Comments by Michael Varin | Eastern North Carolina Now

There is not a legitimate economist alive today who will argue that eliminating valuable social programs will solve the deficit problem. And most economists will definitely not tell you that raising taxes on the wealthy will make it worse because it takes money from producers and gives it to moochers. You need to develop a better understanding of demographics where social spending is concerned. The overwhelming majority of those who receive government assistance are not "moochers." Period. That's a myth that's been debunked by countless legitimate sources. Guys like Papa John, who pay their part-time workers minimum wage with no benefits while relying on the government to provide assistance to their exploited workforce, are not producers. He amassed a $400 million fortune while doing this. People like that are pathetic moochers.

Commented: Thursday, January 3rd, 2013 @ 8:19 pm By: Michael Varin

Diane, I can't help but wonder why your articles are accessible via this website. Your articles and the reasoning behind them are vastly superior to everything else I've found here. You and I disagree on many, many issues but I respect your sincerity. It's clear that love of country and intellectual curiosity are are your driving forces. They're mine as well. I believe I did the rational, intelligent, and responsible thing when I voted for Obama.

The Republicans should have won this election easily. However, they selected a candidate almost entirely lacking in credibility. They focused on petty issues like birth certificates and college transcripts. They labeled Obama, who is obviously in the pockets of the Wall Street elite, as a Socialist. He was heavily backed by Goldman Sachs and an endless line of millionaires and billionaires in both elections. Americans recognized these accusations as absurd, spiteful, and petty. And Obamacare..it requires capable Americans to purchase insurance from private insurance companies. This is a FAR cry from a Socialist agenda. There were countless legitimate criticisms which Republicans could have aimed at Obama. But they went with the most outlandish and lost as a result.

Commented: Wednesday, November 7th, 2012 @ 7:15 pm By: Michael Varin

Just over 40% )$9 million) of Bain's initial funding came from families with close ties to death squads in El Salvador. This is a well-documented fact yet it's one you chose to omit here. What is the reason for this omission? And nobody has ever tried to refute the fact that Romney made a lot of money for Bain Capital and its investors. But he did it at the expense of thousands of American jobs. You and many other conservatives are fond of mentioning Staples. How about mentioning the dozens of other companies which were victims of Bain's leverage buyouts? You say that Romney knows what it takes to create businesses. That's a joke. Romney knows how to destroy businesses and make large fortunes for his investors in the process. How about explaining to your readers how we, the American taxpayers, ultimately foot the bill for these leveraged buyouts? No? You'd rather leave out those pertinent details? Exactly.

Commented: Monday, October 22nd, 2012 @ 8:32 pm By: Michael Varin

South Korea? South Korea ditched private, voluntary health insurance for government-mandated universal coverage. They've got "Obamacare".....squared! Military service has long been mandatory there. The South Korean government exerts an enormous amount of control over private industry..and they've propped up more than a few South Korean corporations through bailouts like the ones you criticize here. Yet South Korea has done fairly well in an intensely competitive global economy. So, what points were you trying to make about Obama with this article? And why couldn't you manage to read "Atlas Shrugged" before writing about Rand's beliefs. I read that book in the sixth grade. Rand was a horrific writer. But I at least managed to "tackle this tome" before offering up my opinion on its meaning. Cliff Notes. For "Atlas Shrugged." Wow. Alicia, you are indeed a true conservative. Stan, this is a bad joke.

Commented: Monday, October 22nd, 2012 @ 7:50 pm By: Michael Varin

To be honest, I think the constitutionality of Obamacare is moot. Employers large and small and hospital administrators nationwide have said that massive and sweeping changes have already been made to the way they do business because of Obamacare. Reversing these changes would be extraordinarily difficult, time-consuming, expensive and disruptive. For better or worse, Obamacare's a reality. I think it's time for the American people to accept this and move on. History will decide whether it was ultimately for the better or worse.

Commented: Sunday, October 21st, 2012 @ 10:01 am By: Michael Varin

Jim, I'm curious as to why so many billionaires support Obama if he's such a hardcore Socialist interested in redistributing wealth. And you seem really fond of this notion that "earning" money is important. Does it matter if you earned it through leveraged buyouts which cost thousands of Americans their jobs? Also, on the topic of drilling.....George Kaiser (of Solyndra fame) is a billionaire who made his fortune from oil, correct? Why does he support Obama if Obama's drilling policies are so restrictive?

Commented: Wednesday, October 17th, 2012 @ 1:10 pm By: Michael Varin

I see, Stan. You make fewer points and are therefore more succinct. Sorry. I'm always forgetting how fond conservatives are of bumper sticker slogans and arguments.

Regarding Solyndra, you're pointing the finger at the wrong president. That's the norm with you. Follow the timeline, Stan:

May 2005: Solyndra is founded to provide a cost-competitive alternative to silicon-based panels.

July 2005: The Bush Administration signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program.

December 2006: Solyndra Applies for a Loan Guarantee under the 1703 program.

November 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush Administration DOE moves forward with funding.

Get your facts straight, Stan. Just once. Please.

Commented: Monday, October 8th, 2012 @ 7:49 am By: Michael Varin

So you propose we continue deporting? It costs a fortune. And they simply sneak across the border again. And again. And again. We've spent billions trying to "strengthen our border." It hasn't worked. We've tried rounding them up and deporting them. It hasn't worked. We're billions in the hole and have seen zero return on our investments. What's your proposed solution, Mr. Bispo? I'm sure your snarky tone gets a few chuckles. But it doesn't bring us any closer to a solution.

Commented: Sunday, October 7th, 2012 @ 9:42 am By: Michael Varin

Stan, you he lied repeatedly. Here are the top ten. If you could defend any of these statements, please do.

1) “Get us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs”. Romney’s plan for “energy independence” actually relies heavily on a study that assumes the U.S. continues with fuel efficiency standards set by the Obama administration. For instance, he uses Citigroup research based off the assumption that “‘the United States will continue with strict fuel economy standards that will lower its oil demand.” Since he promises to undo the Obama administration’s new fuel efficiency standards, he would cut oil consumption savings of 2 million barrels per day by 2025.

2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amounts to $5 trillion over the decade.

3) “My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.” If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.

4) “My — my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” As the Tax Policy Center concluded, Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. “He’s promised all these things and he can’t do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he’d have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year,” the Center found.

5) “I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong.” The studies Romney cites actually further prove that Romney would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction.

6) “I saw a study that came out today that said you’re going to raise taxes by $3,000 to $4,000 on middle-income families.” Romney is pointing to this study from the American Enterprise Institute. It actually found that rather than raise taxes to pay down the debt, the Obama administration’s policies — those contained directly in his budget — would reduce the share of taxes that go toward servicing the debt by $1,289.89 per taxpayer in the $100,000 to $200,000 range.

7) “And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate; 54 percent of America’s workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate, but at the individual tax rate….97 percent of the businesses are not — not taxed at the 35 percent tax rate, they’re taxed at a lower rate. But those businesses that are in the last 3 percent of businesses happen to employ half — half of all the people who work in small business.” Far less than half of the people affected by the expiration of the upper income tax cuts get any of their income at all from a small businesses. And those people could very well be receiving speaking fees or book royalties, which qualify as “small business income” but don’t have a direct impact on job creation. It’s actually hard to find a small business who think that they will be hurt if the marginal tax rate on income earned above $250,000 per year is increased.

8 ) “Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half.” Oil production from federal lands is higher, not lower: Production from federal lands is up slightly in 2011 when compared to 2007. And the oil and gas industry is sitting on 7,000 approved permits to drill, that it hasn’t begun exploring or developing.

9) “The president’s put it in place as much public debt — almost as much debt held by the public as all prior presidents combined.” This is not even close to being true. When Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. Now the national debt is over $16 trillion. That $5.374 trillion increase is nowhere near as much debt as all the other presidents combined.

10) “That’s why the National Federation of Independent Businesses said your plan will kill 700,000 jobs. I don’t want to kill jobs in this environment.” That study, produced by a right-wing advocacy organization, doesn’t analyze what Obama has actually proposed.

Commented: Saturday, October 6th, 2012 @ 2:47 pm By: Michael Varin

For once, Stan, I agree. Obama was trounced. Did someone slip the guy a Quaalude before the debate or something? That being said, Romney disregarded every rule of debate, repeatedly interrupted the moderator and his opponent, and ignored time limits. He acted like a petulant child with an outrageous sense of entitlement. And that's exactly what he is.

Commented: Thursday, October 4th, 2012 @ 9:53 am By: Michael Varin

CNN isn't a government agency and its access to and investigation of the ambassadors death are inherently less complex than any actions proposed by the FBI. That being said, I absolutely agree that the agency should investigate. However, the animals who perpetrate acts like this strike and retreat, blend into the general population with ease, and are unlikely to be informed on due to fears of retaliation. Investigations are, unfortunately, bound to reveal anything meaningful or "actionable."

I'm still curious about what you believe Obama is hiding with regards to this attack. Your article certainly has a conspiratorial tone. Where's the conspiracy?

Commented: Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012 @ 8:47 am By: Michael Varin

As for what "lefties" do with the constitution, the Roe v. Wade decision was 7-2. Five of the seven Majority Justices behind that decision were appointed by Republican presidents..three of them by Nixon, that notorious "lefty." And you seem to take issue with the fact that the first amendment permits flag-burning. You'd prefer a more "Orwellian" approach to law enforcement?

According to the article about the YouTube "video guy" your article links to, he was picked up by "AMERICAN authorities" because he's currently on probation. He's been convicted of financial crimes and the "authorities" suspected him of violating the terms of his probation. Nothing even close to Orwellian government action.

As for Bill Maher, he's a comedian. I agree that he's incredibly smug and obnoxious but the film you reference definitely cannot be compared to the anti-Muslim film on YouTube. I haven't seen it but I read this in a description of it: "Maher goes to a Creationist Museum in Kentucky, which shows that dinosaurs and people lived at the same time 5000 years ago." That actually sounds pretty funny. I might have to check that movie out.

Also, I must have missed the segment of the evening news with members of Obama's administration saying the producer of that YouTube video was responsible for the embassy attacks. Could you provide a link to that particular segment?

The Family Research Council is a "respected, mainstream religious right lobbying group"? First of all, "respected" by whom? Secondly, how can an organization be "mainstream" and "religious right" at the same time?

And the Islamist nutbags at Gitmo..do you happen to remember which administration put them there? What do you think should be done with them? Sorry for all the questions, Brant, but you're right.."stuff like this illustrates the crossroads our nation has reached" and I think asking questions like these helps keep the conversation honest.

Commented: Tuesday, October 2nd, 2012 @ 10:30 am By: Michael Varin

We're in Afghanistan to show its citizens the "big exciting world just waiting for them to explore"? I'm glad I read this article as I had no idea this was one of our primary incentives for invading their country. Nor did I realize that "American" and "Christian" were synonymous. Or are you only seeking apologies for the deaths of American servicemen of the Christian faith?

The war in Afghanistan isn't about religion. It's a part of the "global war on terror," remember? For this reason (and countless others) it made perfect sense for Obama to apologize for the "accidental" burning of Korans.

We have absolutely no reason to believe the people of Afghanistan will ultimately support our endeavors in their country. The fact that military and police units trained by the United States are killing U.S. servicemen is tragic but unsurprising.

Having served four years in the Marine Corps ( Cherry Point, '94 - '98 ) I am as devastated by our losses in Afghanistan and Iraq as any American citizen. Several friends of mine are still serving and each would agree with your assessment of our need for withdrawal. Their families and I certainly agree wholeheartedly. That being said, I don't think bringing religion into the discussion will bring us any closer to this shared goal.

Commented: Wednesday, August 15th, 2012 @ 8:06 am By: Michael Varin

Sure, Stan. Liberals. Always shouting down their opponents. Exactly. Like that liberal Ann Coulter, right? And Limbaugh. And O'Reilly. What's it like seeing life through a mirror, Stan?

Commented: Sunday, August 12th, 2012 @ 11:12 am By: Michael Varin

Stan, do you want praise for working 70 hours/wk? You're not gonna get it from me as I've been doing the same for 20 years and don't expect any special recognition for it. "You don't have the time to understand"? That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? You don't even pretend to try to understand views which aren't exactly in line with yours. If articles which coincide with your views are the only ones you're willing to include on your site, you're a propagandist. Articles you publish aren't honest journalistic pieces. They're conservative propaganda.

And this socialism thing again? Stan, what are you talking about? Read the Wall Street Journal article about how Obama has significantly DECREASED federal spending. How does that happen with a "socialist" president? How does Romney represent this "idea" you support? And you're saying Obama's the wrong man for the job because he's NOT "uncool"? Show your readers some facts which support your "ideas" and cite at least a few reliable sources. I've yet to see you cite one.

Commented: Friday, August 10th, 2012 @ 8:45 pm By: Michael Varin

Stan, you criticize liberals for their blanket criticisms. How about yours? You seem perfectly willing to say all liberals are incapable of forming "complex thoughts in an honest manner." So we're dumb AND dishonest. And you clearly think anyone who would dare to disagree with you is an idiot.

You say that liberals are obsessed by mistakes made during that "long-gone" Bush era. Yes, Stan.....we're still upset about those kids who died fighting the wrong war in the wrong country. As a former Marine, I'm disgusted. Do you suggest the parents of those kids simply pretend the war never happened and was funded by Monopoly money?

And regarding the economy:
- Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008. That was before Obama was elected, and nearly four months before he took office on Jan. 20, 2009.

- President Bush signed the massive spending bill under which the government was operating when Obama took office. That was Sept. 30, 2008.

- Bush also signed, on Oct. 3, 2008, a bank bailout bill that authorized another $700 billion.....though not all of that would end up being spent in fiscal 2009, as Obama signed a measure REDUCING total bailout spending to $475 billion.

- On Jan. 7, 2009 — two weeks before Obama took office — CBO issued its budget outlook, stating: “CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion.”

- CBO attributed the rapid rise to the bank bailout and the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – plus rising costs for unemployment insurance and other factors driven by the collapsing economy (which shed 818,000 jobs in January alone).

Note that most of this spending is the direct result of laissez faire/free market principles behind the global economic crisis. Principles, mind you, which Romney has long supported and Obama has long opposed. So who am I going to vote for, Stan? Obama. I believe I'm fairly intelligent and well-informed. But I'll not have the gall to accuse all Romney supporters of being stupid or misinformed. They have their votes and I have mine. I'll leave all the blanket criticisms and accusations in your hands. You seem to have a pretty good grasp on them.

Commented: Friday, August 10th, 2012 @ 9:41 am By: Michael Varin

Our supplies of oil, natural gas, and coal are finite. Use of these resources will rise exponentially with population growth and this use negatively impacts the climate of our world. According to a comprehensive study of hydraulic fracturing conducted by Duke University, many of the more costly and invasive methods of extraction represent even greater risks to our environment. Alternative resources must eventually be found. These are facts, not "false notions of sustainability."

Our understanding of climate change and its causes are limited. However, very few scientists would deny that fossil fuels are one of the greatest contributing factors. Even the Koch-funded climate change skeptic Richard Muller has joined this consensus.

Yet you suggest we rely on the free market to avert disaster. You say "it is foolish and immoral for government to operate under what could be a false assumption." You would rather our government heed the advice of the .1% of scientists (paid by energy companies) who are still expressing doubts. That's ridiculous. It would be foolish and immoral for the government to ignore the 99.9% of scientists who say we must find alternative energy sources and the longer we wait, the great our misfortune.

Commented: Thursday, August 9th, 2012 @ 1:20 pm By: Michael Varin