Error message

  • Notice: Undefined index: taxonomy_term in similarterms_taxonomy_node_get_terms() (line 518 of /home/westvall/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in similarterms_list() (line 221 of /home/westvall/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 1 in similarterms_list() (line 222 of /home/westvall/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).

Letters to the Editor: October 25, 2013

Error message

  • Notice: Undefined index: taxonomy_term in similarterms_taxonomy_node_get_terms() (line 518 of /home/westvall/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in similarterms_list() (line 221 of /home/westvall/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
  • Notice: Undefined offset: 1 in similarterms_list() (line 222 of /home/westvall/public_html/sites/all/modules/similarterms/similarterms.module).
West Valley View's picture

Obamacare or Obamascare?


I felt all along that Mr. Obama’s healthcare policy was due to be mired in controversy. It started when Nancy Polesi while campaigning for the passage of the Obamacare bill made the now infamous statement: “Lets pass this bill and then we will find out what’s in it.” My goodness, that’s like buying a used car down in Nogales without even test driving it first. The bill is 1200 pages long and I would wager that knucklehead Polesi does not know what’s in the bill today. Nothing but partisan politics at its worst.

Whatever happened to great leaders like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton who put aside partisan politics and brought forth legitimate compromises that benefitted all Americans? Here is my solution to this government shutdown that is harmful to all Americans. Delay Obamacare until the mid-term election in 2014 and put it on the election ballot where all Americans have a chance to vote on this controversial bills merit. Take it out of the shady backroom of American (Washington) politics where political favors, financial bribes and powerful lobbyists are taken out of the equation.

In return the Republicans put tax-reform on the table which seems to be crucial to Obama and the Democrats. This would be a real compromise where all Americans are the winners and not special interest groups.

This president while campaigning promised the American public that he would bring us together. Instead he has split this nation in two on economic, political foreign affairs and now health care controversies. Not to mention scandals like the IRS, NSA, Fast and Furious and Bengahzi. Its time for Obama to live up to his promise.

Jim McLaughlin

Subscription makes sense


I agree with Uriah Whatton of Buckeye who wrote The View should be by request only in his letter of 10/15. It irritates me to see during the week The View papers getting wet and drying out in my neighborhood driveways. Some neighbors will wait until 3-4 papers are out in the driveway before they pick them up. Quite often I find there is more news in The View then in the Arizona Republic. I think it is wonderful and I appreciate we get The View free but I hate to see the paper wasted. Subscription makes sense.

Marty Proffitt

Socialism in America


Whenever the government forces the working class to pay for the non-working class, it is socialism! That is how the everyday working person sees it. It is not based on any legal definition in a dictionary or on Wikipedia or school text
book; it is based on cognitive perspective.

Perspective is where fact and reason needed for some peoples’ opinions goes out the window. It is a truth that is based on a person’s experiences and observations. It is their point of view. Just because a perspective is not in a text book somewhere
doesn’t make it any less real for the observer.

I belong to several political forums and social media and the common consensus among the general public from my perspective is that the word socialism, when used in everyday conversation, refers to the definition I gave above, rather than the definition found in books.

This wouldn’t be the first word in history to develop a new or different definition. But it is the first word in my lifetime that for some reason, has a group of people adamantly objecting to anything but its original definition.

For those who oppose socialism in America, after discussing it with them for a while, I have discovered not a single one of them is opposed to helping the needy, but are actually opposed to the corruption and abuses that go on in those programs. Many also consider socialism to be a forced charity. Generally people do not care for our government telling them what to do or how to spend their hard earned cash.

Patrick Orr

Let’s pray for our country


Folks I’ve seen and heard everything! Mr. Petty, President O’Bama and his liberal Csar’s attacking old folks by closing our parks and attacking Catholic Military Chaplains from baptizing babies or saying the liturgy.

Just think of the absurdity of it all! Someone of his stature — oops — position enforcing such orders. I/m sure the world is amused by all this. Does he (President O’Bama) really think the world believes it’s the Republicans that are doing this. They hear you spout your lies everyday Mr. President.

Recently on the news I heard Muslims are pushing their women to entertain sexually the Al Queda men?

I recall the German Nazi’s did the same during World War II. Quote: “Children for the Master Race!” The Nazi’s were in Arab Country during the War; guess they taught the Arabs well and I’m sure many Nazi’s took refuge in Arab countries when the war ended, running from retribution.

Who is this man in Washington? He dislikes Catholics, Jews, and quite possibly all Americans. He’s trying to indoctrinate our children, while protecting Muslims. Sounds like a man who’s goal is way higher, but not for America, otherwise he would listen to the people. He’s been thwarted some recently, we must pray for the safety of our people and country.

Analie Maccree

Invoice to Sen. Cruz


To: Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)

From: United States Citizenry

RE: Remittance Advice - Invoice #USCITZ2013 - 01

Self-indulgent, self-aggrandizing, self-serving and ego-centric antics inflicting economic & financial damages to United States of America & Beyond: $24 Billion plus. Please remit immediately (Congressman Trent Franks’ Share of this Hubris prorated among 18 Senators & 144 Congressen -$148,000,000 plus) or face class action litigation from the citizenry.

Only gold bullion or your political hide on a platter is acceptable tender to satisfy this invoice.

David Compton
Litchfield Park

What’s Buckeye’s agenda?


We see that the Town of Buckeye wants to move up to City status. Why? Jobs, they say.

What is NOT said is this: a Town needs voter approval to sell town-owned real property. A City does not — the council can decide to do whatever it likes and the voters can be left out.

As it happens, the Town of Buckeye owns a few parcels it wants to sell — worth in the millions.

If / when City status gets voter approval, the “hidden agenda” will be in play: sell off the 5 or 6 parcels (many acres!) and purchase a large site near the airport & then sell it cheap to a developer. Realtors gain big fees — voters get what?

All I want to know is WHY this agenda is not publicly disclosed. Please help disclose it so the VOTERS can make an informed choice this November.

Frank Lopez

Don’t want pension bomb


Good job on this series of articles.

This issue has engulfed CA residents in unsustainable payout levels to “public” retirees, far higher than anything the private sector can offer.

This same issue threatens AZ taxpayers. Enough already!

Why are vacation hours and sick pay factored into pension payout levels? Paid vacations/sick time are offered to ensure that people have a chance to be with family and “decompress” from their busy bureaucrat duties. Rested workers work better. Sick workers do not. NOT going on vacay would seem to reduce worker effectiveness for the 48 or 50 weeks a year they do something at work. So paying a pension bonus to a less-efficient worker is a “double hit” against the taxpayer — who must make up pension shortfalls every year. It’s going to get worse unless fairness & sanity are brought in!

Public workers get far larger payouts than in the private industry sector. This must be attenuated — before the AZ taxpayer becomes the servant — financially — of his/her public employee master.

Don’t believe me? Look to CA and the huge taxpayer burdens of public pensions that are there now & are not going away soon.

Don’t Californicate AZ taxpayers with a CA-style pension bomb!

C J Bright

Election facts are questionable


In the Election Pamphlet that was mailed to voters had several opinions that I believe were stated emotionally rather than factually. As an example, the Mayor of Litchfield Park stated,“This override will NOT icrease our taxes.” The same Election Pamphlet states in the QUESTION,“Any budget increase continuation authorized by this election shall be entirely funded by a levy of taxes on the taxable property in this school district for the year for which adopted and for six susequent years....” So why are people that are well meaning stating taxes will not increase. A “Yes” vote shall authorize the Litchfield Elelmentary School District Governing Board to continue the existig maintenance and operation budgets override authority and resulting TAX. My question is What resulting TAX


Les Armstrong


Cartoon was offensive


The editorial cartoon that you printed Friday October 18th was the last straw for me! Morgan’s Opinion Cartoon could not be more wrong in the content that it portrayed but was very openly insulting to homeowners who have or will vote NO on the overrides for Aqua Fria and Litchfield School Districts. I want my subscription to the West Valley View immediately terminated.

Cindy Gramm

L. Park plans shelved


I am responding to several letters to the editor from Jeff Gibbs and one letter from Karen Eicher. All of these letters are highly insightful concerning Litchfield Park.

Mr. Gibbs, the plans that you call for in your letters are on the shelf in the City Hall of Litchfield Park. In the mid 90s the Mayor and City Council hired a world-class planner and asked him to produce a concept plan for the development of Litchfield Park’s Village Center. The Village Center was one part of a larger development agreement. The intent was for the highly profitable Village at Litchfield Greens housing development west of the Litchfield By Pass, and resulting maintenance costs to the city, be paid for by on going revenue from the Village Center.

The attempt in the original 1991 Development Agreement was to avoid having the long established homes in Litchfield Park subsidize new development by reducing their services for such as items as road and park maintenance.

The Village Center plan was presented to several standing room only meetings of citizens of Litchfield Park at the school cafeteria. It was modified according to public sentiment. It became the central issue in a general election in which the Mayor and City Council members bet their political futures for the benefit of the people of Litchfield Park. The public responded by re-electing them by a margin of two to one. As I recall voter turnout was heavy.

That Village Center Plan remains on the shelf. All it needs in my opinion to become a reality is some elbow grease and a little political courage on the part of the Mayor and City Council of Litchfield Park.

Bob Musselwhite
Litchfield Park

Answer to editorial


In September the editors asked our community on ideas for stemming violence. My more thorough response is on-line. My research shows that not only has crime dropped following Christian spiritual revivals but that positive societal changes also result. Such things as violent crime, prostitution, drunkenness, gambling, theft, domestic abuse, drug use, and profanity dropped dramatically, so much so that in some places police forces had nothing to do and jails and court dockets were empty. In addition, out of these revivals grew the movements that resulted in such things as the formation of orphanages, programs for the jobless and homeless, the Salvation Army, and the YMCA, which provided sports and devotional programs for directionless young men who were gravitating towards crime.

In a marvelously refreshing and encouraging article by Martin Henry entitled Divine Intervention for Crime Reduction, the author says, “Speaking in the Christian tradition, whenever there is a renewal of real godliness, as opposed to mere churchliness, there has always been a renewal of goodness. When large numbers of citizens are seized of the two great commandments to love God supremely and to love neighbour as self, there has been dramatic social transformation.” See

Simply put, asking Jesus Christ to be in charge of our life results in the Holy Spirit taking up residence in our hearts and beginning the supernatural work of transforming us from the inside out. What follows that transaction is “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control” (Galatians 5:22.

If America wants to see violence end, then we must acknowledge that without God’s supernatural help we are powerless to do it. God won’t force it on us but He is eagerly waiting to gift us with it. Your editorial is a start in the right direction.

Don and Gayle Brees

Communism coming to U.S.


How many can remember this famous quote?

Your children’s children will live under Communism. You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright; but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you; WE’LL SO WEAKEN YOUR ECONOMY, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands”. Nikita Khrushchev, 1959

As a small boy, I remember thinking that could never happen here in the United States of America...........and now the words of Khrushchev are coming to pass.......right before your very eyes..........

Thomas Moore

Rate this article: 
Average: 1 (2 votes)


Analie Maccree of Goodyear asks.

"Does he (President O’Bama) really think the world believes it’s the Republicans that are doing this."


Having been in France for a bit now I can testify to the fact that yes the people of France believe that the Republicans are doing this and a whole lot more.

When they discover I am an American they almost always bring up the subject of our government and want to know why we are letting the insane republicans ruin our country.

But my question is, why do you think the republicans are free of responsibility? The world sees it, why not you?

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Ms. Maccree:

   There's a better question you should answer before you get to the one Mikieslife asked (excellent though it is):  Have you any <i>proof</i> for the slanderous assertions you keep making?

   My previous letter pointed out that the "protection" you keep raving about doesn't exist.  Since you're (supposedly) a "good Christian" you must know that bearing false witness is a grave sin - and it's one you keep repeating.  So, I'm afraid I must ask you for proof about your assertion that the President:

  1. Prevents Catholic Military Chaplains from baptizing babies or saying the liturgy.
  2. Dislikes Catholic and Jews (we'll forget about "all Americans", since you said that was merely possible).
  3. Is trying to indoctrinate our children.  (Actually, first you have to specify what in.  From your ranting I must assume Islam, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.)

  From what I understand of Christian theology, you doubtless believe you can get away with all this because you are "justified by faith".  Sorry, madam, but those who do evil in God's name are punished more severely for it.  I suggest you cease and desist, before you go to hell, literallly!

Actually Gordon, 

If you feel something is inaccurate in a Letter To The Editor, then the burden of proof lies on YOUR shoulders if you are going to claim it is wrong (or a slanderous assertion).  

If you are unwilling to do that, then you are just harrassing them.  In that case, good luck getting an answer from them or changing their minds on the issue.  

Oh, and calling them liars and evildoers won't help either.  I thought this is something you warned was slanderous and could end you up in a bankruptsy court?    

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Mr. Orr:

   I really admire the way in which you manage to be consistently wrong.  Whether in Law or in Life, the burden of proof is always on the person asserting the positive.  In this case, it is on Ms. Maccree.  She is the one making the accusations I demanded proof for, therefore (if she wants them to be credible) she must provide the proof that they are true.

   Otherwise, sir, people could write in and make the slanderous accusation that Christians murder Jewish children, and drink the blood as part of their Mass.  (A reversal of what's known as the Blood Libel.)  I would certainly hope that if someone made such an obscene, immoral, and outrageous charge, you wouldn't rush to their defense (as you just did for Ms. Maccree), but would instead demand some proof for such an inflammatory, outlandish, and revolting accusation.  Just because the author of an equally vile claim happens to be (supposedly) a Christian, and her target is President Obama, the rules shouldn't change.

   (I say "supposedly", because from what I understand of Christian principles, there's very little that can truly be called "Christian" about her behavior.)

   Of course, the underlying logic to this is the fact that it's famously difficult (nearly impossible) to prove a negative.  For example, how do you suppose I'm to prove the President hasn't prevented "Catholic Military Chaplains from baptizing babies or saying the liturgy"?  Write a letter to every Catholic Chaplain and ask them if that's happened?

   Unless Ms. Maccree is just making this up, or hallucinating it, it's reasonable to assume she has some source for her allegations.  (Beyond the notoriously unreliable anonymous chain e-mails which appear to be the "source" for much of the malarkey you find being spread.)  All she has to do to satisfy my demand is product it.  (We can then assess the truthfullness of that source.)

   No, sir, it's not "harrassing" to make such a request.  It's standing up for a little thing you repeatedly demonstrate apparent unfamiliarity with: the concept of truth!  However, here's your chance to cease being a "cheap shot artist", and provide the proof in Ms. Maccree's stead.  After all, if such proof exists (and can stand up to scrutiny), that will completely satisfy me, and will change my mind on the issue.  (Since I respect fact and reason, something I increasingly suspect you don't.)

   Meanwhile, lecturing me on calling someone a liar is the height of hypocrisy coming from you!

P.S. - And please don't delude yourself into thinking that you will silence me, or even disturb my slumber with your tactics.  I have faced down "opponents" like you for over 12 years here.  Among them: Mary Barham, Dave Rogers, Steve Mickelson (who at least could be rational on occasion), our dear friend Judy, and too many others to name.  Most of them are gone (hopefully they merely moved away), but I'm still here.  If you truly want to silence me, there's only one way to do it: stop writing your inane Comments or Letters attacking me.  As should be clear even to you by now, I can give as good as I get, and all you're doing is providing me with entertainment!  (For which, I thank you.)

P.P.S. - And it's funny you mention my warning about slander.  Unless Ms. Maccree has such proof, that's strong evidence she acted with "reckless disregard for the truth", and could subject her to a lawsuit by the President - though I doubt he'd stoop to her level in order to do it.

Mr. Posner:

If person A says something and then person B says it is not true without any evidence, then to the reader it is just a matter of he said, she said.  It doesn't discredit anything person A had to say.  

However, person B (you in this case) simply comes across as a little child stamping their feet and saying "Na-Uh".


Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Mr. Orr:

  Hmm, let me see, you think the height of reasoned argument is to say "Na-Uh".  I'd say your looking in a mirror to see that little child.  A temper tantrum isn't a serious argument, and that's all you're indulging in.

   I repeat, the burden of proof  is on Ms. Macree to prove her assertions,  not on those who are skeptical of them.  She can be excused for not responding (I doubt she even reads these Comments), but you can not.  You've had several opportunities to defend her remarks by researching and providing the proof, and you constantly failed to do so, preferring (as always) to evade and avoid.  I'm entitled to conclude it's because you have no proof!

   Lather, rinse, repeat.

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Mr. Orr:

   Just for fun I decided to do some (brief) research.  Using the search terms "Catholic Chaplains baptize" I quickly found the U.S. Naval Acadamy's statement of their official position on such matters.

   You will note the second paragraph states; "In the Christian faith traditions, baptism is a very important milestone, and, as such, the chaplains at the Naval Academy treat it with every dignity and respect that it is due.  Independent of an individual's faith preference we will make every effort to accommodate your request, . . . ."  Wow!   Sounds to me like baptisms are an ongoing activity there.  (I wonder if the President realizes it?)

   Of course there are restrictions.  The person requesting use of the Academy's facilities must be "an authorized patron" (more or less defined as someone connected to the Navy, but I'm sure you can change that using your "principles" about language).

   So, it would appear that at least there Ms. Maccree's charge might be wrong.  Of course, this is hardly conclusive proof.  That would require (as I've said before) inquiring of every Catholic Chaplain who's served since January 20, 2009 whether they were ever prevented from baptizing babies, or "attacked" by "Csars" [sic] for doing so.  Frankly, I don't have the time.  (Perhaps you do?)

   On the other hand, the webpage does provide some indication another of her accusations might be true: that the President dislikes Jews.  After all, the Academy currently "offers the possibility for baptism" only to Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox Christians.  Why, I wonder, don't they offer it to Jews?

There you go, you have now given an incentive for a sensible arguement.

I have heard the claims about the Catholics being upset with Obama and wanting to sue, but I have never followed the story. The headlines I saw were so outlandish, I didn't bother reading them. The press has a way of sensationalizing the smallest issue into a headline that is way-over dramatic.  

High fives, Mr. Orr!

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Judy:

   Why am I not surprised that someone (you) with such a poor track record in "accuracy" would give praise to Mr. Orr's low opinion of facts, reason, respect for the English language, reality, or truth?

  I'm afraid his letter makes sense only from the "perspective" of the other side of the looking glass!

Hey, Gordon...I was just wondering if you'd gotten your renewal info for your medical insurance yet. We did and guess and Obama were right. Our premiums did not increase. THAT'S THE GOOD NEWS!

The bad news is that our benefits decreased! My husband retired from a great company, so if this is what's happening with GREAT companies, I feel really sorry for those who worked for mediocre and/or employee-unfriendly businesses...and the self-employed who have no real bargaining power.

Unfortunately, that's one mark on my side of the chalkboard. I was right and you were wrong about the fabulous Obamacare. No doubt there will be more chalk on my side as it continues to roll out.

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Judy:

   First, I never said (or thought) that "Obamacare" was fabulous.  (How very "gay" of you to use that word.)  I merely think it's better than what came before, and better than any of the "alternatives" the Republi-Cons have cooked up.

   Second, I got one of those letters the "right-wing" is screaming about.  The one that says my present insurance won't continue under "Obamacare".  However, it includes the part "conservatives" usually leave out: that I can get new insurance.  It includes a website operated by the company where I can shop for the new policy.  I intend to do so, and also check out the Exchange "Obamacare" creates (once they've worked out the bugs), so I can do some comparative shopping (like a believer in Capitalism should).

   Third, meanwhile, though, I've already checked with an estimator provided by the Kaiser Foundation ( and discovered that I can get a better policy at less cost.  (And that's without including any subsidies I might qualify for.)

   Fourth, without knowing more about your situation, I can't say for sure, but you probably can use the Exchanges as well (and so should check out that estimator).  The same is true for the self-employed. The whole point of the Exchanges is to allow people who buy individual insurance (as the self-employed and I do) to get group rates!  (Which are always lower.)

   Fifth, the same is even more true "for those who worked for mediocre and/or employee-unfriendly businesses" (such as Wal-Mart, which is notorious for providing no health insurance).  Since they're not covered by an employer's provided group plan (or any plan for that matter), they can purchase through the Exchanges (often at a considerable savings).  Plus, of course, if they couldn't get insurance before (such as because of a pre-existing condition), they can now!

   Sixth, I'm afraid I have to be skeptical about you and your husband.  Aside from your poor track record with "accuracy" ("one dollar premiums", anyone?), I've encountered claims like yours before (as have others).  It turns out that if one bothers to fact check, it's discovered that the claims are "inaccurate" and/or made by people who don't know what they're talking about!

See, for example:

   Understand, I'm not leveling such an accusation at you.  (I'd hate to jeopardize our beautiful friendship).  I'm just explaining why I'm a tad skeptical about stories like yours.  I wouldn't go marking up that chalkboard just yet.

And aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

On that Sixth point, Gordon...I know what we've paid in the past and I read what changes will occur beginning January 1, 2014, as outlined in the information packet from his company. So are you calling me a liar?

As for "accuracy" and "one dollar premiums"...we'll discuss those at the same time we thrash out the "Texas Advance Directives Act".

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Judy:

   No.  I stated what I was doing quite clearly.  Allow me to repeat myself.

Understand, I'm not leveling such an accusation at you.  (I'd hate to jeopardize our beautiful friendship).  I'm just explaining why I'm a tad skeptical about stories like yours.

   If you look up the word <i>skeptical</i> you'll see that it means "having doubt".  Do I doubt your story (and others <i>like it</i>)?  Yes.  Why?  Because I (and others) have encountered such stories before, and found them to be the product either of misinformation (the person didn't know what they were talking about, or lacked critical information about alternatives), misunderstanding, or deliberate deception.  Given your, personal, "track record" I'm willing to entertain the first two explanations, but I won't indulge in the third.  Even then, I'm only viewing them as <i>possible</i> explanations, there is a <i>fourth</i> (you're correct).  But lacking more knowledge of your situation, I can't eliminate the first two and simply accept (on faith) the last.

   As I've pointed out before (though perhaps not here), we really don't know anything about any of the people writing Letters or posting Comments (in the latter case, not even their <i>names</i> under the new system).  So, for all anyone knows, you and I could both really be Dick Cheney, posting from an "undisclosed location", and suffering from the world's worst case of multiple personality disorder!

   (Of course, I'm skeptical about that!)



P.S. - Yes, I owe you my response about the Texas Act, and it's long overdue.  I appreciate your continued patience.


P.P.S. - Did you ever see that "trailer" I gave you the link to, and then the name of?  In case not, here it is again: Hell No - the sensible horror movie (

  Really, it's worth more of your time than reading my blather.  (Okay, that's not saying much!)

Gordon Posner's picture


Dang!  I keep forgetting not to use those HTML codes.

Okay, Gordon, I've watched the clip twice and you're still going to have to break it down for me. I just don't get it...other than it appears to be a spoof on all the bad horror movies rolled into one, beginning with the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Judy:

   That's the point.  It pokes fun at all the cliche's in those movies, where people do incredibly stupid things none of us would do in the same situation.  (I especially liked the guy who asks to see the "lethal" videotape, and instead of watching it smashes it to bits!  I also like the "Spoiler Alert: Everyone Lives".  As I told you in my first e-mail, there's no political message, just a good laugh at the expense of all those cliche's.

   (I mean, don't you just hate the ineviable scene where some jerk says "Let's split up.  We'll cover more ground that way"?  It was refreshing that in this "movie" the response was the obvious intelligent answer: NO!)

   Life's too short not to laugh.  Lighten up, dudette.

A little trivia for ya, Gordon...What's the most used sentence in films?

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Judy:

   Couldn't say.  Probably the most often used phrase is "The End"!

The most used phrase is..."Let's get outta here".

Yup Judy, that is exactly what I was thought he was doing when I read his comment.  

You're right, Patrick. But Gordon can't help's the lawyer (but more the Democrat) in him. If he can't attack the message, he attacks the messenger.

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Judy:

   Except I did nothing of the kind.  (Too bad I can't say the same for either you or Mr. Orr.)

   It probably comes of you both being Republi-Cons.  (Oops, now I've done it.)

You have just proven Judy's point.  

Your baseless accusation is so typical...

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Mr. Orr:

   Judy thinking I was calling her a liar (when I clearly said I wasn't) I can put down to her being "accuracy challenged".  In your case it's obviously because you are employing a language other than English.  (Probably derived from a source on the other side of the looking glass.)

   All of which makes me wonder how you define the word "thought".  It' obviously means something quite different from the dictionary definition (because there's precious little "thought" involved in what you write).

You know what they say.  People who live in glass houses should dress in the basement.  Err...I mean, should not throw stones. 

"Self-indulgent, self-aggrandizing, self-serving and ego-centric antics inflicting economic & financial damages to United States of America & Beyond..." Really, Mr. Compton?

If you change the $24 Billion to $6 Trillion, your invoice could be addressed to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, ATTN: Barack Hussein Obama.

By the way, as one member of the citizenry, I'd prefer his (Obama's) "hide on a platter" over the gold bullion.

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Judy:

  I hope you're sitting down for this one (well, half-sitting), but I partially agree with you.  As I've observed before, Mr. Compton tends to be a bit hyperbolic with his rhetoric.  (Though, you're not entirely unfamiliar with that "sin" either._

   On the other hand, you forget that the $6 Trillion you mention wasn't entirely Obama's doing!  Some of the "credit" for it must go to past Administrations (particluarly of your "beloved" Bush the Second), and I believe the current crop of Republi-Cons can "take a bow" for part of it too.  (Causing our credit rating to nosedive in 2011 certainly didn't help!)

   By the way, if you're referring to the deficit, you should know it's been decreasing for the past few years (starting in 2010).  (I think both Democrats and Republicans can take a bow for that - though the improving economy deserves most of the credit.)

   Still, I'll join you in deprecating Mr. Compton's intemperate language.  Will you join me in doing the same to the hyperbolic rhetoric from "your side"?

Some of it is Bush's fault?  OMG are you serious?  You are actually going there?  

Well, since the accurate number is now over 7 Trillion dollars, I think Judy's estimate of 6 Trillion is spot on! 

That is more than any other president before.

His annual deficits even though they are going down are more than 1 trillion dollars each and every year.  No other president has ever had deficits that high.  

He is "spreading the wealth" and passing on this burden to the future generations.  

It is wholy irresponsible, but why should you care, you won't be around to deal with the fallout like the rest of us.


Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Mr. Orr:

   Riddle me this: Where does the debt come from?  Did it just magically appear on January 20, 2009?  Or does it have roots in the past (before Obama took office)?

   The answer is the latter.  The National Debt is simply the accumulation of the annual Deficit (plus other items, such as the interest on that debt).  It's like a running balance on the national "credit card".  Fail to pay the monthly current charges, and the debt increases.  Pay that amount, and the debt is unchanged (except for the interest on the balance).  Pay more than that amount, and the debt declines (provided, of course, that your overpayment is more than the new interest.)

   Under "Saint Reagan" the deficit increased by 97%, and that was largely due to his embrace of "Supply Side Economics" (a major source of all our fiscal problems).  Under Bush the First, it increased by 90%.  But (thanks in part to the tax increases he had the courage to make) the rate of increase declined sharply in his last year.

   That continued under Clinton, and was aided by his tax increases, as well as by decreased spending - for which I agree the Republicans deserve some of the credit.  (By the way, spending under Reagan increased by 57%, under Bush the First and Clinton only 21 and 27 percent respectively.)

   As a result of all that, the deficit didn't merely decrease under Clinton, it became a surplus!  In short, we were finally paying off our "monthly charges".

   And then along came Bush the Second, and the deficit ended up increasing by 458%!  I think you can imagine what that did to the debt.  Plus he left us with the Great Recession.  (Recessions generally don't do good things to the economy or our fiscal condition.)

Source: page 63 of the World Almanac For 2010, with some calculations for the percentages.

   And unless you're redefining the word "deficit", I'm afraid your charge that the deficits "are more than 1 trillion dollars each and every year." is inaccurate. The estimated deficit for this year is lower, and for the following years they are well under a trillion.  (Although if you want to be skeptical about those numbers, I don't mind.  I don't like relying on estimates either, but it's all we've got).


   On the other hand, we reached the Trillion dollar mark in 2009, and that was a direct result of the "fallout" from the Bush years.  (Arguably we could charge that deficit to Bush, since the government was operating under his budget, passed the previous year.  But more on that, later, as we get to the issue of the National Debt.)


   Both you and Judy are being vague with your numbers (a complaint you previously, and falsely hurled against me in another context), because you keep mixing up the Debt and the Deficit.

  However, turning to the issue of the National Debt, it almost doubled under Bush, reaching the 6 Trillion level in 2002, and ultimately going to over 10 Trillion by September of 2008.

   But did Obama increase it by 7 Trillion, as you claim?  As of Oct. 28, 2013 the Debt was $17,086,679,172,704.67 (  So for your 7 Trillion increase to be correct, it must have been no higher than around 10.08 Trillion when Obama took office.  Unfortunately for your claim, the actual number for January 20, 2009 was $10.6 Trillion, so Obama has yet to reach your 7 Trillion figure.

See: (You have to enter the dates to get the numbers).

   But if we look at the numbers for Bush the Second, what do we see?  Again, why he nearly doubled the 5.7 Trillion debt he started with to 10.6 Trillion.

   And that gets us to the problem with your claim that Obama has been running Trillion dollar deficits every year, and that "No other president has ever had deficits that high".  You see, as I alluded to it before, there's always a problem "assessing blame" for a President's first year.  Not only are they operating under the economy left to them by their predecessor, but they're usually operating under that President's budget.

   We can, of course, simply say the first year's deficit belongs to Obama, and forget about how much Bush may have contributed to it.  But, if we're going to use deficit numbers from the end of that year (i.e.: the total deficit for the entire year), then shouldn't we do the same for debt as well?  And if we do, what happens to your 7 Trillion increase?  It disappears!  Why? Because by the end of 2009 the debt had reached over 12 Trillion!  (Leaving an increase of about 5 Trillion - comparable to Bush.)

   And that brings us squarely to a little bit of "double-standard" I've encountered when debating the economy with "conservatives".  They love to blame the poor numbers of Reagan's first years (when unemployment reached the highest it had been since the Great Depression) on poor old Jimmy Carter.  They also love to excuse Bush the Second's initial problems by claiming they were Clinton's fault.  But somehow Obama is held responsible for everything from the moment he took office!  All prior economic history just ceases to exist.

   Tell you what, I'll allow you to blame Obama for 7 Trillion of the Debt, if you'll "credit" Bush for the 10.6 Trillion he bequeathed to us!


Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Mr. Orr:

   Oh, and I do care.  I just don't agree that the Republi-Cons have the solution to the problem.  Which, by the way, should include getting rid of Supply Side Economics, a.k.a. "Voodoo Economics", and should include some form of Shared Sacrifice - say $1 dollar in budget cuts for every dollar in tax increases.  During their primaries last year, the Republi-Con presidential wannabees wouldn't even agree to a 10:1 ratio!

   Read my lips: No new cuts without new taxes!

   But let's turn that question around.  "Your side" wants to eliminate things the E.P.A., aid to education, National Parks (except when they can make political "hay" over closures), not to mention other vital government programs - all so they can keep their precious tax cuts.

   The results?  Posterity will "enjoy" air they can't breathe, water they can't drink, land they can't live on.  They'll have so little knowldege and skills that all they'll be able to do is "flip hamburgers" for the rest of the world!  (Have you looked at any comparative education statistics recently?)  National Parks will be turned into mining camps, and the Grand Canyon will end up looking like what's left of West Virginia (and other mining parts of Appalachia).   But the good news is: with no government to check that the food we eat and the medicines we take aren't killing us (since we don't want any of those "burdensome regulations" the FDA and CDC create), and since few will be able to afford healthcare anyway, life expectancy will decline - and our suffering children will die young.

   Why are you "passing on this burden to the future generations"?

P.S. - Yes, I know that's hyperbolic, but no more so than the rhetoric you spewed.  When you're ready to leave the looking glass world, and return to reality, we can have a serious debate.

The only thing I can see from your arguments is that you only care about attacking the republicans and praising the democrats and their ideas (as if that bothers me or discredits anything I say).

That is not the way to have a productive discussion nor is it going to conclude in any positive outcome or solution.

I just chalk it up to that being your opinion not necessarily based on facts, and I don't actually disagree with you on some things, but in most situations, your drivel is irrelevant to the topic.

You say you don't believe the republicans have the solution to the problem. Well, private sector job growth is part of their solution,. It is the MAIN part of their solution. Are you saying you don't agree with that? A reduction in spending is also a part of their solution. Do you disagree with that too? If you don't disagree with those two things the you cannot claim you don't believe republicans have the solution to the problem.

You say you want to get rid of supply side economics as opposed to the demand side, but everyone knows including both parties in Congress, realistically, you can not have one mutually exclusive of the other. Realistically, there have been times both have worked to some extent, and failed to some extent.

That 10:1 ratio you brought up was a not a solution, it was a negotiating tactic during the fiscal cliff deal and now a completely mute point. Reported: According to the Congressional Budget Office, the last-minute fiscal cliff deal reached by congressional leaders and President Barack Obama cuts only $15 billion in spending while increasing tax revenues by $620 billion—a 41:1 ratio the other way of tax increases to spending cuts.

Now, when you say "My side", what exactly are you talking about? Just because I don't agree on all things with the great and powerful Posner, I automatically have a side that shuts down government agencies? I might as well come back with the claim you are anti-semitic for saying that. It would be just as senseless as your fact-less claim.

You are once again picking a fight with someone else and it is irrelevant to the topic. Your propensity to pigeon-hole and label people and then radically change gears in the middle of a conversation and start accusing them of things they never discussed with you makes it difficult for anyone to believe you even know what you are talking about.

Seems like the only accounting you are familiar with is billable hours.  Come back when you learn a thing or two about accounting.

You can't compare apple's to oranges with math. It is what it is. You can't compare Obama's $7 Trillion contribution to the total accumulation to date under Bush. You can't compare round numbers to specific numbers. If you switch from round numbers to specific numbers, then you better make sure those specific numbers are exact (or the best estimate with the known figures).

You can claim some of the deficit during Obama's first year in office is attributed to things in place when Bush left office (some bailout figures if memory serves me correct), but you can't claim that it negates the entire deficit that year nor fail to acknowledge what the entire deficit for the year is. As I said, it is what it is. Math is not subjective. If you want to break up how much gets attributed to each administration, that is fine, but you better have the figures.

But you can't be blaming Bush for Obama's contribution to the Debt. That sir is apple's and oranges. There are Bush's contributions and there is Obama's contributions. They are fairly exact figures if you want to find them. I prefer to deal in round figures in this case because it is simpler for an opinion column. Feel free to get the exact figures if you wish.

Bush? Clinton? Historical deficits? Irrelevant! The topic is Obama's unprecedented and ever growing contribution to the National Debt. But, you digress...

porr,         Love your completely illogical thought process. You are really funny, but too predictable. Your pattern is clear.  1) inane statement,  2) nonsensical response, 3) insults.

Better come up with a new routine or your comedy act will get stale quickly.


Gordon Posner's extraneous contributions to the discussion.
David Compton's picture

Really Ms. Weaver!  Your Precious President "W" incurred most of the $6 Trillion with an illegal war on the nation's credit card in Iraq and profligate, frivilous allocations to the Defense Contractors like Haliburton and CACI along with ill-advised tax cuts that conflated the debt.  OBAMA HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS!  Since you appear to get your news from the Fox Trots, you are undoubtedly clueless about the fact that the deficit (not the debt) has been cut in half since President Obama has taken office!  Ms. Weaver, I will ask of you one thing - PLEASE DO MAKE SENATOR CRUZ YOUR 2016 PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE!  We would love that.


Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Dave:

   I'd agree except there's this voice in the back of my mind whispering: "Be careful what you wish for"!


P.S. - Welcome back.

I don't know if people really understand that $7+ Trillion so far of our $17+ Trillion dollar debt has been incurred since Obama took office.

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Mr. Orr:

   Since I've already dealt with that overlysimplistic argument above, I won't bother to repeat myself.  Economics is a lot more complicated than you "perceive".

You're right, Mr. Compton. I am a Fox Trotter, but more of an Internet-er of late.

You, obviously, are an MSNBC/CNN/ABC/CBS-er...better known as the drive-by aptly dubbed by Limbaugh...whose word I'll take over the likes of Laurence O'Donnell or Ed Schultz any and every day of the week.

Concerning your claims about deficits/debt under Bush and Obama, I'll refer you to an article on the Forbes website, "The Facts About Budget Deficits: How the Presidents Truly Rank". The writer does a much better and more concise job than I ever could. Below is an excerpt from the article.

"In fiscal 2009, TARP contributed $151 billion to the budget deficit, but in 2010 and 2011, $147 billion of that amount was recouped and thus reduced the size of the deficit during President Obama’s watch."

As for making Cruz our nominee...if only I had that power. I don't agree with his stance on some things, but I DO like the fact that the Democrats can't insult him, they can't intimidate him and they can't shut him up. (Dianne Feinstein can verify that!)

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Judy:

   Thanks for the article.  I wonder why you didn't include a link to it (since we can do that now)?  So allow me to supply it:

   It would be nice if this came from an impartial and unbiased source, instead of from the founding executive director of the George W. Bush Institute, part of the George W. Bush Presidential Center in Dallas, Texas!

   There's one part of what he wrote I agree with, the part which touches on a point I made in my other Comment:

The only tricky part is whether to give a president credit (or blame) for his incoming and outgoing years.

   The problem is it's even trickier than he makes out.  You see, as in Physics, in Economics you have to consider the problem of inertia.  Once the economy is moving in one direction, it takes time to slow it down, much less to reverse course.  And there are plenty of factors that play a part.

   That, of course, is part of the Republi-Con double standard I spoke of earlier (and his article is essentially more of the same).  Reagan and Bush aren't to blame for their economic problems, it was all the fault of their predecessors (Carter and Clinton).   But how dare anyone even suggest that Obama's economy in anyway is due to the policies of Bush the Second (even in part)!  This article is a more sophisticated form of the same thing.

   I take issue with his use of averages, not to mention the GDP. After all, in a booming economy that number goes up, in a recession it goes down.  For much the same reason deficits go down in "boom times", and increase in recessions.  So that skews things.

   But using averages is suspect all by itself.  Why?  Well an old joke illustrates the point: Bill Gates walks into a skid row bar, and the bartender declares "Wow!  The average income here is now in the billions!"

   Finally, the article uses Governor Dean's reference to unemployment. (Though it doesn't give us the entire exchange, which makes me wonder how accurately Dean was quoted, and whether his remarks are taken out-of-context).  But Bush's "contribution" to our woes consists of more than just the unemployment numbers.  Remember, the great economic meltdown began under Bush, and was (at least partly) the result of the policies he pursued and championed.  (Mostly, what I call mindless deregulation - instead of the thoughtful kind.)  You, and other Republi-Cons try to deny him any responsibility for that, or put only the slightest amount there.  In contrast, I blame many, including Clinton, Phil Gramm, and both some Democrats as well as Republicans.  But then, it's the policies I put the blame on, not just a particular party.  (Though, to the extent today's Republi-Cons want to continue said policies - the blame is all theirs.)

   What I can't deny (to use the author's words) is that the troubles of today have at least some roots in the past, and those roots were planted by Bush the Second (among others).

P.S. - And you do realize that the part you quoted shreds an objection "conservatives" made against the TARP (as administered under Obama), as well as establishes something they either deny, or ignore: much of the money spent has been recouped!  (And as any economist will tell you, that's not the only measure of whether or not the program was successful, we must also consider the benefit it produced, and the harm that might have ensued without it.  However, since I have my own problems with how TARP was run, I'm not going to speak in its defense.)

P.P.S. - Tell me, Judy, is shameless self-promotion the sole quality you admire in a candidate?  "Saint Sarah of Alaska" had the same character, and as I recall you admired her too!  I should point out that you Republi-Cons can't insult me, can't intimidate me, and can't shut me up either.  Does that make me good "presidential timber"?

   (Don't worry, I have no plans to run, still being marginally sane!  I've often thought anyone who wants to be President should be disqualified for that very reason.)

"It would be nice if this came from an impartial and unbiased source, instead of from the founding..."...blah blah blah

Not cute and certainly not clever on your part, Gordon. You obviously read Mr. Glassman's bio (included on the webpage), but chose to mention only what is probably the least of his accomplishments--as a way to discredit him.

Here's what you left out...

Hosts and moderates "Ideas in Action", a weekly tv series on public policy issues

Was a regular on the 1990s CNN show, "Capital Gang Sunday" and PBS's "Techno Politics"

Was president of the Atlantic Monthly magazine, publisher of the New Republic magazine, executive vp of U.S. News and World Report, editor and co-owner of Roll Call (the Congressional newspaper)

Served as chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, then was Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs under Bush II

Has authored three books on investing

His articles on finance, economics and foreign policy have appeared in the NY Times, WSJ, the LA Times, Kiplinger's Personal Finance and Forbes

So, with all due respect, I think I'll trust his judgment on these such things over yours!

As for taking Howard Dean's words out-of-context...if Glassman did, he probably did the old doc a favor...YEE-HAW!!

And, no, those qualities make neither you nor Cruz good presidential timber. But I am impressed with his willingness to confront those (such as Feinstein) who think they are above it all.

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Judy:

   What's neither cute nor clever is your penchant for "guessing" my motives, and getting them wrong.  I wasn't trying to discredit Mr. Glassman by observing his background, merely calling attention to a fact which could lead one to question his "objectivity".  Are you telling me you wouldn't do the same if I referenced an article by Governor Dean praising Obama's handling of the economy?

   Any "discrediting" I did came when I discussed the substance of the article, which I  notice you've completely evaded and avoided.  Why not deal with that?

   Whether Glassman did Dean a "favor" neither of us can say, but in case it's escaped your notice, I've frequently condemned partial quotes taken out-of-context, whether the victim is Pelosi or Romney (who likes being able to fire people who don't do their job).   Obviously you don't feel the same, since you make light of the possibility.  (Part of the reason you're "accuracy challeneged" - you can't be bothered with facts.)

   And being able to challenge people with false estimates of their "virtue" is another quality Cruz and I share.  After all, I do it constantly with you, Mr. Orr., Mr. Moore, Roy Azzarello . . . .

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Judy:

   You could at least try not to live down to the stereotype of the typical Republi-Con.  Really?  Limbaugh is your prophet and guide?  That hardly indicates "independent thinking" on your part.  Please tell me you're not one of his (aptly named) dittoheads!

  For the record, I don't listen to either O'Donnell or Schultz, and hardly ever to MSNBC.  When I do, as with most other media, I pay attention to and fact check their sources.  You should try it yourself with Faux News and Squawk Radio.  You may not like what you find.

Frank Blunt's picture

There sure are a lot of right wing nut sheep in the west valley. It's hard to believe so many people are sucked in by the right wing fear and smear, but given the lack of facts in the corporate media, it's understandable.

Gordon Posner's picture

Dear Mr. Orr:

    You are hysterically funny! You don't know it, but you just stepped through the looking glass!  (I'll tell you how and why another time.)

Is "telling me another time" anything like when the White Queen tells Alice, " The rule is, jam tomorrow and jam yesterday- but never jam to-day"?

The flaw in your comment to Judy and your comment above, is that you used an analogy to communicate your thoughts. Rather than saying what you actually mean, you resort to ambiguity.

That makes it difficult for the reader because what you said could have many different interpretations.

Whenever there is ambiguity in people's comments, it is generally a red flag that they are going to embark on some form of deception or spin, especially when they begin using some ridiculous analogy.

Please spare us from whatever egocentric or scurrilous sophistry you plan to unleash in order to make yourself sound ass-tute. You had your say on this matter in your letter a few weeks ago.

Gordon Posner's picture


Dear Mr. Orr:

   Glad to see you caught the reference.  I was afraid it might be too obscure.  (Most people know about Alice's Adventures In Wonderland, but not as many know about the other book).

   And the flaw in your argument is that I made no "analogy" at all.  (But I'll demonstrate that when I tell you exactly why the reference applies.  It will be in a letter I'm still composing, one which won't appear until after another letter I sent is printed, so you'll have to wait.)

   Since I've made several Comments (plural) to Judy on this page, I'm not sure which one you're referring to, or which part you think uses an analogy.  I'm pretty sure none of them did - but if you care to be more precise I'll reconsider my perception.

   But complaints about "ambiguity" and how what's said "could have many different interpretations" is (I repeat) hysterically funny coming from someone who insists words can mean whatever he damn well wants!  At the risk of being imperious, there's a scene from the movie The Last Emperor which illustrates my point precisely.  The young emperor is being instructed in English by his tutor (played by the great Peter O'Toole), and complains that he shouldn't have to be bothered with all this.  Why is correct use of language important anyway?  In response O'Toole replies:

Unless you can say what you mean, you can never mean what you say!

   To repeat myself, "conservatives" by using the term "Socialism!" as a catch-all epithet for anything they dislike (including private insurance like Blue Cross) have caused the word to become meaningless!   And it doesn't matter one whit whether the circles you run in (also known as the great "conservative" echo chamber) agree on the way you use it - that's still not it's meaning!

   By the way, you know what fits your definition of "socialism"?  Much of the Reagan and Bush tax cuts!  After all, they allow people who inherited money they didn't work for, and live off it without working, to pay lower taxes (or no taxes at all), while getting the benefit of government, which the rest of us have to pay for in one way or another.

  (And I won't discuss further your egocentric and scurrilous sophistry in using that definition, particularly in regards to "Obamacare".  It's simply a tiresome repeat of the Republi-Con theme of the "Black Welfare Queen", or the updated version I call "Romney's Moochers" - the infamous "47%".  If you know anything about where that number actually came from and what it actually means, you know how utterly false Romney's remarks were.  The same applies to yours!)

   I will add, however, that you're the one frequently taking refuge in ambiguity!  (For example, your deliberate failure here to specify what you were talking about.)