« | »

Frank: Tax Rich To Recover Stimulus Cost

From an interview on CNBC last October, via YouTube:


Wednesday, 22 Oct 2008

BARTIROMO: A lot of the things to pay for here. And this second stimulus is being talked about at $300 billion. If in fact we were to see something like that move forward, are you going to encourage Senator Obama and Senator McCain to change their tax and spending plans in order to pay for all of this?

FRANK: Well, I do think in this case, let me say, my encouraging will probably have more impact on Senator Obama than Senator McCain.

BARTIROMO: So do you want to encourage him to pull his spending plan?

FRANK: I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending, and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat.

I do think this is a time for a very important kind of dose of change. Yes, I believe later on there should be tax increases.

Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money.

Notice how Mr. Frank seems to think that rich people’s money really belongs to the government.

Which is no surprise, since he seems to think everything does.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, February 25th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

58 Responses to “Frank: Tax Rich To Recover Stimulus Cost”

  1. Barbie says:

    I have a slightly different tax plan – we need to tax the Democrat Senators and Congressman who VOTED for this stimulus fiasco (there are many rich dems in congress); their land, investments, savings, whatever should be appropriated and sold to pay on this. Next, go after the assets of the multitude of hollywood liberals who campaigned for Obama. These are all very rich Democrats – let’s go after them to pay down this bill – they wanted it, now they (and their children if need be) can pay for it. That’s the approach I think should be taken.

    • And this makes perfect sense too..

      And JUST WAIT.. as we all will see, the UBS investigation started mid decade by our treasury dept will all of a sudden go bye bye.. How many of our finest minds in public service have those secret accounts the IRS wants to see? The major outlets are quietly pushing THAT story under the rug.

      So yeah.. get the collectors out in force on our elected best.

      OR.. For every $million they spend over the incoming revenue, they should be forced to spend 5 minutes with Rosie O’….

    • proreason says:

      Whatever is collected in the UBS case will be a token.

      These are THE MORON’S HANDLERS, man.

      There is zero, nada, zilch, zed chance that they will be taxed as they should be.

    • jr says:

      we have the smartest minds in the world right here in the us. are you telling me one of those minds cant hack into the computers of ubs and make these lists public for several million dollars?

    • proreason says:

      We’re handicapped, jr, from the perspective of committing crimes like you suggest.

      We are conservatives, not liberals.

      If we were liberals, we would be used to lying, cheating, stealing, and breaking and entering to make our livings.

    • Barbie says:

      We don’t HAVE to commit crimes – and yes, you are correct, that’s not an option. But lib Dems won’t always be in control. And I, for one, would like to see an investigation of who crafted these stimulus bills, why it hides so much governmental trickery (I don’t exactly know how to phrase it), why and who authorized the pork in the bill and frankly I would like to know why not one person read the original before signing it – and who ever oversees it (Biden) had best have detailed records of its disbursement and the financial impact of these dollars and how they’re measured and evaluated proving they actually did create jobs and stimulate the economy. If not, then I want to know why not.

      Now I realize the UBS is different, but the stimulus bill(s) which saddles my grandchildren and your grandchildren with unreasonable debt – why was it passed? Who did it really benefit? Why was it pushed through without the great Obama (who if he’d had the interest of America at heart, would have encouraged Congress to read this bill) insisting this bill be treated with the utmost of respect -it is, afterall, taking money from the taxpayers. YUP, I’m talking about hearings before Congress just like the libs like to pull on everybody else. And if ya wanna throw in hearings about UBS and those who hide their money offshore, fair enough IMO.

      Leahy and Conyers want to rant about Bush’s war crime(s). Well – this sounds like a ‘taxpayer’ war crime to me. If it accomplishes job growth, that’s wonderful, I’m happy. If not, then why not. Of course, I know I’m just wasting my time even complaining about it.

    • proreason says:

      “taking money from the taxpayers.”

      if someone stuck a gun in your ribs and told you “give me 50 dollars so I can make a statue of Jesus in a toilet full of pee”, what would you call it?

      if someone broke into your house and stole your piggy bank to fund his windmill farm, what would you call it?

      if someone pried the door of your business open at night and took all your spare cash to spend on drugs, booze and prostitutes, what would you call it?

      if someone passed a bill that commits you to spending 78.7% to 327% of a whole years income taxes on a bunch of stuff you don’t want, what would you call it?

    • Barbie says:

      I did refer to it as a ‘taxpayer war crime’ in my last paragraph. ‘Passing a bill taxing 75% of a year’s income on stuff I don’t want’ (paraphrase) – yes, and that’s exactly why I suggested in my first post about taxing the perpetrators of this bill. p.s. I don’t have a piggybank ooops, piggy bank.

  2. brad says:

    Our govt is the only focus in our lives. We are afraid of what they will do, and what they won’t do.

    Everything they say and do changes the market place and again, our lives.

    So many people pin their hopes that their politician will be able to provide this or that.

    Wow, I am truly disgusted and shocked –again– about human behavior.

  3. Here is an Idea.. Take ALL of the major contributors who gave us Pelosi, Obama and a majority hold on the US Senate, and LIQUIDATE their holdings in any publicly owned stock so that their heroes can redistribute to their hearts content. That ought to settle white or wealth based guilt.

    How about it Buffet? Broad? Soros? (c’mon Soros.. you especially for your gift of Kooks On Speed..) get with the game.. Sandlers? Geffen? Jobs? Kushner? (the Felon) Spielberg? TRUMP? (Yeah you.. you egotistic hairball stand.. you gave to McCain.. but Reid too.. and that turncoat Specter.. Give it up, you make a poor donor ) Zuckerman? Maybe all of your wealth would be enough? You all are asking for it.. right?

    • proreason says:

      Great idea Jason.

      It’s impossible to pin down, but I believe the idle parasitc rich control about $20 trillion in this country.

      At one time it was about 20% of the total wealth of the country, but now it’s probably 30%……since they have been unscathed by the economy…..they don’t invest in anything that has the least bit of risk and their properties are top of the line…..hence, they haven’t lost a dime.

      And of course, the taxes they pay are about 1/100th of what you pay on a percentage-basis.

      Buffet and Trump are exceptions, since they ARE investors. Soros has his money illegally hidden in offshore havens. Soros, like all of these guys invest heavily in lawyers and will never be caught…and besides…..they bought the presidency lock stock and barrel.

    • Colonel1961 says:

      ‘At one time it was about 20% of the total wealth of the country, but now it’s probably 30%……since they have been unscathed by the economy…..they don’t invest in anything that has the least bit of risk and their properties are top of the line…..hence, they haven’t lost a dime.’

      PR: How on God’s green Earth can you make that claim? What empirical data do you have to support that conclusion? Show me. Prove it. Saying it doesn’t make it so… No ‘top of the line’ properties have lost money? That’s outrageous! You’re losing touch… ‘Unscathed by the economy’? How in the hell could you possibly know?

      Please, get off of this ‘parasitic rich’ rant until you can back that up with facts. For the love of Pete…

    • gipper says:

      Colonel, I think proreason was trying to say that many of the uber-rich usually don’t hold a job or they invest in municipal and treasury bonds to avoid paying federal income tax on capital gains; therefore, while you and I are taxed at 10% – 40%, the uber-rich get away with paying but a pittance to the government. The uber-rich live off of their tax-avoiding income. The descendants of Sam Walton, many of whom live in mansions, probably don’t pay much in income taxes. They have a safe, steady stream of cash that outpaces inflation in the way of bonds. And, the Walton family has wealth in their real estate. Sure, my measly $200,000 house has taken a hit in value over the last 2 years, but do you really think grand estates will devalue when the rich can afford to plunk down millions of dollars? Their real estate is in a different world. Heck, anybody, liberal or conservative, will try to protect his stash o’ cash. Rush Limbaugh admits he doesn’t invest in the stock market, rather he invests in bonds. He told his investment advisor to protect his money as much as possible from the government. And that’s how the rich do it–bonds and real estate.

    • proreason says:

      I thought you were an economist Colonel.


      As I’ve said, there aren’t that many studies on net worth, so you have to look. Most studies are about income, and the parasitc rich take very little income out of their fortunes annually. But this is one of the better studies. Enjoy. It’s old, but still useful. See if you can find some others. They are very enlightening. But aside from studies, it’s common knowedge that the top tier owns 28-35% of the assets in the U.S. (prior to the economic meltdown). You can find it declared (but not proven) all over the place. So I was very conservative in saying 20%…..because I’m a conservative guy.

      See if you can guess why there are so few studies about net worth. (hint: it’s the same reason that IRS statistics stop at the top 1%. They don’t go to the top 1/10% of a percent, where the %’s would get VERY interesting.) It’s also the same reason why you always hear about the “total dollars” of taxes paid by the parasitic super-rich, rather than the % of assets.

      The reason I know the % of assets controlled by the super-rich has gone up is that they don’t invest in risky investments. Why should they. They don’t have to. Municipal bonds and treasuries don’t go down in value if you don’t cash them before maturity, which they don’t do. Their Real Estate might have gone down, but unlike people who have to sell, they don’t have to sell, so they can wait it out. But the properties they invest in probably haven’t declined much, since people who buy that kind of property are just as rich now as they were a year ago. And besides, the bubble in Real Estate was related to cheap financing, as you know, and the parasitic rich only finance when it’s to their advantage. They would laugh out loud at the concept of an ARM.

      So it’s OBVIOUS that the super rich’s % of assets in the country has increased dramatically. You only have to think about it for a moment. Knowing that the Stock Market is down 50% and that the super-wealthy don’t invest there quickly tells you that the parasite’s % has increased DRAMATICALLY. A jump from 20% to 30% is really a very conservative guess.

      And of course, from UBS, we learn what vast sums of assets they have stashed offshore tax-free.

      And from Theresa Kerry’s taxes, we know they pay pittances in taxes. But you could easily figure that out anyway. The whole tax scheme is rigged for them. Municpal Bonds are tax free. Any ordinary person trying to amass an estate for his children would be a fool to invest in Municipal Bonds. Your estate would never grow, because the return barely keeps pace with inflation. You have to be incredibly rich for them to make sense, but they are FANTASTIC for the super-rich who only need to pull a sliver out of their estates in a year. And Real Estate taxes are only about 1% a year, less when you have enough power to rig the system. And there are no taxes on capital gains unless you cash in, not that they ever take any capital gains, since, as I said, they don’t own stocks in bulk. They don’t need to. And of course, people like the Kennedy’s pay no estate taxes whatsoever. Again, they would laugh. The Moron’s threat of an estate tax increase if for YOU, colonel, not the Kennedy’s. Just to contemplate the thought of them paying anything is ludicrous.

      As an example of tax holdings, we know that the Kerry’s moved $18M from Euro stocks to American stocks in 2003. That’s 1.8% of Fortune magazine’s estimate of their fortune. It’s a good indication of how much of their fortune is tied up in risky investments. Basically, pocket change.

      There are some wealthy people like Buffet and Donald Trump who do invest. I have no problem with them at all. But the rest are dishonest parasites.

      But even given all the evidence, and there is plenty of it, I still wouldn’t care about the parasitic rich except for one thing. THEY are the ones who are pushing to increase MY taxes by 25 to 100% in the next few years.

      But thanks for asking, Colonel. Glad to help you out.

    • proreason says:

      Gipper gets it. Well stated.

      When the rich hit a threshold of wealth (it’s very high), it’s all about conserving the money, not about growing it.

      And in conservation mode, the system is rigged for them. Guess why? I’m sure you know.

      And the whole reason The Moron is in office is to destroy capitalism, because capitalism is chaotic, and gives other people a chance to rise up and challenge the thrones of the already rich.

      The super rich parasites don’t want that.

    • gipper says:

      “THEY are the ones who are pushing to increase MY taxes by 25 to 100% in the next few years.”

      Proreason, last year my tax rate was 10%, and I felt I was not paying my fair share. Yet, at the same time, I don’t want to give any more money to a government that will waste my tax money. It’s really time for a flat tax–we just need someone other than Perot peddling it.

    • Melly says:

      Really enjoy these comments……so French Revolution. LOL
      BTW it’s American Tea Party Day tomorrow in select cities http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=page&page-id=68

    • Colonel1961 says:

      Uh, so investing in bonds isn’t helping? That’s nuts. It may be ‘tax free’ (from state or local – but not both), but you’ve sacrificed your rate of return in exchange for that status – and you’re providing funds for government programs – which is a fine and dandy, if not noble.

      And you keep referencing Ms. Kerry’s taxes – how many of her tax returns have you seen per year, i.e., I could show you my 1040, but you’d have no clue about my total tax liabilities. Sheesh. I file multiple returns every year, as does Kerry (I would say with complete confidence), and unless you have access to her entire set of filings – you cannot have a clue – are you claiming you have that data? Her 1041(s)?

      And, PR, you’ve offered zero proof about their ‘top of the line’ properties not ‘losing a dime.’ That’s one of the most asinine claims I’ve ever seen posted. Again, evidence, please. You consistently cannot provide any data – just a class-warfare rant. What’s your username at Daily Kos?

      And, for your edification, I am an economist (and a damned good one) via academic training and in the conduct of my businesses.

      p.s. I know/have met some of those evil billionaires you (and ‘gipper’) keep talking about (including Anne Kroenke, nee Walton) and am dear friends with several folks with a net worth north of $100,000,000.00 – the parasitic rich, in your parlance. If you’d like to confront one of these ‘robber barons’, I’ll fly you to my city, at my expense, pay your per diem, and let you have a shot at one (conversation, that is, no ‘gunplay’) – it would be fine entertainment for all involved. Please e-mail me at sonosouth@yahoo.com and type ‘proreason’ in the subject line. Look forward to hearing from you soon. The week of March 15 through 21 would be best for me…

    • proreason says:

      Gee Colonel, I guess I should email Kerry to get 10 years of his tax returns.

      And I’ll have to ask Steve if I should get my remarks peer reviewed next time. Do you think he can incorporate footnotes?

      “you’ve offered zero proof about their ‘top of the line’ properties not ‘losing a dime.’” I’ll have to do a telephone survey of billionaires. I’ll get back to you on this one.

      ” am an economist (and a damned good one)” Yet you far far less proof than I have offered for my ideas. And your remarks consistently align you with parasitic sit-on-their-ass super rich. How is it that you are willing to fly people to your city. Hilarious. (btw, do you have a job, other than “damned good economist”, I mean?) And why does this incense you so?

      “several folks with a net worth north of $100,000,000.00 – the parasitic rich, in your parlance” the cut-off is $200M colonel. Sorry. Even you are probably not there.

    • proreason says:

      “Proreason, last year my tax rate was 10%, and I felt I was not paying my fair share.”

      Gipper. I’m confident you aren’t include FICA/Mediaire. That will add 15.3%, since your employer matches what you pay.

      You are actually paying 25% in taxes on your income.

      Allow me some speculation. Please take no offense. 10% in fed taxes says you make about $50K p.a. Someone in your tax bracket who has saved for years might have about $50K in home equity, and $50K in an IRA. (to please the colonel, yes, these ranges can vary widely. We would have to call in economists to pin all of that down for absolute sure. We all know how accurate that profession is.). If I’m close, you are payinging about $12,500 (10% federal + 15.3% FICA, both on income) in taxes on your estate + earnings……… which is a very low 8.33%

      Heres’s what Theresa Kerry paid in 2003 (the year she would have been MOST LIKELY to show a lot of taxes). 6/100th of 1%.

      Since the colonel always wants the proof, here it is. According to WSJ reports at that time, she reported 5,000,000 income on a Fortune-magazine estinated $1 billion fortune. She paid $627,000 taxes in total (no FICA). 627,000 / 1,005,000,000 = 6/100th of 1%

      So Gipper, YOU, who pays extremely low taxes paid 133 TIMES AS MUCH AS THERESA KERRY on a percentage basis ( .08333 / .000598 = 133 ).

      Now this doesn’t take into consideration that:
      – she probably pays a lot less on a percentage basis for RE taxes (her lawyers have seen to that)
      – you pay sales tax on most of your income, since you need to live. She pays a very low %
      – if you somehow manage to die with a small estate, the government will take a lot of it. They won’t take a penny from her. Her lawyers will see to that.
      – if you through the sweat of your brow manage to work your way into a higher tax bracket, your % will go up. you could easily go from the 15% bracket to the 28% bracket, which will more than double the % you pay today. Since Madame Kerry is already in the highest bracket she can be in, her % of total paid will only creep up.

      Do you still think YOU aren’t paying your fair share, gipper?

    • Colonel1961 says:

      PR: I don’t have a fax, sorry – that’s so 90’s. I do use Adobe (.pdf) however, but I won’t share my tax returns with anyone other than people who truly require them, e.g., accountants, bankers.

      I do have a job. Indeed, I have several – thanks for asking. I’ll be happy to e-mail my resume to you, if you’re interested, but it would only provide an insight into one element of my life (my primary profession), not my other business interests, investments, etc. And no, I’m not worth anywhere near $200.0M (the ‘official’ proreason demarcation – thanks, PR!) – and I have no need nor desire to attain that level of wealth. Quite happy where I am…

      But back to your original premise, you simply can’t prove that these evil rich people’s real estate assets haven’t lost a dime. And you have no clue what Ms. Kerry pays in taxes. It’s merely speculation on your part and instead of proving your claims, or, God forbid, admitting your wrong, you’ve proceeded with another churlish rant filled with ad hominem and non sequitur. How about ‘proemotion’, instead?

    • proreason says:


      Goggle removed the WSJ link to the Kerry’s taxes the day after I first posted on this topic.

      Here is a reference to it:


      The source was a story by the respected Wall Street Journal, based on the Kerry’s tax returns which the WSG said were published by the Kerry’s.

      Do you have any evidence that contradicts it?

      I won’t go into the reasons again why real estate owned by the rich is hardly affected by the economic crisis. It doesn’t matter anyway, since they don’t have to sell, unlike many middle class people who have no choice. And of course, I won’t be able to prove it until I finish that survey of billiionaires I’m conducting by phone right now.

    • gipper says:


      I don’t envy you. I thank you. You and others help run this country. I’m glad we live lived in a country where you could become as successful as you are. I’m not being sarcastic, either.

      I have problems with the liberal elites who don’t pay taxes. Look at Obama’s cabinet: a bunch of TAX CHEATS! Those who extole the virtue of social programs yet who skirt the funding (taxes) for them.

      I really think the future will be harder financially on the middle class, upper middle class, and the “poor” millionaires (those who have to continue to work to maintain their status). The poor and the uber-rich will probably see no change.

      I’m sure mansion prices have fallen, but not like the rest of real estate. Take a look at this article:


      Sure, it’s from the LA Times, but I think it has some truth to it. This is a key paragraph:

      “Expensive markets often resist declines for several reasons. Sellers in high-priced areas often have a large amount of equity in their homes or own them outright. That makes them more able to sit on their houses and ride out a market downturn than people desperate to unload a house with a mortgage they can’t handle.”

    • proreason says:

      “Foreclosures, which had been almost unheard of in high-end markets a year ago, now account for a substantial share of listings. In Coto de Caza, where the average listing price is $2 million, 17% of the 167 homes for sale are either foreclosures or “short sales,” in which the listing price is below the amount owed on the property, Thomas said.”

      Want to guess what the % would be at $5M, $7.5M, $10M. It’s entirely speculative, since my survey isn’t complete, but I’ve got a wild hunch that foreclosure rates go down as the prices go up

      And the super-rich I’m talking about would never pay for a mortgage anyway. Why should they pay 5 to 7% to somebody else when they can cash in a few bonds at 3 to 5% and buy the property for cash.

      The Fortune 400, btw, have average fortunes of 1.3 billion, according to the magazine. They aren’t scrambling to make a mortgage payment.

      “this blog is in no way intended to offend the colonel, who is a damned good economist and has many business interests – proreason”

    • Colonel1961 says:

      Gipper: I don’t want (or need) anyone’s thanks – or envy. I just work my ass off like most Americans. I detest tax cheats – liberal or otherwise. I just want to be damned certain of which I speak before I run my pie hole. ‘proreason’ libeled me by calling me a tax cheat. That is vulgar and criminal. He’ll find out shortly, as I have a meeting with one of my attorneys in about forty-five minutes… Too bad.

      I appreciate the nuance that ‘rich people’ have the ability to sit out the soft market rather being forced to sell. However, the very idea that they’re ‘sitting out’, i.e., not forced to sell, is proof that the houses (or mansions) are currently worth less than they were recently. QED.

      I half agree with your assessment about the future: it will be hard for the middle and upper classes, including garden-variety millionaires. The uber-rich will survive (although Ferrari North America sales were off 50% from last year – an anecdotal aside). However, where I respectfully disagree with you, is that the so-called poor will flourish with ever increasing tax credits, stimulus payments, vouchers, ad infinitum.

      p.s. I am in no way helping to run the country. I think I know what you meant, but I am not a member of the power elite, by any stretch of the imagination. Even though I am a damned good economist. ;-)

  4. Liberals Demise says:

    I think he lost a gerbil in his arse and it’s begining to affect his brain!

  5. U NO HOO says:

    gerbils at night, sailor’s delight

    gerbils at morning, sailors take warning…

  6. Consilience says:

    Words are fast becoming a second weapon of choice in this battle…Frank is drawing a line…

  7. proreason says:

    “Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money.”

    Not the sit-on-your-ass parasitic don’t-invest-in-America rich people who make The Drooler’s deviant life-style possible, like his fellow deviants, the Kennedy genetic dead-ends. They won’t pay a dime. Just look at every tax proposal…..doesn’t touch em (except the UBS off-shore thing, and that is a show trial that will be held up for years. Of course, it’s a pittance.)

  8. pinandpuller says:

    It looks like two wishbones behind his head. Either that or he’s at an arcade playing his favorite game: Pole Position.

  9. Bronson says:

    I honestly can’t understand Barney Frank, is he retarded?

  10. canary says:

    Here’s some history on Frank. stop at 4:40, but be sure and see that the mortage crisis started with Jimmy Carter. Remember him in his hard hat? Be sure an see where Bush and McCain tried to do something but democrats went against it. Then go to 5:25 and see who made alot of money Obama, who also as a young lawyer sued Citi-bank for a client. And Obama as Senator who made more than any senator in 20 years from Fannie Mae. Ya, know shortly before the elections when he whined about prior to be a Senator, living in a 3 bedroom 2000 plus condo without a garage, but it turned out to be a half million dollar home. Well, if it’s still on the the nieghborhood history list, he got a steal on that house living with the Kennedys and elite. The house was 4 bedroom, and the Georgia houses had detached garages. Course the nieghborhood board removed discription of his house, once he whined about his dump he lived in.


  11. Helena says:

    Instead of starting class warfare, why not tax the things that really cause trouble in our society? How about we start taxing ignorance and stupidity? There are way more ignorant people than there are rich people. If your kids can’t read, you pay a hefty tax. If they can’t do basic arithmetic, you pay a tax. If they drop out of school, you pay a tax. If your kid is convicted of an offense, you pay a tax. Parents would start paying attention to their kids’ schoolwork and behavior and encouraging them to study and excel. Kids might have a slightly better chance. Society might get a little break – and a lot more tax dollars. It’s win win.

  12. dasirrine says:

    One understandable error in the transcript, due to Frank’s comical lisp and convoluted choice of words: “I do think this is a time for a very important kind of dose of [Keynesianism].”

  13. Reality Bytes says:

    Seems ol’ Frank is suffering the effects of Bad Meat In The Can again.

  14. proreason says:

    I lost 30 pounds of stomach fat in one day by following this one rule

    I watched the Drooling Barney video before each meal.

  15. Reality Bytes says:

    I wonder how much Barney Frank would owe in back taxes if they inact the Tax per Mile Law SG posted a couple days back.

  16. Reality Bytes says:

    Rabbits – Rich people – what’s the differnce? Let’s compare shall we?


  17. Steve says:

    BTW, look at where the stock market was when Mr. Frank made his remarks.

  18. Steve says:

    Please, folks. Let’s not let Mr. Frank’s comments cause us to become uncivil to each other.

  19. Colonel1961 says:

    proreason: cheers to you – thanks. And we’re on the same side most of the time. Sorry for getting sideways with you…

    1st: I do love to play golf (when the lower-back allows) and I do like Red Robin hamburgers. Suggestion(s)?

    Gipper: agreed.

    SG: sorry for being petulant on your fine website…

    • Consilience says:

      Passion isn’t always a bad thing; and that’s what the Marxist nitwits do…I’ve been too busy keeping my business viable to read anything but the highlights, but this was spirited and enlightening…

      Notice how Holder is mumbling about an assault weapons ban? I bought a couple new guns over the weekend and the shop owner said the thug messiah was the best thing to happen to gun sales since Clinton! Looks like the ammo backlog is coming to close—I got my stuff in less than a week…

    • proreason says:

      good words, colonel.

      And I should have left the needle in the pin cushion and stuck to our honest disagreements.

      BTW, I wouldn’t die for every word I write on this site. Some is heartfelt, some is said for effect, some is just opinion. Some is just venting.

      You and I agree on the important things.

    • Consilience says:

      Can we agree that our thug Marxist is an enemy of Liberty?

    • proreason says:

      Not only that, Consilience, the thug is an enemy of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

      I like the ring of that. I hope nobody steals our words….. ; -)

« Front Page | To Top
« | »