Top 1% Of American Income Earners Paid Nearly As Much In Taxes As The Bottom 95%

taxes

The latest data from the IRS for the 2010 tax year shows that America’s lop-sided tax burden continues. From Professor Mark Perry:

According to new IRS data, the 1.35 million taxpayers that represent the highest-earning one percent of the Americans who filed federal income tax returns in 2010 earned 18.9% of the total gross income and paid 37.4% of all federal income taxes paid in that year. In contrast, the 128.3 million taxpayers in the bottom 95% of all U.S. taxpayers in 2010 earned 66.2% of gross income and that group paid 40.9% of all taxes paid. In other words, the top 1 percent (1.35 million) of American taxpayers paid almost as much federal income tax in 2010 ($354.8 billion) as the entire bottom 95% of American tax filers ($388.4 billion), see chart above. And it’s that group of top income earners (with income above $221,000 in 2010 to be in the top one percent), that Obama and the Democrats want to tax even more.

According to our friends on the left, “the rich” don’t “pay their fair share” and so should face income tax hikes. But when the top 1% of income earners are paying nearly as much in income taxes as the bottom 95% of income earners, isn’t that more than their fair share?

Not only is that actually very unfair, but it is leading to a government bubble. We’ve seen bubbles in the housing market, and the student loan market, and both were the result of a disconnect between consumer and costs. Because home loans and student loans weren’t, and aren’t, priced appropriately (thanks to government subsidies) too many people bought them which created the bubble.

In the case of taxation, government isn’t being priced appropriately. We are growing government, but hiding the cost either by lumping it on a small portion of the populace (“the rich”) or by not paying for it at all (our $1 trillion annual budget deficit).

If we want end the government bubble, we must start taxing Americans more evenly for the government they’re getting.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • HG

    What is “fair” about such a disproportionate tax burden on the top 1%?
    There is nothing “fair” about it. “Fairness” is a completely arbitrary measurement. A simple fixed flat tax rate on all income above the poverty line is as “fair” as it can get.

    • Roy_Bean

      I would agree but where is the “poverty line”? If you mean the 2 car, 3 TV, smart phone with text and internet poverty line then I would have to reconsider.

      • HG

        Well, it’s a starting point. And one most will agree, or at the least agree to disagree on.

    • silverstreak

      But it sounds great to a bunch of people that believe it’s someone else’s fault for their failures in life.
      After all…it’s a lot easier to tell people it’s someone else’s fault than to say,I neglected my education,I used drugs,I got put in jail,I got pregnant by a man that I didn’t even know his name,I never developed a strong work ethic or I never developed any marketable job skills etc.
      When they are asked,why aren’t you rich?

    • ellinas1

      Are the top 1% hungry? Have they missed vacations due to lack of $$$$$$$$. Are their yachts and private airplanes idle due to lack of fuel because you think they paid too much in taxes?

      • HG

        So fairness is everyone have lack of food and missing vacation?

        • ellinas1

          You said that, not I.
          Their tax burden is not disproportionate.
          It would have been if they were left with very little.

          • HG

            So a proportionate or fair burden on the rich would be almost all of their wealth?

          • ellinas1

            Why would you ask me such a silly question?

            Is it your belief that liberals believe the tax burden of the rich would be almost all of their wealth?

            That is an insulting assumption on your part.

        • two_amber_lamps

          But of course… it’s the Greekling way!

        • PlacidAir

          No, fairness is that NOBODY lack for food, rather than those at the bottom continuing to have less and less, while those at the top pocket more and more.

  • Bat One

    One of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives is that while liberals want fewer people working and paying more in higher taxes, conservatives want more people working and paying lower taxes.

    • ellinas1

      Oh, bubalus bubalis manure, which is commonly known as bullshit.
      Nice meaningless words, and a fallacious fallacy wingnuts tell each other when depressed and want to feel good.

      • Mike

        specifically?

        • ellinas1

          Specifically this: One of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives is
          that while liberals want fewer people working and paying more in higher
          taxes, conservatives want more people working and paying lower taxes.

          • Mike

            Is that what you want too? More people working? Do you want more people to share the tax burden, a broader tax base?

          • ellinas1

            Of course. More people working, more jobs for everyone more people participating in the market, more people consuming what we produce is everyone’s desire. Of course there are exceptions to this.

            If people make enough to pay taxes, then the broader tax base is desirable.
            However IMHO the problem we have is not the tax base, but rather it is Ameicas hegemony in the world. It costs a lot to have, maintain and sustain this vast empire of ours.

            If you want smaller government and less taxes, then America should not be the number one military power that projects strength through its armed forces.

          • Mike

            I think we are in agreement with the first part of your statement regarding more people working to share the burden of America’s identity, of her existence.

            We have a partial disagreement in your last segment. Because the largest share of America’s expense is NOT in defense, cutting the amount American’s taxes that is spent on defense is not going to make much difference.

            It must be noted, that in the foundation of America, it was clearly noted that America’s defense is an essential part of that which constitutes America.

            I do agree that our friends and allies such as England, Germany, France and Spain ought to do more to protect themselves rather than to depend on the U.S. through NATO for protection.

          • ellinas1

            Well I disagree with you.
            Have you considered that what we spend on Counter terrorism, International affairs, Energy Department, defense-related, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, NASA, satellites, Veterans pensions and healthcare, other defense-related mandatory spending, Interest on debt incurred in past wars, CIA, NSA, Nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production, which is in the Department of Energy budget, State Department financing of foreign arms sales. and many more which are too numerous to list.
            While to DoD Budget was almost $700 billion dollars, overall defense spending was almost $1.5 trillion green smakaroos.
            In short total defense and defense related expenditures consume approximately 42–57% of estimated tax revenues.

            In contrast Medicare and Medicaid consumed approximately 24% of the federal expenditures.

          • Bat One

            e,. You are dangerously close to acknowledging a fundamental conservative premise, namely that our fiscal problem is one of too much spending and NOT too little revenue. This is heresy and you need to correct your suggestion before the Mullahs of the Left have you stoned for apostasy.

          • ellinas1

            Spending what your budget allows you to is not a fundamental conservative premise, nor is it a problem of too little revenue and too much spending.
            Our problem is one of adequate taxation.
            IMHO the problem is, we do not UPFRONT and ADEQUATELY tax the citizenry for that which the government spends.

            PS: I am not afraid of the Mullahs of the left, for they are benign, and I can and have no problem of telling the to fuck off and go kick rocks.
            It is the Mullahs of the right that concern me, for they are malignant and if one tells them to fuck off and go kick rocks they turn around and want to destroy you.

          • Bat One

            Spending what your budget allows you to is not a fundamental conservative premise, nor is it a problem of too little revenue and too much spending.

            Wrong on both counts! If spending within your means is also a liberal “premise” then please explain the past four years of $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion deficits. And why have Obama and the Dems only gone after tax hikes for “the rich”, and even at that a ten year total revenue increase of less than one single year’s deficit? And if the problem is one of insufficient revenue, as you have wrongly suggested, then shouldn’t you have spent the past couple weeks and months cheering for the across the board tax hikes of the so-called “fiscal cliff.?

            Of course, “spending what your budget allows” is premised on having a budget in the first place, something Obama, Reid, and the Democrats have avoided for nearly 4 years, right?

          • ellinas1

            You got it all wrong there bud……
            The past four years of $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion deficit and not having a budget is easily explained. The intransigent – impervious to pleas, persuasion, requests, and reason-right wing, and their adamantine and inexorable stance on proper taxation, has had disastrous effects on our national debt and budget deficits.

            As to your suggestion that “if the problem is one of insufficient revenue, as you have wrongly suggested, then shouldn’t you have spent the past couple weeks and months cheering for the across the board tax hikes of the so-called “fiscal cliff.?”
            I did cheer for across the board tax hikes of the so-called
            “fiscal cliff.”
            However unlike you I don’t want to drain the blood of the poor.
            I want those that benefit the most out of the cover and protection the USA provides through military might, to pay for what we spend for them.

          • Bat One

            There is no explaining – much less rationalizing – not having a federal budget, since that is a requirement of federal law, and not even considering a budget amounts to both violation of the law AND a violation of Reid';s oath of office. But since Reid and Reid alone chose NOT to put the House-passed budgets to a vote, your “intransigent -impervious” argument is just so much meaningless drivel.

            Besides, a truly bi-partisan compromise solution has been staring them all in the face for months… namely the Simpson-Bowles Commission report. But Obama arrogantly ignored his own appointed commission, and Reid dutifully done what his Massa ordered. The spending is on Obama and the Democrats. As are the deficits, the stagnant lack of economic growth, the long-term unemployed, and by the time he leaves office in four years more than half the total $20 plus trillion national debt.

          • ellinas1

            I don’t give a flying fuck about Harry Reid…..therefore your mentioning of him, his oath and the alleged violation of the law, it is meaningless drivel.

            The same goes for Obama, and any and all politicians similarly situated.

            I have explained the problem to you, and I have given you the solution.
            Here is the solution in case you missed it: “we do not UPFRONT and ADEQUATELY tax the citizenry for that which their government spends.”

          • Bat One

            Thank you so very much for for once again proving my point about the ass-backwards idiocy that is liberalism.

          • ellinas1

            Thank you so very much for for once again proving my point about the intransigent – impervious to pleas, persuasion, requests, and
            reason-right wing, and their adamantine and inexorable stance on proper taxation, which has had disastrous effects on our national debt and budget deficits.

            You may be or may not be good,on the subject of your personal finances such as balancing your check book. On the subject(s) of economics and our national economy, you are no better then the lower than average third year elementary school student.
            You may have forgotten and or conveniently ignore the right wing directive of “starving the beast.”
            You party of choice, when in power, with your support, has enacted and supported budgets that increase spending, all the while has supported and enacted legislation and policies that reduce and hamper the ability to raise revenue resulting in soaring budget deficits and a crippling national debt.

          • Mike

            I have no problem with Washington collecting money from the states and the citizens of those states for the “common defense” as identified in the document on which this nation is funded. Medicare and Medicaid are not taxpayer expenses. I’ve paid for Medicare from the hours I work. Medicaid? Not the government’s job.

          • ellinas1

            You may not have a problem with that much spending, but I do.

            What does it benefit me to defend South Korea?
            What does it benefit me, when our government doles out foreign and military aid to far flung countries?
            How do the people of the USA benefit when our government topples democratically elected governments and instals dictatorships?
            How did the people of the USA benefit from the war in Vietnam?
            Is it “common defense” to meddle in the affairs of other nations?
            Where is it spelled in and allowed by the constitution it is OK to to topple one dictatorship and install another, or do any of the things I mentioned above?

      • toppr8

        So tell us where what Bat One said is wrong……meaningless words, you didn’t say anything about the issue. The top 1% match the lower 95% in tax contribution….pretty much speaks for itself

        • ellinas1

          Meaningless words: “One of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives is
          that while liberals want fewer people working and paying more in higher
          taxes, conservatives want more people working and paying lower taxes.”

          • Bat One

            Not meaningless at all. ‘Course I’m not talking about the words mouthed by the liberal Left, much less the campaign promises which in Obama’s case are as phony as a three dollar bill. Instead, I’m talking about the results of policies which are sold as one thing and wind up resulting something very different, and deleterious. Instead of solving the economic and fiscal problems we do have, liberal “solutions” merely exacerbate the difficulties we face while creating a barrage of new obstacles.

          • ellinas1

            If you think that “the results of policies which are sold as one thing and wind up
            resulting something very different, and deleterious. Instead of solving
            the economic and fiscal problems we do have, liberal “solutions” merely
            exacerbate the difficulties we face while creating a barrage of new
            obstacles” are the exclusive property of democrats,,,,,,,,there is an island in the middle of the San Fransisco Bay that I would like to sell you.

          • Bat One

            I have some experience redeveloping distressed properties. But given the anti-business, anti-profit policies flowing like so much sewage from liberal Washington, DC, it would likely take a decade or more to realize any profit on the investment. And since you don’t own the island to begin with…

            Of course, I didn’t say anything at all about “the exclusive property of democrats”, did I? Perhaps that was your own guilty conscience trying valiantly to come up for air.

          • ellinas1

            Of course you did not say anything about the problem being “the exclusive property of democrats”,
            This is what you said; ‘Course I’m not talking about the words mouthed by the liberal Left,
            much less the campaign promises which in Obama’s case are as phony as a
            three dollar bill. Instead, I’m talking about the results of
            policies which are sold as one thing and wind up resulting something
            very different, and deleterious. Instead of solving the economic and
            fiscal problems we do have, liberal “solutions” merely exacerbate the
            difficulties we face while creating a barrage of new obstacles.

            If in the above drivel you find anything that says directly and or indirectly that the problem is by-partisan, I promise you that through my nonexistent political connections to Sacramento and Washington I will go to bat for you.
            I promise to cut the red tape, pass laws that are to your liking, transfer said property to you the day after the sales contract is signed and ensure that two days after the property is in your possession you realize profits and riches beyond your dreams.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        10x!

    • elegua

      Bat One, the main difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives like to look at the picture that best suits themselves and their ideals rather than look at the entire truth. Interesting article, (not) however, it also fails to mention, definitely on purpose, anything about the distribution of affluence. If 85% of the wealth of the country is only in the hands of 1%, perhaps the 1% should be paying 85% of the taxes.

      However nice the article tries to paint a pretty picture for the 1% and how horrible it is that the 99% of the people pay less than half of the taxes, the logical and most appropriate, fair distribution of tax burden should be that the 99% of people should be paying on the 15% of wealth that they earn. I should like to take you and 98 of your similar minded friends to dinner. I promise to order 85% of the cost of bill, and will expect you and your friends to pay half, or maybe you and your friends would like to pay 99% of the bill, just to be fair, since there will be 99 of you.

      Go on believing in your dreams that all liberals want is to tax everyone because it’s fun and pay the poor people (people that work two full time jobs and still qualify for assistance), or as you say, worthless people that do not need money. It’s stupid to even think somehow this is the goal of ‘liberals’. As though the conservatives are just so smart and realize how dumb liberals are. While I am certain that makes you feel great about yourself and makes you believe you are smarter than the rest, only an idiot would believe in the crap you said, and that speaks nothing about the type of idiot that would even say such a thing.

    • PlacidAir

      What a load of unmitigated crap. What we liberals want is for everyone who works to be able to afford the basics of life. Food, shelter, clothing, education, medical care — not having those things reserved for only those at the top — which is what’s gradually happening in this country. No one should have to work 3 jobs and STILL not be able to afford to go to the doctor if they’re ill. Trying to claim we don’t want people to work is pure bullshit. What we want is for those who work to be able to SURVIVE based on that work. A concept clearly foreign to you.

      • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

        The problem is, people already have access to the basics if they want them. The vast majority of homeless are that way because they’re either severely mentally ill or they have substance abuse problems. And even most of them can find shelter. We are also a country where the poor people are fat Every state has a public education system, and no hospital can turn away anyone who needs care.

        The problem is that despite these things, you liberals want to keep growing the welfare state, beyond even what we can afford to pay for.

        • PlacidAir

          What utter crap. People cannot be turned away from PUBLICLY FUNDED hospitals — private hospitals (in some areas the ONLY hospitals) can do whatever they choose. And if someone homeless is mentally ill, that what — makes it okay for them to freeze or starve to death because the mental hospitals were closed due to “budget cuts”?

          Please explain to me — without the idiotic spewing of specious talking points that bear no resemblance to reality — how, exactly is it “unfair” to expect those who own 95% of the property to also pay 95% of it’s bills? How is it that you think expecting those who own 5% to pay more than 40% is in any manner whatsoever “reasonable”?

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Actually, private hospitals that receive federal funds can’t. Which is all of them.

            You should try knowing what you’re talking about.

          • PlacidAir

            No Rob — it is NOT “all of them” — if you’re going to make sweeping statements like that, you should be prepared with proof. While I understand that MOST hospitals get federal dollars (even if only from Medicare and Medicaid payments), not ALL do. PRIVATE hospitals exist, and not all take Medicare and/or Medicaid payments. Perhaps you need to do some backchecking before you spew gross generalizations.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            OK, pretty much all of them.

            You’re still wrong.

          • PlacidAir

            No Rob — you’re so back-assward, you probably can’t even find your own ass to wipe it. Those who have 95% of the benefit of something, should darn well pay 95% of the cost of it.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            So now you’re arguing that the richest 5% percent consume 95% of the health care?

            I think you’d better not accuse other people of knowing what they’re talking about.

          • PlacidAir

            You do remember what you posted in your “blog” right? You were whining about the top 1% paying approximately 40% of the taxes… when they own 80% of the country…. want to try again with something that keeps the context of this thread in mind? Your blog-rant wasn’t healthcare specific — nice attempt at a distractor tactic though.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Wealth isn’t a zero sum game. There is no set amount of wealth in the world.
            Your premise is faulty

  • WOOF

    (with income above $221,000 in 2010 to be in the top one percent)
    Not really. Does Perry just make up numbers.
    “Based on the Internal Revenue Service’s 2010 database below, here’s how much the top Americans make:
    Top 1%: $380,354″
    http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/

    • Carrick

      I agree with WOOF (partially). I think Perry’s numbers don’t realistically portray the true tax burden for all income brackets. I found raw numbers here.

      Here is the resulting plot.

      The blue curve shows effective income tax rate, the red is the percent of total tax receipts by all individuals with an equal or higher income than a given number. E.g., 50% on the horizontal axis translates for the red curve into the percent total tax receipts for the upper 50% income.

      Based on these numbers, the top 1% pays roughly 3% off of total taxes, the top 5% pays 11%, top 10% pays 20%, and the top 38% 50%.

      The bottom 95% pays about 89% of all taxes.

      I haven’t gone back to Perry’s numbers to try and ferret out how he arrived at them [but they are obviously flawed or misleading].

      One thing that is clearly flawed though is to only look at income taxes instead of all taxes. WOOFs numbers don’t reflect FICA (“social security”) taxes. Clearly this substantially affects the take home income of lower brackets, for higher income brackets not so much.

      • Bat One

        Good point about FICA. Since Social Security is effectively a General budget expenditure and not a segregated, trust account item, both the revenue and the benefits paid ought to be included in any meaningful discussion.

        On the other hand, I have yet to see where a liberal – any liberal – has shown that raising taxes, whether the threshold is $200K or $400K, will have any real effect on either the debt or the deficit. It won’t. Which proves the dishonesty of those insisting on tax hikes to solve our problems.

        • Carrick

          The link I gave didn’t make it intact, Here’s a link the PDF version of the table. (The original source is the CBO, see here.).

          Anyway, in that document, income tax is broken down into the categories: personal income tax, FICA, corporate and excise.

          It is of course true that all corporate taxes are passed through to individuals (this is another thing many economics illiterate “pro-equality” types don’t understand).

          It’s very difficult to accurately measure how much of the total taxes received directly affect us. For example, interstate road improvements likely won’t directly benefit people in the lowest income category, similar for any federal subsidies spending that directly affect the profitability (and hence personal income of individuals who benefit from that increased profitability).

          Another non-nebulus example of this is federal subsidies. Solyndra went tank up, but the corporate owners did fine (through nice bonuses paid out to them before bankruptcy was declared). That’s an obvious example, but there is a regressive nature to federal services (people who earn more get more benefit than people who live e.g. in card board boxes).

          • Bat One

            Thank you! I’m not a fan of CBO, principally because they are constrained by law to include in their assessments only the so-called “baseline” budget and only those variable parameters presented to them. A revenue projection for a tax rate hike, for example, is almost always overly optimistic, while projections for tax rate cuts invariably underestimate the future revenue stream. Static versus dynamic analysis. Thus CBO (and JCT) base their estimates on the assumption that people (and coporations large and small) will not change their behavior in the face of changed circumstances. A ridiculous point of view only a liberal bureaucrat could love.

          • Carrick

            I agree with the limitations of government entities providing feedback or oversight of other government entities. You’d think in this day and age we’d have enough sense to understand the effects of “conflict of interest”. The most troubling thing about this is … the best you can ever imagine a government doing in terms of setting policy is when they have undistorted data & analyses to base their policy decisions upon.

            I realize this is horribly naive in the sense that it is ridiculous that any government official would ever act in the interests of the people he represents… I of course wouldn’t expect that, but agencies are often forced to more reasonably policy decisions when they are confronted with the reality that the data & analyses they are justifying their decisions on are flawed. Getting less biased data & analyses will lead to better governance, especially combined with improved transparency in the decision making process.

            Tax rate hikes are, I agree, always overly optimistic, and tax cuts overly pessimistic, either through deliberate design or through what I would call “assumption of linearity”. This is basically equivalent to the assumption that people”will not change their behavior in the face of changed circumstances” as you so well put.

  • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

    Rob manages to prove that the majority of the wealth in the country is at the top 1% of income “earners”, then thinks he makes an argument in defense of taxing them less.

    Hysterical.

    • HG

      Could you please explain how this chart “proves” the majority of the country’s wealth resides with the top 1%?
      It seems to me that if 66.2% of all income earned is by 95% and only 18.9% is earned by the top 1%, then it is mathematically impossible for your statement to be true.

      • Bat One

        HG, Fact is, it’s not the country’s wealth, is it? Granted his arithmetic skills are no better than his tenuous grasp of the English language. So why bother.

        • HG

          True. I’ve found H has less wiggle room if his own words box him in.

        • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

          Hanni’s failure to distinguish between “wealth” and “income” is no greater than his inability to distinguish “his arse” from “a hole in the ground”.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        Learn the difference between wealth and income earned. The statisticians certainly know how to.

        • HG

          I’m familiar with the difference. That still doesn’t explain how Rob proved what you claim.

    • jl

      Hanni’s lack of reading and basic math skills. Even more hysterical.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        I can’t help that your understanding of net worth/wealth vs earned income is a fucking complexity you can’t understand, but I can help you with graphs, you fucking imbecile.

    • Bat One

      What’s hysterical, and pitiful at the same time, is the fact that your comment only makes sense if you believe that society’s most productive individuals should be further penalized for their diligence, ambition, and productivity so that more and more people can be paid by the government to be indolent. Its an idea that’s been tried before. Spain, Greece, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and the now-defunct Soviet Union all come readily to mind.. And not a glimmer of success among them.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        To compare us to the Soviet Union, Venezuela or Zimbabwe is hyperbole is pure idiocy.

        • Bat One

          It was a simple (for most of us!) demonstration that the path on which you and other economics-illiterate liberals would have this country travel and the policies which you so foolishly embrace, lead ultimately to economic collapse. Its not hyperbole… its wisdom (another area of which you are patently clueless.)

          You really ought to avoid subjects, such as economic and fiscal policy, where your ignorance is so prominent. Save yourself the embarrassment.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Oh B O!
            You are one funny fella.

            “…economics-illiterate…”

            “I don’t believe for one minute that we are in, or about to enter into, a recession. Despite the best efforts of the Democrats and the media to convince us otherwise…”

            Bat One on January 25, 2008 at 10:17 am

            You really ought to avoid subjects, such as economic and fiscal policy,
            where your ignorance is so prominent. Save yourself the embarrassment.

          • ellinas1

            Right on. I wrote the same thing,

            Sorry I missed your post prior to posting mine.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Reminding our nutter friends about their own words is not something in need of apology.

            Nutters crack me up.

          • ellinas1

            I hear you. It’s lot’s of fun……especially when they make specious, spurious,fallacious, bogus, contrived, feigned, recherché which is to say pretentious and overblown claims.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Nutters make other kinds of claims?

          • ellinas1

            Oh yeah! Old Pal, etc. etc.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            The only poll that really counts is the market. And by that measure Barack Obama is already a colossal failure.

            Bat One on February 20, 2009 at 01:39 pm

            Please tell us B O, what the following numbers represent.

            2/20/09 – 7,342

            12/28/12 – 12,938.11

          • Bat One

            Boob,, If you honestly believe that the DJI is the only market of significance, or that it represents the “success” of Obama’s economic and fiscal policies, then it is obviously YOU who is the illiterate. Your boy Obama has done nothing to fix the nation’s financial problems. Instead, he’s compounded them… by about $6 trillion.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Sorry B O, we’re chatting about your definition here.

            The only poll that really counts is the market. And by that measure Barack Obama is already a colossal failure.

            Bat One on February 20, 2009 at 01:39 pm

            What do the numbers represent?

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            You a perdy gud perdickter a things, aintcha B O?

            Bat One • 5 minutes ago

            There’s another aspect to the Paul Ryan selection that no one has yet considered. Mr. Romney’s choice of Ryan will almost certainly help
            former Governor Tommy Thompson in his bid to unseat Wisconsin’s Democrat Senator Baldwin…

          • ellinas1

            “you and other economics-illiterate liberals would have this country travel…..”
            Bat One on 12/29/2012

            “I don’t believe for one minute that we are in, or about to enter into, a recession. Despite the best efforts of the Democrats and the media to convince us otherwise…”
            Bat One on January 25, 2008 at 10:17 am

            You really ought to avoid subjects, such as economic and fiscal policy, where your ignorance is so prominent. Save yourself the embarrassment.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            He’s effective at being pompous and consistently wrong on the important economic issues facing our nation. It’s certainly no surprise to any of us who are familiar with his confidence to parade his ignorance.

          • ellinas1

            My sentiment exactly, for he is a pompous ass proclaiming his supposed superior knowledge about finance and economics only to be proven wrong again and again.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Thank you. He’s certainly big on hyperbole, yet he has a reality deficit. When ever you criticize the wrong headedness of a conservative radical all they can offer is name calling and juvenile chest thumping. God forbid you use their own words against them. They certainly can’t handle that.

          • Oscar

            How aqbout your words, tiny troll? Tell us again about the filthy women you sleep with and about the meds for chlamydia you take. Public records already have told us about you being a low life tax cheat.
            Happy New Year chlamydia boy.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            What school did you flunk out of? You’re so dumb you probably keep wearing a condom after you’ve used it.

            Of course anyone who took medication for preventing and STD, like Chlamydia, would only do it once. Strict adherence to avoiding STD’s requires the use of a condom and anything else you can do to prevent diseases that are commonly spread, but not easily detected.

            Just look at the poor folks in the military, they are the most infected group to carry STD’s. Why don’t you care about them and seek to provide the prevention they need? They could benefit from the practice.

          • Oscar

            You are dumb enough, and desperate enough to sleep with filthy infected women. But, those are the only women you can attract. Any woman with a brain can see right through you, and see you’re a nothing. Brahahahahaha!!
            But, at least you’re Rob’s little pet troll.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Please, Mike. Quit huffing deer farts and get back to reality. You don’t want to compare the quality of women the two of us have been involved with. There’s no competition…..you would lose.

          • Oscar

            First of all, my name isn’t Mike. Secondly, you’re correct, there is no comparison when it comes to the quality of women we’ve experienced. None of the women I’ve been involved with have been filthy, infected garbage that will sleep with anyone just to “hit it.” That’s your preference, chlamydia boy.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “…the military, they are the most infected group to carry STD’s”

            Still taking any chance you get to libel our fighting forces, eh, Tiny Sociopath?

            “For most Army posts, the STD rates are very equatable to a college university population,” said Maj. Keith C. Palm, the chief of preventive medicine on Fort Drum. “It would be fairly similar.”

            …”It’s an interesting population because when they return from deployment they go on 30 days of leave and they go all over the country and come back to Drum,” said Maj. Palm. “Not all the STDs we have here are acquired here.”

            http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20090413/NEWS03/304139975/-1/NEWS

          • ellinas1

            Come on Proof. You found an article which is dated MONDAY, APRIL 13, 2009 and applies only to members of Fort Drum.

            Even at that, a careful reading of the article reveals the truth:
            “Armywide, the number of chlamydia cases increased by 1,397, from 10,642 in 2007 to 12,039 in 2008. The number of gonorrhea cases throughout the Army increased by 167, from 1,891 in 2007 to 2,058 in 2008.”

            Now, compare this analysis from a more authoritative source and quit beating your chest in faux indignation:
            “Military members are considered at high risk of STDs.
            Th is report provides an overview of recent STD experiences
            of U.S. military members. The results document that
            STDs remain a common problem among active component
            members. Sharp increases in incidence rates of some STDs
            in some subgroups, and the relatively widespread effects of
            STDs among military members overall, warrant re-emphasis
            of prevention and control efforts. Effective STD screening,
            diagnosis, treatment, and prevention practices are essential
            to protect the health and operational effeffectiveness of U.S.
            military forces.”

            http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=45172

            http://afhsc.army.mil/viewMSMR?file=2010/v17_n08.pdf#Page=02

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “a careful reading of the article reveals the truth”

            Yes dear, ellinas, which is why I linked to it. I wish all of my readers would careful read that which I link to. Which part of “Armywide” did you think referred only to Fort Drum? Or do you, like Hanni have problems with words like “only”?

            And yes, the article was from 2009, but looking over the CDC records, they do not generally correlate diseases with ranks of the services as young PottyMouthitized does. I could scarcely go to Tiny Sociopath’s numbers, to dispute them, since he didn’t give any. As usual.

            And before you say it, the article does not cover all branches of the services, either. But then, young HanniHatestheMilitary is indiscriminate in the way he libels all of our military. I chose a segment that I could find hard and fast numbers for and not just numbers pulled out of my rear as young Dopeytized likes to do.

            Now, since you say the article I linked to contained the truth, what’s your problem? (Other than jumping to erroneous conclusions?)

            BTW, if you want to check out the CDC’s numbers they show at least one group with three times the Chlamydial Infection found in the “Armywide” statistics* in black females 15-19. That was fro a study in 2010. Is that close enough to 2009 to suit you?

            In the meantime, maybe you and Hanni could Google CDC (have someone spell it for you) and see if you can find any hard data that contradicts what I have said and not merely the information I have already given you (which you don’t quite understand).

            http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats10/minorities.htm

            *That means the entire Army, not just Fort Drum.

          • ellinas1

            He has not libeled our military.
            Read the horror stories of the past. Especially from the Vietnam era, and the Philippines when our bases were operational.
            A cursory examination of those stationed in Korea will reveal higher rates of STDs.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Do I need to start giving you grammar lessons as well? Figure out the difference between “is” and “was”, “are” and “were”, and get back to us.

          • ellinas1

            Were, Wered, Wering a military force; a band of troops.
            http://www.thefreedictionary.com/were

            We were lost in the middle of Stockton. No one knew where we were. Next time we travel, we’re going to bring along a map.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Or maybe your 10-year-old concubine boy has a better sense of direction? Or might at least know how to use a GPS, eh pederast??

          • ellinas1

            Hello, Amber darling.
            How are you today?

          • two_amber_lamps

            Good morning gayfag pederast! Kinda froggy this day after new years? Musta got a piece of 10 year old @$$ last night?

            http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/07/02/ferguson.jpg

          • ellinas1

            Happy New Year, harpy.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Poofy, you might want to read information from the DOD in regards to their concern over military personal being at most risk and having a higher rate of infections over any group in the U.S. These are serious concerns for our war-fighters, not that you would know a damned thing about our war fighters, nor care about them in anyway, since you don’t do a damned thing to help them.

            Discussing the problems facing the servicemen and women is not libeling our troops, unless you think the DOD is slandering our troops?

            “A large percentage of the military population is sexually active young adults,” said Bill Calvert, chairman of the DoD’s STD Prevention Committee. “With 333 million new cases of STDs globally and 15.3 million new cases in the United States each year, our service members are certainly at risk for exposure to STDs.”

            Calvert said younger adults are at higher risk of being exposed to STDs, placing the military population at higher risk than the general public — two to five times higher, according to the Navy Environmental Center, Norfolk, Va., in its recent paper on condom availability in the Navy and Marine Corps. “In time of military conflict the difference can be 50 times higher or more,” the report said.

            Calvert said service members routinely receive information about STD risks while serving overseas, but the subject is often overlooked in the United States.

            “Service members need to be reminded there are risks here at home as well,” he said. “I think we scare the daylights out of our service members in foreign ports and countries, but they think they’re safe at home. Yet the U.S. has the highest rates of STDs among developed countries.” Public health officials have estimated STD infection rates in the United States to be up to 100 times higher than in other industrialized nations.

            Compounding the problem, Calvert said, new STDs are emerging, and existing ones are becoming resistant to current treatments. In Hawaii, where one-third of all reported cases of gonorrhea come from the active duty population, Army health officials recently reported several cases of STDs not responding to treatment.

            http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=45172

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “having a higher rate of infections over any group in the U.S.” -Hanni

            Really? Is that what you understand this to be saying?

            “younger adults are at higher risk of being exposed to STDs, placing
            the military population at higher risk than the general public”

            You do know that the “general public” includes all age groups, including younger adults. The rate of the “general public” is an average of all the sub groups. One would expect that sexually active adults would have a higher incidence of STDs than your grannie. (Well, maybe not your grannie, Hanni!) If you drew a Venn diagram of the “general public”, the younger adult portion would have a higher rate than the rest.

            Having a higher rate than the “general public” as a whole does not mean that it has a higher rate than any other subset. I don’t see anything in what you’ve quoted, other than your reiterated allegation, that the military is higher than “any other group”.

            That’s not to say it is not a concern. Being a “concern” does not in itself, make their rate higher, say, than 15-19 y.o. black girls.

            There is no figure per 100,000 in your DoD article to prove or disprove your point. No cigar, shorty. But, thanks for playing!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Yet another attempt to attack black women. It’s like you look for a chance to attack blacks. There was no discussion of race in this commentary, you introduced it yet again.

            We’ll just add small teenage black girls to the long list of black women that you have enjoyed ridiculing. But no, you aren’t racist in the least.

          • ellinas1

            It is true that the group in question 15 to 19 year old females are the most infected with chlamydia.
            If he did it to prove that the troops were not the most infected, than that is acceptable.
            But knowing Proof, one can assume that his intentions were less than honorable. Then again, maybe not.
            I am only opposed to his indignant and faux charge that you are libeling the military.
            His chest pounding and loud fallacious cries of libel, has one and only one reason.
            To belittle and silence you. To that end he is wrong, and less than truthful.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Your race baiting over CDC statistics, in lieu of actual argument, is duly noted. At least you didn’t refer to them as “darkies” in your comment as you have in the past.

          • ellinas1

            Please read my answer to Proof.
            When Proof makes an absurd claim, or any claim for that matter, always check the validity of the claim.
            More than likely, his claim, will go POOF up in flames.

            In this case Proof went poof with his poop.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Sounds like a case of premature congratulation on your part, ellinas! What, you waited five whole minutes without a reply from me before you declared victory? Tsk, tsk! You’re getting to be more like Hanni every day!

            My claim was not “absurd”. The “truth” of the article you found through “careful reading” was exactly the reason I linked to the article, because if gave Armywide statistics, and not just the experience of the one health officer.

            Before you do any more bragging about that lame response of yours, having discovered the “truth” that I pointed to, you might consider that you sound like the blind pig who finally stumbles across an acorn, only to say, “Hmm. That can’t be it!”, and keeps looking.

            Please read my answer to your answer to Proof. And do something about that premature congratulation.

            And while you’re at it, tell me which part of “For most Army posts, the STD rates are very equatable to a college university population,” don’t you think makes a liar out of OverstuffedNarcissistitized?

            Please show your work.

          • ellinas1

            Your claim was and is absurd as are your comparisons.

            “Sharp increases in incidence rates of some STDs
            in some subgroups, and the RELATIVELY WIDESPREAD effects of
            STDs among military members overall, warrant re-emphasis
            of prevention and control efforts.”

            http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=45172

            http://afhsc.army.mil/viewMSMR?file=2010/v17_n08.pdf#Page=02

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            None of what you have stated proves the slurs than Hannitized makes. You might want to reconsider before you link your credibility to his. Or not.

          • ellinas1

            Before I respond, I want to wish you and yours a happy healthy and plentiful New Year. Happy 2013, homeboy.
            Next thing I want to do, is tell you that none of this is personal….for you are my number one homeboy and most favorite conservative.

            Now back to the business at hand.
            Everything of what I have stated proves that Hannitized’s assertion was written without malice, ill intent, and he did not intend to slander our military.
            I would not have involved myself in your spat with him if you had simply stated that his views were erroneous and without merit.
            What irked me was the fallacious charge of slander and your, what I assume to be, faux indignation and chest beating*.

            *As it is not possible for me to accurately gauge your feelings while I am sitting in front of my monitor, I have made that assumption.
            I could be wrong…. if your indignation and chest beating are real the firecrackers that some of the neighbourhood kids are setting off are interfering with the sounds of your fists beating your chest.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “What irked me was the fallacious charge of slander” Perhaps if you had been listening to his fallacious charges for the past five years or so, you would recognize that my charge against Hanni was not libel, while his, for the last 5-6 years, have been.

          • ellinas1

            I have read all his posts concerning the military and STDs and find them factual.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I just wish Poof would learn to admit when he is wrong and stop trying to ascertain what he “thinks” a person is doing by reading between the lines. It’s clear his only intent is to slander people and try to destroy their good name.

            He has taken the election loss pretty hard again, but it’s what I would expect from a guy who used to slam Romney for being stupid, then pretend to be an ardent supporter of the con man just to be on the side that his gaggle of radicals have decided to support.

          • ellinas1

            You nailed it. 10X

          • two_amber_lamps

            You’d nail it if it were < 10 y.o…..

          • ellinas1

            Happy New Year, harpy.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Your projection is duly noted, Tiny Sociopath. The many, many instances of your Mind Read Fail are legendary.

            “I would expect from a guy who used to slam Romney for being stupid”

            See? That’s the mind numbingly stupid, BS history revision you revel in. I never said that Romney was stupid. I said he was “doubling down on stupid” when he defended Romneycare. It was a stupid election tactic” , given the vulnerability of Obama on Obamacare ( still unpopular with a majority of people after the election). I believe it spoke to Romney’s electability. And unless the tiny, braindead moron from Oahu, in damp, yellow stained “boardies” has been in a coma for the last three months, he might have noticed that Romney was NOT elected. So, my arguing against Romney in the primaries because of problems with his electability was justified. (The Tiny Sociopath is too mind numbingly stupid to pick up on that correlation.) Big surprise there! /sarc

            I didn’t pretend to be an ardent support of Romney, other than to the extent that he was more honest, more capable candidate and would have make a far better President than the current Bamboozler-in-Chief.

            “Pretense” may be a word you are unfamiliar with, Tiny Sociopath. It could, however, describe your attempts to portray yourself as a sane and/or rational human being.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            So which part of doubling down on stupid wasn’t the stupid part? Or, if you couldn’t understand that, which part of the stupid, which according to you was smart, did he double down on, when you accused him of doubling down on stupid?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Your mother must be so embarrassed! If you can’t tell the difference between someone who is smart and may have once done something stupid (like Romney), and someone who is braindead and permanently stupid (like you yourself, Tiny Moron), then you’re a bigger moron than most of us believed.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            So was Romney being smart for doing something stupid, twice? Or did you think he was being stupid?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Has anyone ever told you you argue about the stupidest things, Tiny Sociopath?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            That statement, along with your “projection” line, is nothing more than your personal sound of defeat.

            You aren’t very good with English, are you Proofoundly_stupid?

            So answer the question; was Romney being smart for doing something stupid, twice, or was he being stupid?

            Uh oh….you figured it out……you’re stupid.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Again, being called stupid by you, Tiny Sociopath, is like being called ugly by a warthog

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Then answer the question: was Romney being smart for doing something stupid, twice, or was he being stupid?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I’ve already answered the question so that anyone who was sane, wouldn’t lose a debate to shower mold, and had a least a rudimentary knowledge of the English language would understand.

            It is neither my fault, nor my responsibility that you fit none of those three categories. Now, please stop filling my inbox with your juvenile drivel and get a life.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            LOL. Oh Poof, you’re a riot. Only a moron such as yourself could screw up this bad.

            So when you said Romney had done something “once”, is that what you meant by “doubling down”,,,,,doing something once? Or in your failure to use words correctly did you mean he was being stupid, twice?

            Oh…..there’s that word again. Yes, Romney was being stupid…..and you licked his boots.

            Congratulations.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I personally will be so happy when you can read and comprehend numbers as large as “one” or “two”, Tiny Sociopath. To “double down” is one act. Perhaps in your pre-school, they are unaware of the concept.

            Romney doubled down during the campaign (one action) upon another action he had taken previously as governor. (also one action).

            Therefore, oh, King of the Morons, when I say that Romney did one stupid thing during the campaign, that decreased his electability, it was that. I said what I meant. I said it in English, which is why you probably didn’t understand it. (Plus, it dealt with such large numbers for you, bless your heart!)

            Romney is not stupid. He is a successful business man, one you could only dream of being. He donates to charity every year more than your net worth, Wankertized, despite your best fantasies. Your mistake is thinking that because you are stupid and everything you do is stupid, that your experience clouds whatever thought capacity you might have, to conceive of a smart person doing a stupid thing.

            Now quit arguing over things you cannot comprehend, which is just about everything, except how to get damp, yellow stains out of your “boardies”. We figure you ought to be good at that after so much practice.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            LOL. Thanks Poof for revealing what a clown you are. So if your math is so good, please complete the equation for me: 1 action + 1 action = how many actions?

            “Romney doubled down during the campaign (one action) upon another action he had taken previously as governor. (also one action).” - Poof

            So when Romney doubled down on his first stupid action, was he being smart at that time? Or did you mean he was being stupid in both instances, which is why you correctly said he was doubling down on stupid.

            Let’s not even get into the fact that you actually said “Romney keeps doubling down on stupid”, which is more than even the 2 times you aren’t willing to admit.

            HAHAHAHA!

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Thanks for proving once again what an illiterate moron you are, Tiny Sociopath. Which part of ” during the campaign” was too difficult for you to comprehend? I said he did a stupid thing (1) during the campaign.

            Please demonstrate how mind numbingly stupid you are and continue to beat this dead horse, along with your meat.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I believe your exact words were “Romney just keeps doubling down on stupid, like Ron Paul, except with presidential hair” – Proofoundly_Stupid

            Again, do the math: (1) stupid thing + (1) other stupid thing = How many stupid things? That’s right…..2.

            That’s even before we get to the fact that Romney “keeps” doubling down on stupid, which is more than two.

            Let’s add the words: “Being”, “keeps” and “doubling down” to the long, long, long lists of words that you fail to understand the meaning.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I look forward to you growing a brain, Tiny Sociopath. Romney’s stupid (IMHO) mistake (singular), was his defense of Romneycare, which may have been acceptable in the context of Massachusetts politics, but too closely mirrored (a concept you are more than familiar with) Obamacare, which was and is unpopular.

            For you to take it that in some way I believe Romney to be “stupid” (something I reserve for morons like you) when he could buy and sell you like a used Kleenex, is preposterous even for you, Tiny Idiot.

            Now grow up, Tiny Mynah Bird Boy and stop clogging my inbox. Or you can continue your obsession with me, so long as you stop with your homoerotic fantasies about me.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Ask me if I ever voted for someone I thought was doubling down on stupid.

          • guest

            According to the story that your mongoloid daddy tells, it was you who flunked and you just gave up and quit school.
            He doesn’t like you either, but you already know that.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Your lies and obsessed commentary are just proof of what a bitter loser you are. You doubled down on Romney and came up short. You’re just a short little guy….good luck with that.

          • guest

            Romney?? Brahahaha!! Not even close, short, dumpy little troll.
            Speaking of short, do you think you’ll ever be taller than 5’7″ without your high heels?
            LOL!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You are very bitter about another election loss. I’m sorry that your ideals are dying out and that you are a radical who can’t handle the fact that good Americans everywhere reject your stupidity.

            Look little guy, you and everyone else knows I am taller than 5’7, 5’8 etc etc. The only method of determining height is measure me standing next to a guy who is over 6’1.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Don’t worry there lil feller…. some day you’ll grow into those boardies…. yellow-stained and p#$$-reeking that they are. Till then, you just keep wearin’ your special shoes… your secret is safe with us!

            http://perrysshoe.com/images/lifts.jpg

          • ellinas1

            Happy New Year, harpy.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            His height is 5 feet, 11 inches, according to: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/2233872 (Maybe less – see picture.)

            Now you take Fibbs who is only 5’11’ (or less) and get him to lean waaaaaaay over to be in the same picture with the tiny troll troll and what do you get? Delusions from Hanni!

            Obama is 6’1″. Is Fibbs as tall as Obama, Tiny Sociopath?

            I guess denial is a river in Oahu, too! Heh. Just because you’re so short you can walk under closed doors without ducking, Hanni, doesn’t mean anyone will believe you when you lie about your height.

            “The only method of determining height is measure me standing next to a guy who is over 6’1.”

            We’ll put “only” down as yet another English word that you are clueless as to the meaning! Heh.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Your source is wrong. Gibbs is an inch shorter than Obama.

            http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/robert-gibbs.jpg

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Still makes you a loser, Tiny Loser. If he’s an inch shorter than Obama, then he’s not 6’1′. Still, in most of the pictures I’ve seen, he looks about 5’10” (tops).

            If you weren’t such a spineless weasel, Tiny Sociopath, you could put this to rest any time. You’re always ragging on anonymous commenters, and since you’ve already published links to your name, you could just show us your current driver’s license. Just tape over the address (because no one really gives a flying fig where you live), and the DL # (because no one wants to swindle you out of the meager possessions under your bridge), and show the world just how tall the state of Hawaii thinks you are. Unless you don’t know how to work a digital camera or post a picture online or just don’t have the stones to admit just how tiny you really are! (10 X!)

            Prediction: Gutless, spineless, cowardly Tiny Troll, ashamed of how short he really is, will not do it. Now, stomp your preternaturally tiny feet and walk out under that closed door without ducking your head.

            And in case you haven’t noticed Obama is leaning in that picture. If he stood up straight, he would be more than 1″ taller than Fibbs. Or, about 7″ taller than you.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            So is my little stalker begging me to post more pictures of myself that he can once again use against me for once again proving i am not what I am being accused of being?

            See! This is how it goes; You call me a pimply faced loser who lives in his mothers basement, then when I prove I am not by posting a picture of my face/complexion with a beautiful woman at my side, who happened to be the one I was engaged with at the time, in my nice home you call me a boastful bragger. But that’s all I was ever doing was proving your libels and lies for what they are. And here you are doing it again.

            I have told you. I am not 5′ something in single digits. I have two digits after my height measured in feet. But I am not going to tell you, because you are a stalker and God only knows what you would do with that information.

            So if you say I am 5’7″, you are wrong. 5’8″, wrong…etc, etc. I would call 5’9″ short, and I am not short.

            You however, are short in stature by every measure.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I told you you didn’t have the balls to do it, Tiny Sociopath, your delusions about what I might do with that information notwithstanding.

            If you weren’t ashamed of it, Tiny Troll, you’d have no problem publishing it, like I just happened to do with my FCC Third, that listed my height at 6’3″.

            Sucks to be tiny, doesn’t it, Tiny Troll? We’ll put “every” down as yet another English word you have no clue as to the meaning.

            Now clutter my inbox with another half a dozen excuses for not having the balls to prove your assertions about your tiny stature. And then, walk under a closed door without ducking your head, just for old times’ sake.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            And in case you didn’t notice, Proofoundly_obsessed, I was leaning over to Gibbs as well. But that doesn’t count in your deranged world of obsession.

            Just because I didn’t want to give him a bear hug or snuggle with him, like you do with your guy buddies, doesn’t mean I am short.

          • Stan

            Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to interrupt your blogging during your lunch break.
            Day and night…night and day, you’re here.
            I feel bad for you.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Yeah. Right. You were “leaning”. LOL. And you probably think no one here notices your persistent state of denial, either. That’s two. I predicted at least another four comments in my inbox about how you aren’t really that short, you just look like it! Go for it, Tiny Loser.

          • guest

            Gibbs is 5’11” You may be 5’7″ on a good day in your heels.

            “Robert Gibbs was originally the director of
            communication for Barack Obama while he was still a senator in Illinois, later
            holding this title during the 2008 presidential campaign. As of 2010, he worked
            as the White House press secretary in the District of Columbia. His height is 5
            feet, 11 inches.”

            http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/2233872

          • ellinas1

            When you cast aspersions on the other person’s character, that is an attack that has nothing to do with their reasoning; it just expresses anger toward someone who disagrees with you. That is not an effective argument.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            ellinas: I apologize. There was math involved. As a liberal, I should never have expected you to be able to figure it out on your own!

            From the link: Armywide, the number of chlamydia cases increased… to 12,039 in 2008. Now, the CDC typically measures this in cases per 100,000. So, to get an identical rate, we need to examine the number in the Army. For the sake of argument, I used the number of enlisted (around 467,000) and excluded officers. wikipedia (2010) Again, not 2009, but close. This ain’t rocket surgery! The numbers might be a little higher than 2008, but then, I don’t believe in the real world, officers don’t get STDs.

            So, divide 467,000 by 4.67 to get 100,000. Then divide 12,039 by 4.67 (with me so far??) and we get 2,578 cases per 100,000. I will admit these numbers aren’t exact (get me a government grant and I’ll line all the ducks up in a row!), but are in the ballpark. If we include the officers (which unbeknownst to Hannitwit are really part of the military), would give a result of 2,132 cases per 100,000.

            Now take Hannitwit’s assertion that “…the military, they are the most infected group to carry STD’s“. Keep in mind the word “most”. (HanniDimWititized certainly didn’t!)

            Compare that with the CDC’s numbers: “The chlamydia rate among black females aged 15–19 years was 7,719.1 cases per 100,000 women”.

            Now, one of these things is not like the others! Which is “more”? 2,578 cases per 100,000? or 7,719 cases per 100,000?

            Take your time. Raise your hand if you need help. Unless the number of cases more than tripled in the military, during that two years’ difference, I believe we can state that there is at least one “group” with a higher STD rate than the military.

            You want to quibble with my numbers, fine! Show me better numbers before you congratulate yourself again.

          • ellinas1

            You math is accurate,,,your assertion that chlamydia infection rates of black females aged 15–19 years, to prove that the military is not the most infected group to carry STD’s”, is right on the money…. your comparison though is highly suspect.

            A)Our military is not comprised of black females aged 15–19 years.
            B) Chlamydia rates of infection are higher in females.
            In 2010 the numbers for chlamydia infection for those aged 15-19 were as follows:

            Total:441,342
            Males:85,570
            Females: 354,252

            As you can see Mr Proof, chlamydia infection rates for females for this age group is approximately 4 times more than that of males.
            Nice try, no cookie tonight.

            PS:You want to quibble with my numbers, fine! Show me better numbers before you congratulate yourself again.
            Now Mr Proof, take your time. Raise your hand if you need help.

            http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats10/tables/10.htm

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “Our military is not comprised of black females aged 15–19 years”

            Exactly right. That’s two for two tonight, ellinas. Your blind pig might find an acorn yet!

            And because they are NOT in the military, you could not claim in a Venn diagram that there was any overlap in the two groups.

            So, please explain to me how this does not prove that Hannitized was merely pulling cr*p out of his backside, to libel our troops, when he said “…the military, they are the most infected group to carry STD’s”.

            Which part of “most” is giving you trouble, my friend?

          • ellinas1

            MY dearest friend, and homeboy.

            The part that is giving me the “most” trouble is your narrow comparison of two unrelated groups.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            They are unrelated. How astute of you to notice. As it applies to their size, their difference, much like your argument, is irrelevant. If I point at five cats and two dogs and ask you which group has more animals, will your lame comeback be that you cannot tell, because cats are different than dogs? Shall we start to call you Hanninas, now?

          • Onslaught1066

            More like Hanni-A$$.

          • ellinas1

            Thank you for your kind words.
            God bless you and yours. Happy New Year.

          • ellinas1

            Since they are unrelated why do you feel it is necessary to compare them?

            If I point at a thousand feral cats and ten thousand stray dogs, and ask you which group is the most infected with feline chlamydia, will your lame comeback be that you cannot tell, because cats are different than dogs? Or will you point at the cats?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Hannitito: When one talks about numbers or comparisons as Hanni, the Greater Fool did, when he used the word “most” he invited the comparison. If you are math impaired to the point that you cannot know when one number is greater than another, then perhaps Hanni is your soul mate. Your analogy was certainly as lame and inaccurate as is his custom.

          • ellinas1

            Your answer is not indicative of a smart person…for I also used the word “most”.
            Get back to me when you can honestly answer my question.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Your inability, Hannitito, to discern what is smart and what is honest is at present highly suspect. Reread my previous answers to you and get back to me when you figure out the truth of what I really said.

          • ellinas1

            I have read your all your previous answers.
            I can find no reason for your indignation and chest thumping.
            I find your conduct, your expression which is marked by pompous and arrogant self-assertion without any foundation and or merit.
            It is solely driven by your unwarranted dislike and or hatred for a fellow that deserves nothing but your brotherly love, respect and kind of affection which is usually reserved for one’s loving grandparents.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You need to familiarize yourself with the facts and get to helping our troops instead of pretending to be defending them from those who care.

            Alaska STD Rates Soar; Blamed on Military Men Finding Sex Online

            A recent spike in HIV infections in Alaska has been linked to military men finding sex partners online, according to newly released public health data.

            http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/alaska-std-rates-soar-blamed-on-military-men-finding-sex-online/Content?oid=2607837

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I’ve done nothing to prevent our troops from getting any sort of help, Tiny Sociopath. Funny thing is, you’ve been on this hobby horse about what disease carriers our service people are, for five to six years now. That would predate your Boise Weekly story by 4-5 years. Never let facts get in the way of one of your good rants, Tiny Sociopath.

            And keep running like a scalded dog from those roughly 10,000 comments you made that were misogynistic, anti- military and in general, just plain stupid. Wouldn’t want any of the lies or trash talk you said then to get in the way of you trying to reinvent yourself as a sane or normal person!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Yes, you have and you do attempt to squash any concern over our servicemen and women receiving any additional assistance to protect them from STDs. Each and every time there is a discussion about the rate of infection that inflicts our military you use it as another tool to beat up your intellectual superiors. It’s tiring to have to continually introduce you to the facts you choose to suppress in order to prevent our military from getting the help they need.

            And your personal attempt to hide behind sock puppets to attack me through libel and lies is second to none.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “your personal attempt to hide behind sock puppets to attack me through libel and lies is second to none.”

            More projection than a multiplex, from the King of the Sockpuppets!

            I have no, zero, zip (0) sock puppets. Are you trying to destroy what little credibility you might have left, Tiny Sociopath? Or do you just get your rocks off accusing me of everything you do?

          • NAC

            Rob 5
            hours ago in
            reply to bikebubba

            “Guest” is Hannitized, who is apparently too
            much of a douche bag to put his more odious comments under his regular handle.

          • ellinas1

            NAC is apparently too much of a douche bag to put his more odious comments under his regular handle.

          • two_amber_lamps

            ellinasty is too much a pedophile turn away a 10 year old boy….

          • ellinas1

            Happy New Year, harpy.

          • HG

            Sounds like promiscuity is not a good idea. Seems nature prefers monogamous sexual relations.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            That’s a good idea, but in reality it’s not a practical prevention technique.

            In the past you have used statistics like this to condemn a small group of people. What do you believe is the message God is sending about this small subset of people who have a greater infection rate and a higher rate of spreading AIDS, GH?

            Conservatives who want to deny these people access to condoms through their healthcare plans aren’t helping the matter either. The end result is our military is put at more risk, or in this case the general population is at greater risk of catching AIDS.

          • HG

            Oh, its practical alright. Many Americans practice it with excellent results. The appeal is to nature, not statistics per se. The Creator’s wisdom is at work in nature. Nature is telling us promiscuity is behavior inconsistent with the way we were made.
            Good financial planners will tell you to insure the big things and pay for the little things. Nobody needs insurance for condemns. Even military personnel can afford condemns. Besides, even giving them away wont prevent STD’s since it is still the choice of the individual to use one.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            It certainly didn’t work for these folks, who now have AIDS. So what is God saying about same sex intercourse with these types of men, HG? Why do you see STDs being spread by this small group of individuals as a reflection of promiscuity, while the other same sex couples who aren’t sleeping with this small group are not getting STDs with their promiscuity? Maybe GOD is sending a different message to these men who are infected?

          • HG

            The type of men in the article are listed. They include MSM and military who look for sex online, some anonymously. Sounds like promiscuous behavior. They didn’t contract AIDs by being monogamous.
            The article doesn’t mention or deal with those who aren’t contracting STD’s.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Maybe God is showing us that a certain type of group who contract STD’s mores are doing something God doesn’t like, vs the other people who are practicing promiscuity, but aren’t contracting STD’s?

          • HG

            You’re more than welcome to make that argument, H.

          • Oscar

            I didn’t cast aspersions, I just reminded tiny little hanni, Rob’s pet troll, and everyone else of his own words where he admits sleeping with filthy infected women who just sleep with anyone.

            “God forbid you use their own words against them. They certainly can’t handle that”

          • ellinas1

            No, they cannot handle that.
            Witness how the witless snipe at you under the cover of anonymity.
            They are scared to use their own avatar.

          • Paul

            “under the cover of anonymity.”

            Is elinas1 your real name?

          • ellinas1

            No, it is not my name, but everybody knows who post’s under the moniker ellinas1. I have an identifiable trail for my comments.
            Oscar does not.
            But you knew all that when you asked the question.
            The real question is who are you fooling?

          • two_amber_lamps

            “but everybody knows who post’s under the moniker ellinas1″

            That would be a pederast with homosexual tendency?

            TAB: Silly faggot,
            d$#%ks are for chicks.

            Ellinas: “Then
            beloved Amber, I have a d$#%k for you.”

            8/5/12

          • ellinas1

            My point exactly.
            Thank you for your timely assistance.
            Maybe after this Oscar, the one lacking courage, will admit the obvious.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Q: That would be a pederast with homosexual tendency?

            Ellinas’s A: “My point exactly.
            Thank you for your timely assistance.”

            Well at least you don’t deny what you are!

            http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/07/02/ferguson.jpg

          • ellinas1

            Happy New Year, harpy.

          • two_amber_lamps

            HAW HAW HAW!!! You so funny….

            Figure 1: Compare and Contrast Santa Claus to Ellinasty P. Pedophile…

            http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3238/3134903296_6a9a927187.jpg

          • Oscar

            The real question is, why would I have a need to fool anyone? None of you matter enough for me to exert any effort to attempt to fool you.

          • ellinas1

            Now, if I posted fuck you and your momma in reply to your posts but I used a fake moniker/avatar, I could argue that you don’t matter enough for me to exert any effort to attempt to fool you but continue to use the same tired and old foul language all the while hiding behind the false avatar 2dim bulbs.
            But you knew all that when you asked the question.
            Why are you fooling yourself with empty rhetoric?

          • Oscar

            You can post any comment, under any name you want. You and everyone else on this site has no level of relevance in my life.
            Interesting though how you’re obsessed with 2-Amber

          • ellinas1

            Mr. Oscar. You are redirecting and failing top respond.
            Miss Amber was an example. Miss Amber you and everyone else on this site has no level of relevance in my life. Interesting though how you’re obsessed with Hannitized

          • two_amber_lamps

            Silly gay-fag… still trying to prove your relevance? Failing miserably I see.

            Ellinas said: “Hey! It’s Robert180. Do you still want to
            felate me?”

            10/5/10

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Of course we do. The truth is you can’t handle coming out of the shadows out of fear being held accountable for your positions and ideology, which results in fear of being exposed as a fool.

          • Oscar

            I am out of the shadows, and have no problem being held accountable for what I say..You can say anything you want to me, as irrelevant as it would be. You’re accountable also for what you say. That’s why no one has a problem repeating what you say when you admit sleeping with filthy infected women that resulted in your prescription for chlamydia meds. It’s good to see that you, willie bonilla has no fear of being exposed as the fool, and pet troll that you are. Now, sit up, speak and beg for a little attention. Try not to crap on the rug.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Oh, come now, little fellah. Everyone knows you change your name at every other comment. You are a coward who is afraid to post your political views and positions as they would be exposed for the stupidity that’s in them, or the lack of principles that go hand in hand with modern conservatism.

            All you can do it take comments out of context in a weak attempt to smear your political rivals who you envy.

            You are an obsessed freak who can only repeat the same line, over and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over.

            That’s your life, what ever shit hole you may currently be residing.

          • Oscar

            Your desperation for attention, any attention at all is quite apparent. Now, sit up, speak and beg for a little attention. Try not to crap on the rug.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Oh, come now, little fellah. Everyone knows you are the one craving my attention. You are a coward who is afraid to post your political views and positions as they would be exposed for the stupidity that’s in them, or the lack of principles that go hand in hand with modern conservatism.

            All you can do it take comments out of context in a weak attempt to smear your political rivals who you envy.

            You are an obsessed freak who can only repeat the same line, over and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over.

            That’s your life, what ever shit hole you may currently be residing.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            That’s absolutely a sign of cowardice and fear. They know I will hold their own comments against them and prove they have no principles, but only hatred and anger, if they weren’t hiding behind these anonymous screen names.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Even for you comparing the US to the USSR, Venezuela or Zimbabwe is beyond your usual ignorance. And don’t think for a minute that the fact that you are on the same wavelength as the other idiotic SAB conservatives is a consensus worth mentioning. It’s not. If anything, it’s a consensus you rather not be a part of if you expect to receive any credibility, of which you already have none.

        • Mike

          Why is that idiocy?

      • toppr8

        Well Said!

        • Bat One

          Thank you! Its interesting – and amusing in a dark sort of manner – that every time a conservative points out the deluded, wrong-headed nature of liberal policy, the response from the Left is to attack the credibility of the conservative making the observation. That history shows their policy to be a detriment to strong economic growth and ultimately a failure to the nation that employs it (Spain, Greece, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and the now-defunct Soviet Union all come readily to mind – again!) is irrelevant to those who worship at the altar of the federal Leviathan, and a blasphemy from the mouth of a conservative infidel. The aforementioned Spain, Greece, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and the now-defunct Soviet Union all tried one form or another of central planning and expanded government control of their respective economies, and each has managed to produce only failure. But rather than examine that reality, those on the Left prefer name-calling and personal attacks, all without ever realizing that their tactics only reinforce the failure of their policy.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            BO, in this thread:

            “Granted his arithmetic skills are no better than his tenuous grasp of the English language.”- BO

            “then it is obviously YOU who is the illiterate.” – BO

  • awfulorv

    A space alien, newly arrived on earth, and reading the above information, would conclude that there is something terribly screwed up with our system of taxation. Alas, our resident aliens, namely liberal Democrats, see nothing whatsoever, askew, and unfair, with the numbers…

  • Lynn Bergman

    I’m actually looking forward to the “government bubble” bursting. When the dollar is worth a penny or less… “work”, “courage’ to take risk, and their resulting “love” will once again be highly valued. Those of us who have worked, taken risks, and been successful will thrive… and the lazy, fearful, and hateful will be ignored as they should be.

    • mickey_moussaoui

      Bravo Lynn. I couldn’t agree more. We do not need anymore Hannitized / Woof barnacles sticking to the bottom of the boat.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        Oh, come now Canadian, you know I am an American success story. Quit showing your angry rage in ad hominem form. Spare us the socialist jealousy bit, would ya?

        • two_amber_lamps

          American success story…. ??? BWWAAHAhahahahahahahhahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahhaAHaAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahah!!!!!

          That’s $$%#$ing rich!!!

          Pray tell, why is the surf-board socialist in yellow-stained boardies preaching to anyone about jealousy??

        • willieB

          Success story???!!!!! Says the documented tax cheat.

          You sit on a right wing blog all day and night with people who crap all over your face while you say AHHH and keep asking for more.
          You’re a joke.

    • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

      You could write something dumber, but I doubt it.

  • Michael S.

    The stratification of wealth is also worse than any time in the last 80 years. The top one percent *should* pay the lion’s share of the taxes, because they’re certainly taking — yes, TAKING — the G.D. *Pharoah’s share* of the income.

  • Elegua

    @ Bat One, the main difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives like to look at the picture that best suits themselves and their ideals rather than look at the entire truth. Interesting article, (not) however, it also fails to mention, definitely on purpose, anything about the distribution of affluence. If 85% of the wealth of the country is only in the hands of 1%, perhaps the 1% should be paying 85% of the taxes.

    However nice the article tries to paint a pretty picture for the 1% and how horrible it is that the 99% of the people pay less than half of the taxes, the logical and most appropriate, fair distribution of tax burden should be that the 99% of people should be paying on the 15% of wealth that they earn. I should like to take you and 98 of your similar minded friends to dinner. I promise to order 85% of the cost of bill, and will expect you and your friends to pay half, or maybe you and your friends would like to pay 99% of the bill, just to be fair, since there will be 99 of you.

    Go on believing in your dreams that all liberals want is to tax everyone because it’s fun and pay the poor people (people that work two full time jobs and still qualify for assistance), or as you say, worthless people that do not need money. It’s stupid to even think somehow this is the goal of ‘liberals’. As though the conservatives are just so smart and realize how dumb liberals are. While I am certain that makes you feel great about yourself and makes you believe you are smarter than the rest, only an idiot would believe in the crap you said, and that speaks nothing about the type of idiot that would even say such a thing.

  • PlacidAir

    No, it’s not “unfair” — not when they own more than 95% of the country it’s not. What is “unfair” is the people at the top of a company making 380x what the average worker makes and paying the same “top” tax rate.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      You realize its a rate, right? The rich pay far more in taxes.

Top