been a habit and isn't changing anytime soon.

NO I never said we live is a fascist state did I? Why did you assume?

No it's not agreed. I will leave when I'm good and ready. Actually I am good and ready but I still have kids in school. If I was a liberal I would just get up and leave and let Obama and O'Malley raise my kids to be ignorant liberals like they are. But I'm a conservative and I believe in being responsible for myself and taking care of my family without the aid of the government. Sorry but I'm here for awhile pointing out your flaws and failures. I hope you're a better parent then you are a citizen.

Rob, I'm a very good citizen. I pay my taxes, I vote, I discuss. You lost, it wasn't even close. Get over it or keep losing. Too bad about your kids, they deserve better.

My kids are doing great, they both have a real grip on reality and will be self-reliant for their entire lives. In translation that means they will be conservatives for their entire lives. My oldest is about to graduate from a very high profile college in the state and will go on to grad school then Med school. The youngest will graduate from high school in two years and then will go onto college of her choosing. But both are already smarter then what I see in the democrat party. There's a saying that goes "If you're not a democrat by the time your 18 you have no heart, but if you're not a republican by the time your 30 you have no brain." I'm here to say that both of my kids were born with big hearts but even bigger brains because they have been conservatives their whole lives. Too bad your kids have your example to follow as I'm sure they are much smarter than that.

What is funny Rob, your kids are liberals and they will not tell their daddy. Isn't that ironic?

No what's funny is you can't debate your ideology with facts so you try to steer the conversation away from the original subject. But everyone already knows you didn't have a chance at explaining anything because none of it makes any sense to those of us grounded in the real world. Fairy tales of taxless budgets from a democrat is the latest Dr. Seuss children's book. I can raises taxes on your boat, I can raises taxes with a goat. I can raise taxes on your house, I can raise taxes on your spouse. I can raise taxes from a tree, I can raise taxes from my knees. I can raise taxes in a valley cause I'm spend and tax OweMalley.

But seriously your funny because nothing you say makes any sense to those of us that want to make sense out of the problems that face the state and country. It'll be ok though because when the republicans regain control of the country or as I like to say "When the grownups get home" we can finally fix the problems created by the democrats for political gain. There won't be any more fairytales or made up disasters to scare people into giving up their freedoms.

Sucks to be the minority, ever wonder why?

Yeah because the republicans won't go after the democrats and expose them for the lying failures that they are and they won't buy votes by offering to pay for everything so lazy liberals can sit at home and watch Jerry Springer or should I say watch the results of liberal policies.

When you say minority do you mean that I'm black or Latino? Because your obviously not talking about conservative vs. liberal seeing how more people identify themselves conservative then they do liberal.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx

You mean a moderate like John McCain or Mitt Romney? Nothing moderate about a liberal they are all far left radical hacks. Liberals don't even like being called liberal they have to hide behind "Progressive" because liberal is seen as bad.

And BTW I know why John McCain and Mitt Romney lost. Because they are too busy trying to be like democrats and the republican base is tired of voting for democrats in republican clothing. 3 million republicans didn't show up to vote in the last election yet we maintained control of the house and gained seats, we won 6 more governor races and control more states then the democrats and we are still within striking distance of regaining the senate. The Whitehouse will be determined by the candidate we choose meaning if another "Moderate" like McCain or Romney is picked by the republican elite, the working class republicans will stay home again.

Frank of course you edited that to make it misleading. The poll you are referring to in that link showed 40% conservative 35 moderate, 21 liberal. So I could say 21% are liberal and 75% are moderates+ conservatives. Now I will admit it's hard to understand that someone as far left as Obama could get elected twice if only 21% are liberal. I know, I know you probably think he is a moderate of course. I believe that many of the people who call themselves moderates are actually liberals who won't admit it. And more probably don't understand the labels or don't vote in a way consistent with what they say is their ideology.

That's your reply? Seriously? You can't address the points I made, you just hurl insults. I'm not surprised, I just feel sorry for you.

McCain and Romney never ran as conservatives. You never heard them utter the words I am a conservative Romney said he was a moderate and all McCain kept saying is he would reach across the isle.

What Nate proved is that when you single source your news like amark and Rob did from an extremist right wing source you are guaranteed to be wrong. Daggum, Nate was very good.

I got this information from Len Lazarick of the Non Profit, "Maryland Reporter". If you like his reporting, consider giving him a charitable contribution. The story is here:

http://marylandreporter.com/2013/01/17/omalley-budget-seeks-37-3-billion-up-4-3/

None of O'Malley's total spending figures – federal aid, special funds, tuition payments, fees, etc.- are in his press release about the budget nor in the PowerPoint presentation O’Malley used to brief reporters.

Instead, O’Malley emphasized the spending in the “general fund” budget, which includes the bulk of state revenues. Even there the total general fund budget is not given. The “general fund” budget or “the operating budget,” does not include transportation spending, much of the university budget, and 27% of the total budget that comes from federal aid. federal aid funds huge programs like Medicaid.

The governor emphasized “$325 million in spending cuts,” for a grand total of $8.3 billion in “spending cuts” over seven years. A portion of these “cuts” were real reductions in state spending, much of it reduced aid to county and municipal governments. However, “spending cuts” were actually reductions in spending growth, mandated by state law, but no longer affordable.

Gov. Bob Ehrlich's budget totaled $28.7 billion. O'Malley's fiscal 2014 budget will be $8.5 billion higher than that, a 30% growth. Federal funds to Maryland have grown 55% over that time period to $9.8 billion.

I sure hope there is a gas tax since it lags inflation and the maintenance of roadbeds and bridges has been deferred, but it does not appear to be a priority.

I'm cautiously optimistic, 1ke. I'm thinking gun control, death penalty, and gas tax are all on tap and will be pushed through. Guess we'll see how it shakes out, but that'd be a pretty great follow-up to last session's impressive successes.

1ke what kind of car do you drive? Is it a hybrid? Does it get great mileage? WELL THEN - YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM! You see, you're not paying your "fair share" in gas tax. We need you and all the other Prius ninnies to pay a bit more. Cool? How about $500 a year? Cool? I mean, let's say there are 25K prius ninnies in MD and they all pay additional $500 a year. Is that cool? That's 12.5 million for spending. Hell, maybe they can fix the "Sauerbans Transit Center" in DTSS with that money!

Success! Problem solved.

@jag - I'm cautiously optimistic they WON'T fund more stupid transit with our dollars. And how in the heck was last session an "impressive success"? OK, OK I get it - they passed gay marriage! Yippee! Awesome work! Truly a "civil rights" moment for our rainbow warriors.

That aside, HOW IS STATE-SPONSORED GAMBLING a good thing? Do you like how that was decided, in the dead of night, in a post-session meeting with Michael Busch and some casino reps and Marty O'Malley? Is that transparent government? Is it ethical? Does it help the poor or minorities in this state? Does it promote financial freedom and equality?

The answer, of course, is NO.

Good grief, Craig. You're going to complain a hundred times last year about O'Malley and then now claim that none of the landmark legislation (gay marriage, DREAM act, raising top income rates, etc.) that you whined about as if the world was ending actually meant anything? Bravo.

Hey, Craig, I drive a 1999 Ford Ranger with a V6. I burn premium gas so it doesn't ping itself to pieces. I pay part of my fair share and would love to pay my entire fair share in light of peak oil and the need for greater economic development.

Right, buddy? You're willing to pay your way, right?

i was waiting to see how long it would take for somone to mention the job loss---the absorbtion hokum is balony---the stae figures confirm that if you dig deep enough--o'malley is a junior obama when it comes to making numbers come out looking positive---the juggling of funds earmarked for special projects are co-mingled into the general fund and the pension fund reserves are good until after o'malley is gone--i leave now so you all can go back to abusing each over issues that if you read the original comments are way off what you originally pot shotted each over

Thank the ICC for that nugget.

I understand LibMath CJ. When you spend more next year than the last, they can tell the sheep that they cut spending. The sheep beLIEve them and vote for them again. Then the next years budget will be more then the previous and they will say again they cut spending. Ad infinitum, Ad nauseam. Don;t tell me it raining when you pe on my leg. That is for the sheep.

@Joe
Joe....as a life long Marylander, a conservative leaning Independent, no O'Malley lover in the least I find your comment "troubling" to say the least.

Why do progressives not like people like Joe Galvagna?

Liberal - |....FIFA...........|-Moderate-|..Jeff....................| - Conservative

Where does Joe Galvagna fit on this scale?

This deserves the famous Billy Madison quote:

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

@ FIFA I don't like people like Joe because he has the audacity to see me as less of an American simply because we have a different political view. It would be the same as me saying that he is not rational because he believes in God; that kind of thinking has no business in a civil and reasonable discussion.

You are one scared puppy. The line for machine guns starts behind JoeBlob.

1ke, do you lock your doors at night? Do you have smoke detectors in your home?
Why? Are you a scared paranoid man?

You forgot the dumbest Joe of all Frankie......Joe Biden.

Joe, you got me there on the door lock (no deadbolt) and the smoke detectors. You would have me on the seatbelt, too. However, I do not sit manning the howitzer aimed at the door nor do I keep a fire axe by the bed or a charged hose running up the stairs.

patricia, I am sure that while your best friend Ehrlich was creating and raising fees all over the place you felt the same way?

"A lot like how congress has been raiding the social security lock box for years," - who has been doing that? The Republican controlled Congress you mean? The one that started wars and did not fund them or the one that cut taxes and has left us in this predicament?

You don't know the definition of a socialist if you read it in a dictionary, but go try anyway, you'd be surprised.

You wouldn't know a socialist from a house-painter.

When you come in this space and rail about stuff you "heard" and stuff that gets stuffed in your face on Teabagger blogs and John Birch website, you get hammered. And just like you feel like you are standing guard over America, some people feel like they are keeping the conversation honest.

That gasoline taxes-not just in Maryland but in the U.S-- are so low that it is an embarrassment in the world community. At the current rate, it is virtually a subsidy. Sister, you have it so good, you wouldn't believe it. Big government is taking care of you just fine. I guess so, at least. You have enough time and enough strength to write nonsense.

The childishness of continuing to throw around a vulgar word to insult a group of people that primarily are concerned about debt, govt spending and the constitution shows a lack of intellect on the part of those who do it. I have never been to a tea party rally, but I can agree with the message. Just like the leftys on here can sympathize with occupy wall street.

For the record, amark, I have very little fellow feeling for Occupy Wall Street activists.

amark, if you believe the term "teabagger" is vulgar, wow. Teabaggers are the result of the crazy teabagger having her picture taken with tea bags hanging from her hat.

This progressive actually feels somewhat sorry for teabaggers, I have found that they are easily led around by the real supporters of their efforts. People like the Koch Brothers and many other wealthy people laugh at their private gatherings how it is so simple and easy to get people to vote against their economic interests by going for emotional issues. It is propaganda working just as propaganda is designed to work. Use fear, hatred, prejudice as your tools and one can work wonders shaping public opinion.

If you don't like the term "Teabagger" blame Faux News.

http://www.politicususa.com/olbermann-teabagger.html

Fifa, I know you don't believe for one second that those on this thread who use that term are referring to the woman with the hat. Also the idea that people who support capitalism can only be rich otherwise they are voting against their interests is constantly put out there to diminish people with whom you disagree. Redistributing wealth helps no one but does make plenty of liberals feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

I don't believe that those using the term are referring to the slang use of the term, amark. I actually believe we/they simply have no respect for the Tea Party or their members as we/they see who runs that "party". I could be wrong, but in the case of 1ke he is one of the more respectful and learned members of the group and does not stoop to that level of disgust. I have seen many posts on here and the usual vulgar terms are directed at the progressives, i.e., in the basement, fido, pigeon poo, frankie, etc. So we are creative with the insults ourselves.

Regarding the economics you discuss, I disagree. The wealth disparity that is occurring in this country due to tax laws and money in politics will destroy this country.

You may choose to believe it, but when the Walton family (six members) have the wealth equal to the bottom 40% of all of the residents in this country something is very wrong. That said, you can argue with my beliefs, but when you make fun/insult me I will not sit quietly by. As Mike Ditka once famously said, you get what you tolerate. Have a good day.

Last year I got a 10% raise.

So now you make $1.10 per hour?

I show just how wrong you are and you go all childlike in your reply. EXACTLY what everyone here expects form the like of you. You will never be a man Frankie.

My guess is that people who didn't vote couldn't quite figure out what all the fuss is about. May they deducted that voting doesn't make a difference, since nothing like what you want to happen could possibly happen in America.

Red herring: "... there is no such type or species of fish as a "red herring"; rather it refers to a particularly strong kipper, meaning a fish—typically a herring but not always—that has been strongly cured in brine and/or heavily smoked..."

You've been smoking something...fish, this time.

Why am I not surprised 1ke has trouble with the term and meaning of red herring. If you don't understand what it is I understand why you use it so often.

"An observation that draws attention away from the central issue in an argument or discussion; an informal logical fallacy.A red herring is a detail or remark inserted into a discussion, either intentionally or unintentionally, that sidetracks the discussion. The red herring is invariably irrelevant and is often emotionally charged. The participants in the discussion go after the red herring and forget what they were initially talking about; in fact, they may never get back to their original topic."
(Robert J. Gula, Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language. Axios, 2007)"

Got a customer...somebody call Balt Observer.

Jeff, meet Pot, Kettle and amark. Stones and glass houses comes to mind.

Except amark insults "Owe'Malley" and "the dumbest Joe of all......Joe Biden" in the same breath as claiming the moral high ground of not being "childish" and insulting people on the opposite end of his political leanings. I don't know if amark is young or lacks intellect, but he's certainly not representing himself well on here.

More like the Israel-Palestine conflict. It goes way back before the last election and will never be resolved. Who knows who fired the first insult?

Awww.. I hurt your wittle feelings...

Meanwhile, you and your kindred spirits chip away at the potential of America for the benefit of some mythical children's children who might not be able to fly around like the Jetsons.

Your melodramatic rendering is impressive, nevertheless.

??? Obama's calling you names? Lucky.

I think you need to read up on what socialism is. Hint: it doesn't involve a handful of people pocketing your money. That's called capitalism, honey.

I want you spending my money, patricia, for whatever you need.

Jeff, the bigger question would be what is the definition "far left" versus the "far right" when it comes to the posters on this site? It is my opinion, that the "far left" is much closer to the center than the "far right". Of course, I am biased. The "far right" posters we deal with are birthers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, people who believe income taxes are unconstitutional, people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, Obama stole the election, etc. That is the burden we "far lefters" combat every day here. As I said on another post, you get what you tolerate.

Well if you want to compare left vs. right you can compare MSNBC to Fox. Now Fox is a news channel throughout most of the day whereas MSNBC engages primarily in partisan politics and pushing the "progressive" viewpoint. That is a fact. No doubt Fox is conservative and has numerous conservative hosts on its new programs, but outside of Hannity and O'Reilly in primetime they don't spend most of the day pushing republican talking points. On the other hand, MSNBC's primetime lineup of Chris Matthews, Al (not so) Sharpton, Mr. Ed Shultz, Rachel Madcow and Lawrence O'donnell is as far left as it gets. No?

Well Frank I know you don't watch Fox, so I'm surprised you are able to comment on it. Your choice in programming would seem to be the Disney channel as you live in the land of make believe.

Good day to you Jeff. Most of the stuff we see you don't because of the way the Patch operates their various "independent" sites by having only certain articles post at each site, but this article posted across many sites. Adios.

"To be honest I have not seen those viewpoints you say are "far right" viewpoints displayed on this site. "

If you look at Fifi's comments, HE places those words in others mouths when he loses the argument or has been proven wrong. No one here ever said they believe the Earth is 6000 years old.
Look at his response to me only because I posted something that showed his comment to flat out wrong and stupid.

Fifi " 2:46 pm on Thursday, January 17, 2013
Other than to the stupid idiot Joe Sanchez who can only insult at every opportunity in-between doing copy and paste, we have nothing to be proud of when it comes to killing in this country. Comparing us to that list makes us look good JoeBlob. You ignorant fool."

See! He hates copy paste because every time I do it it shows him to be wrong as usual.

Hate gays and immigrants as much as you want, but the MD voters have repeatedly shown their support for O'Malley's legislative successes. You're the one who needs sense knocked into him since this obvious fact eludes you. These aren't "leftist nut" victories - these are mainstream victories, of which you obviously are not a part of. The fact you're deluded to the point where you think everyone around you is "from another planet" while you're the only one who has some amazing "God given sense" is pretty disturbing.

"Hate gays and immigrants as much as you want, "

How typical of someone who loses the argument and high road. Make fallacious accusations against your opponent. Rabid ignorant and vile.

"How typical of someone who loses the argument and high road. Make fallacious accusations against your opponent. Rabid ignorant and vile."

Joe, that's exactly what Brian was responding to. Try to keep up, kid.

"Hate gays and immigrants as much as you want,"
Hmmm. I don't see this in my statement above jag. Actually, I hate people like yourself. Smug, arrogant people like you who are oblivious to what the government's role should be. Smacking sense into your head , all be it futile, would bring to me a great "sense" of satisfaction. I've learned by now that intelligent debate among conservatives like myself and liberal morons like you is impossible. Eventually, the debate boils down to you calling me names and labeling me as a racist. Therefore, I've "cut to the chase" if you will, and brought my comments regarding you down to your level and even a step further by implying I would like to physically wollup you across the side of your head solely for my satisfaction. Does that mean I've won the debate on liberal terms? I think yes.

Soundly thumped? State of MD is 54% Dem, 34% Rep, 12% other registered voters. 2010 results were 56% O'Malley, 42% Ehrlich, 2% other. Sounds like O'Malley held the Dem vote, Ehrlich picked up votes from the "others", but pretty much what you should expect from a statewide race in MD. Unless KKT decides to run again! Not even the Dems could stomach her as Gov!

But part of the point of all that is:

Don't expect MD politics to get better. As a jurisdiction populated by the highest ratio of takers to producers (short of DC perhaps, and arguably, NY for those who understand the massive hidden theft by the Federal Reserve bankers and financial system that thrives on them), MD is not likely to want to lay off takers and force people to become producers. It simply isn't in the interest of many people here. MD thrives off both the welfare AND warfare industries.

This is becoming a very, very dangerous place.

That's one of the most whacked out conspiracy theories I have read in a while...

Steve, where's the "conspiracy" in what you have labeled "conspiracy theory." My comments are virtually all verifiable facts. The only part that one could label is opinion is the consequence I have predicted: namely that piling takers onto the backs of producers will not end well, rather, that it risks being ugly and violent.

This is hardly a reckless prediction if one studies history.

But to label it "conspiracy theory" is not only to understand what I am saying and how likely it is, but also is to fail to understand the very DEFINITION of conspiracy theory.

But here's your chance to prove me wrong. What't the "conspiracy" in my theory, and who is doing the conspiring?

It's a false premise. "Takers" is just more dog whistle code speak.

"..... massive hidden theft by the Federal Reserve bankers and financial system that thrives on them"

More of the same.

Wow, that was some BAD typing by me. Divided attention tasks...let me try again.

Steve, where's the "conspiracy" in what you have labeled "conspiracy theory?" My comments are virtually all just verifiable facts. The only part that one could label as opinion is the consequence I have predicted: namely that piling takers onto the backs of producers will not end well, rather, that it risks being ugly and violent.

This is hardly a reckless prediction if one studies history.

But to label it "conspiracy theory" is not only to fail to understand what I am saying and how likely it is, but also to fail to understand the very DEFINITION of conspiracy theory.

But here's your chance to prove me wrong. What is the "conspiracy" in my theory, and who is doing the conspiring?

Steve said:

"It's a false premise. "Takers" is just more dog whistle code speak.

"..... massive hidden theft by the Federal Reserve bankers and financial system that thrives on them"

More of the same."

Steve, I'm not sure what "code speak" means in this instance, but it doesn't really matter. Some people produce things that are willingly bought, such as food. Likewise, private schoolteachers are chosen and paid by willing customers.

Many other jobs are paid for by money collected by force. Public schoolteachers, for example. One must pay for them regardless of one's opinion of their worth and whether one uses their services. Drone strikes are the same way. Foreign aid to prop up dictators. Ethanol and big ag subsidies. These are all funded by FORCE rather than from a set of willing customers. Nothing false about that, it's indisputable.

The theft by the Federal Reserve is sneakier, but very real. They create fiat money out of thin air. This devalues every other dollar anyone holds, worldwide. It is counterfeiting, and it is theft, and it is undeniable except by the ignorant who are unaware, the fools who do not understand, or the charlatans who wish to keep it misunderstood.

Nothing false, these are all VERY verifiable. Why is the dollar losing value as the money supply increases? Same reason it would do so if you printed trillions in your basement. Only in the Fed's case, that is theft made legal.

Frank said: "Required reading for "Mike":Ayn Rand was a welfare queen."

First, this is a strawman. It is arguing against something I have never claimed. I don't know if Ayn Rand was a "welfare queen" or not, but the link you present disproves nothing from my comments.

Further, when a system takes your money by force and offers some of it back, there is no sin in taking back what you can, in whatever form you can. So long as you work and vote to end that system, you are simply working within the system rather than taking up arms and becoming a violent revolutionary.

If a thief points a gun at you and demands your wallet and watch, there is no crime in picking up your watch again if he drops it while running off.

Frank said: "What's the current rate of inflation, Mike?

And do you know what deflation is and why it should be avoided at all costs?"

Do you mean the true rate of inflation, or the nonsense rate cited by the government? (Which ignores things like energy costs, but includes housing prices that were determined in the past and don't reset downward for anyone who already bought and is locked into a mortgage payment?) It is a garbage statistic, much like "unemployment," which strips people off the stat if jobs are so scarce that they didn't get one in two years. If nobody had a job for two years, the government's approach to measuring would declare unemployment fell to ZERO.

The inflation/deflation mess is very real. The argument to try to keep the bubble inflated is a bit like this. You jump off a bench, but you fear the fall. So you move the ground down 10 feet, buying time. Only the problem is now worse. So you move the ground down 10 more feet. Feels good now, but now the landing might break your leg. Keep doing it and the impact is getting really bad. So, you keep kicking the can down the road until you simply cannot. Crash is unavoidable, it is a matter of time.

Dealing with the pain of deflation is taking your medicine today so you don't get even sicker. Yes, it's awful. The only thing worse, however, is what you create by postponing it. It CANNOT be avoided.

LOL, so Frank, does this mean you CAN kick the can down the road forever? Once again, all you say is 'no' with no explanation, no logic, no theory of your own. It's pretty childish after a while, and wholly unconvincing when you don't present any rationale of your own.

Ask the Romans about kicking the can down the road. Or any other debaser of currency. History is VERY clear on this. The problem is, people don't know much history.

Tinfoil Hat time.

Frank, it's only a soft landing if you change the behaviors which caused the problem, which is not happening. It IS kicking the can down the road when you create even more money from thin air, encourage even further malinvestment, take even more from the private sector and funnel it into more unproductive use. The outcome is what is always has been: lowering of living standards (for all but the richest) and destruction of the middle class.

Not surprising that your understanding of history is 7th grade public-school textbook pablum...the history written by the rich winners: the Keynesians, who make predictions to the public that don't come to pass, but who get richer from the behavior the duped public engages in based on those predictions.

As opposed to the Austrian economists, who make predictions that come true, but are historically ignored by the media outlets controlled by the rich. Until the Internet made it possible for more people to sidestep those media and discover that while Keynesians like Greenspan said we had no housing bubble (only to have it burst a few short years later), the Austrians said we did, and prepare for a crash.

The Great Depression shows what happens if you play by Keynesian rules--it lasts a LONG time. The Crash of 1920-21 is forgotten history because natural market forces were allowed to fix it within two years.

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-depression-youve-never-heard-of-1920-1921/#axzz2IIplyZOB

Frank said: ".. is that what you actually meant to write?"

In fact, no, good catch, I switched them. Even depressed areas of MI will make MD look like Detroit [by comparison]. MD will collapse BADLY if free market forces ever are allowed to let the rest of the country heal.

Steve said: "Tinfoil Hat time."

Right Steve. One must be a tinfoil-hat-wearing nut to think that a problem created by borrowing and malinvestment won't be fixed by more borrowing and malinvestment. It's plum crazy.

Again, it's quite telling that your approach is never to offer any logic or reason, and instead to lob insults and roll your eyes.

Frank said: "Mike, do you know that Hayek said that healthcare was a legitimate function of government?"

That's quite a bit of spin as stated, and almost certainly not an original thought, but one taken from a list of spin talking points.

Hayek was a staunch advocate of free markets, including in healthcare. He said it was possible to have social safety nets for those few who were essentially helpless. (As opposed to planned, centralized, socialized medicine for the masses.) Which is not only far different from Obamacare, but also is far different from the grossly-government-distorted healthcare market which existed BEFORE Obamacare.

The statement "Hayek said that healthcare was a legitimate function of government" blurs the distinction by avoiding Hayek's notion of safety for the few truly helpless, and extends it implicitly (and utterly falsely) to socialized healthcare for all.

Any attempt to posit an interpretation that Hayek would support the market distortions we have, both before and after Obamacare, is patently absurd to anyone who is both honest and knowledgeable about Hayek. Your claim can come only from failing to understand Hayek, or deliberately attempting to mislead others about his teachings.

This spin you cite is an oft-perpetuated nonsense talking-point created to fool the ignorant. This is discussed halfway-reasonably here:

http://lonelylibertarian.blogspot.com/2010/07/misreading-hayek-and-more-on-health.html

Steve said: "This should have been the clue..... "Further, when a system takes your money by force and offers some of it back, there is no sin in taking back what you can, in whatever form you can.""

The clue that you shouldn't even try to present an argument, and instead should stick to insults and eye-rolling? True, they're far safer bets when facing reason. They don't expose the weakness of your argument other than implicitly, which is less damaging than explicit examination would be.

Mike said "The clue that you shouldn't even try to present an argument, and instead should stick to insults and eye-rolling?"

That's all you will get from these clowns like Frank, Steve, FIFA, etc. i wish you could cue background music when you clicked on a comment. I would assign circus music for Frank.

The real joke is he thinks he mainstream. Then again he is on the Bethesda Patch. I'm sure that many far left folks there think they are mainstream.

Steve said: "This should have been the clue..... "Further, when a system takes your money by force and offers some of it back, there is no sin in taking back what you can, in whatever form you can.""

The clue that you shouldn't even try to present an argument, and instead should stick to insults and eye-rolling? True, they're far safer bets when facing reason. They don't expose the weakness of your argument other than implicitly, which is less damaging than explicit examination would be.

Further Steve, you do me a disservice by half-quoting. The full quote was "Further, when a system takes your money by force and offers some of it back, there is no sin in taking back what you can, in whatever form you can. So long as you work and vote to end that system, you are simply working within the system rather than taking up arms and becoming a violent revolutionary. "

My point being, it would be hypocritical to say one was against social programs but to VOTE and otherwise work for them, while collecting benefits.

HOWEVER, if one truly votes and works for elimination of such redistribution programs, taking some of one's confiscated resources back in the form of benefits is no sin whatsoever, for they are resources to be used in the political fight against the unjust policy. Until one takes up arms, this is just the peaceful course of resistance.

Your half-quote leaves open the very sort of hypocrisy that my actual quote had PROACTIVELY ruled out.

1ke said: "Your dichotomy of "producers" and "takers" is a false dichotomy."

How so? ALL financial transactions are either WILLING agreement by both parties or they are not, meaning, there is FORCE involved. The latter category is a TAKING, pure and simple. There is no false dichotomy there whatsoever.

That said, where things are far muddier (part of the reason for the stubborness of the mess we have) is that plenty of people are real free-market producers, properly at the mercy of the market and their own performance, BUT whose customer base exists largely because of FORCIBLE TAKiNG from others.

For instance, consider a lot of restaurants/builders/whatever who serve the greater DC area. They are restaurants/builders/etc like any others, except the demand for their services only exists because there is a large collection of government TAKERS in their area. A similar phenomenon exists in NYC, a hub of much sneakier taking based on debasement of the dollar. Most people understand the DC example but very few understand the NYC case, which is FAR better hidden.

This is why DC and NYC barely slowed their growth (DC even more so) as the rest of the country suffers badly. It's not sustainable, of course, because eventually the parasitic forces become so large relative to the host that the host dies. Which is where we are heading. Soon, there must be a big swing, or much greater force will be required to sustain the taking a while longer.