Colorado just ruled bakeries CAN refuse anti-gay cakes, but not pro-gay wedding cakes

A Denver bakery recently won the right to refuse to bake a cake with an anti-gay message, prompting one famous Colorado conservative columnist to ask if it’s a double standard.

The dispute arose a year ago, when local resident William Jack asked Denver’s Azucar Bakery to bake several cakes, each depicting a Bible and decorated with biblical verses condemning homosexuality. The bakery refused, and Jack filed a civil rights complaint.

Michelle Malkin saw something fishy about the decision and tweeted:

According to the Denver ABC affiliate:

Last week, the Colorado Civil Rights Division ruled that Denver’s Azucar Bakery did not discriminate against William Jack, a Christian from Castle Rock, by refusing to make two cakes with anti-gay messages and imagery that he requested last year.


Last year, the Colorado Civil Rights Division ruled that another bakery, Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood, could not refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, calling it discriminatory.

Malkin’s fans agreed.

Sounds like the Colorado Civil Rights Division should review its old decisions before announcing new ones. Maybe they just want to have their cake and eat it too.

Be sure to also check out:
Watch Crowder go undercover to Muslim bakeries to order gay wedding cake

Dancing fool Michelle Obama represents US with ‘dignity,’ said no sane person, ever

We know first-hand that censorship against conservative news is real. Please share stories and encourage your friends to sign up for our daily email blast so they are not getting shut out of seeing conservative news.


413 thoughts on “Colorado just ruled bakeries CAN refuse anti-gay cakes, but not pro-gay wedding cakes

  1. wsurfs . says:

    How about putting something on the cake like this:
    Christians disapprove of Gays and Gays disapprove of Christians…!!
    Or this:
    Gays support same-sex marriage. Christians don’t support same-sex marriage…!!
    Is that discrimination?

  2. Benjamin McKay says:

    Both businesses have the right to refuse to make any product they find offensive. It is only discrimination when you refuse to serve people based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. It is NOT discrimination to refuse to make a specific product.

    1. dunstvangeet says:

      The difference:

      1. What Masterpiece did was refuse to serve someone based upon their sexual orientation. As soon as he found out what the wedding cake was for, he refused to make it. There was no discussion of how it would be decorated. And I have no doubt that if a straight couple had come in with exactly the same wants in the cake, he would have served them. He refused to serve the gay couple on the sole basis of their sexual orientation.

      2. What Azucar Bakery did was refuse to decorate a cake in a certain way. She even offered to sell them the cake, the frosting, and the tools to write out the message. She just refused to write the message herself.

      1. Brian Robinson says:

        Yeah that’s totally different. Azucar Bakery refused based on Religion.

  3. Philip Natale says:

    I thought all businesses had the right to refuse service? Also, if a potential customer refused to shop at a specific retailer because of look, beliefs, or anything else, would the shop owner get to sue the potential customer? Lastly, since when did it become a thing to force anyone to do anything they did not want to do… in America?

  4. Michelle says:

    Oh , my. I need to tell my priest about you.

    1. BobFromDistrict9 says:

      Please do. What parish? If he wants to I’ll give him a call and talk to him.

      1. Michelle says:

        I didn’t say he is looking for a boyfriend…..

        1. BobFromDistrict9 says:

          You didn’t say he’s Episcopal either.

          At least you didn’t say you were a good Catholic, that would have been a lie.

          My wife say’s I’m a good Catholic boy, the only kind she marries.

  5. Rick Caird says:

    You are a day behind. Try to keep up :

    BTW, why did it take you five days to come up with that lame response?

    1. SusieQ says:

      You will hear from Bob for the next month as he mulls over responses for days and weeks. He does not like to be corrected. Insults are also part of his campaign. Bizarre.

      1. BobFromDistrict9 says:

        You were looking in the mirror when you posted that.

        1. SusieQ says:

          You are so childish, get help. Read the replies to you and see the truth.

          1. BobFromDistrict9 says:

            You were looking in the mirror when you posted that.

          2. SusieQ says:

            Wow! You finally got to the part of your bedtime story “Snow White” about a mirror, keep reading it gets really meaty later. There is a mention of one of the dwarfs who is from Saudi Arabia. His name is “Sandy”.

    2. BobFromDistrict9 says:

      Did you read your link? Al Qaeda is celebrating the Saudi intervention. Al Qaeda is gaining territory because the Houthi are being blocked. Al Qaeda was under attack and being beaten back by forces loyal to a former president who is allied with the Houthi.

      Quoting from your own source:

      “Mr Saleh was, for years, a trusted counter-terrorism partner of Washington.

      He authorised the very first CIA drone strike in Yemen back in 2002.

      Since then teams of US Special Forces trainers have rotated through Yemen, mentoring and advising his Special Forces to fight al-Qaeda.

      Today some of those very forces are on the receiving end of US-made precision guided missiles supplied to the Royal Saudi Air Force. Such is the mess Yemen is in.”

      1. Rick Caird says:

        Sheesh: “Al Qaeda is celebrating the Saudi intervention. Al Qaeda is gaining
        territory because the Houthi are being blocked. Al Qaeda was under
        attack and being beaten back by forces loyal to a former president who
        is allied with the Houthi.”

        The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Is it your wild contention that Al Quada is looking to ally with Saudi Arabia to dethrone the Yemeni government? Remember, al Quada would love to dethrone the Saudi government, too.

        I am glad you included the final sentence: “Such is the mess Yemen is in”

        1. BobFromDistrict9 says:

          ” Is it your wild contention that Al Quada is looking to ally with Saudi Arabia to dethrone the Yemeni government?”

          Where have you been? Al Qaeda is sponsored by rich Saudis, probably part of the Royal Family. At the very least tied to the Royal Family. They have been all along. Saudi Arabia was the birthplace of Al Qaeda.

          Al Qaeda would love to dethrone everyone else and take over the entire Middle East. Note I did not say the Saudi Govt, but rich Saudis, probably connected to the government. Wahhabi is the official religion of Saudi Arabia, and Al Qaeda is the ultimate form of Wahhabi. Though ISIS may take that crown now.

          Royal governments in the Middle East have their own families as their greatest threat, always have.

          1. Rick Caird says:

            There are a huge number of Saudi’s that share in the wealth, but are not a part of or influential on the government. The Saudi government is not in favor of Al Quada. Certainly, Iran would want to take over the Middle East, Turkey would like to reestablish the Caliphate with them in control, ISIS would like to supplant Al Quada and reestablish the caliphate. So, picking one and then finding some supporters is not tantamount to some vast conspiracy to take over governments.

    3. BobFromDistrict9 says:

      What makes you think this is the most important thing in the world to me?

      My analysis stands.

      1. Rick Caird says:

        Way to punt the ball away.

  6. Rick Caird says:

    Well, you made a couple of errors, Bob.

    Your first paragragh is not very clear, but a counter example is Bin Laden and Al Quada. They challenged the government but, from outside the country. There is quite a bit of infighting going on in the country. There are those who are funding and encouraging both ISIS and Al Quada. Ultimately, that is a challenge to the government.

    Next you say that Iran would not try to take over the Middle East because of Sunni vs Shia conflict. But, Iran would like to rebuild the Persian Empire and in doing so would impose their version of religion as all victors do. Remember, the Roman Empire tried to install their gods and religion where it was possible. Another counter example would be Saddam Hussein who took over a Shia nation, Iraq, and ruled it as a Sunni. He was pretty effective at doing that and would still be there absent the US.

    Your argument that Iran is peacefull and not involved in terrorism is nonsense. Iran was responsible for a number of the suicide bombings in Iraq after al Maliki took over the government. Then there was the Shia guy, Muqtada al Sadr, with his own malitia, who was a thorn in side of the goverment and was constantly fleeing to Iran. Then there is also Argentina where Iran is accused of the bombing of the Jewish temple and with the killing of the prosecutor, Alberto Nisman. I do not buy any argument that claims Iran is not a terrorist nation and Shia don’t get involved in terrorism.

    Turkey is moving away from secular government under Erdogan. That is not a good thing. As Erdogan consolidated power, he fired the top military commanders. That is just like Obama and Iraq. The Iraq military was disbanded because it was considered a threat. It was led by Sunni’s and since ISIS is Sunni, it is not so surprising there are Sunni military people moving towards them.

    It is unreasonable to compare the Saudi effort in Yemen to the effort in Iraq. The reason is that the Saudi’s were already taking a political risk in allowing the US and other allies to base in Saudi Arabia. Remember, that is what set off bin Laden. Second, there is no US based coalition to fight in Yemen. So, the situations in Yemen and Iraq are not comparable.

    1. BobFromDistrict9 says:

      My first paragraph is perfectly clear.

      “Saudi Arabia is a total dictatorship and Wahhabi.”

      What you said about Al Qaeda and ISIS is covered in my comment. They are supported by Rich Saudis. Those rich Saudis do tend to be tied to the govt, but still support the terrorists.

      What Iran would like to do is not the same as what they are stupid enough to attempt to do.

      I have pointed out how often a country is ruled by a minority. What would be much more difficult is to take over other countries and impose their own religion. Saddam did not take over a Shiite country and change that much, he took over a Sunni ruled Shiite majority country and continued the pattern of Sunni rule, with US help.

      I said Iran has not been reported as being involved in terrorism by the US National Counter Terrorism Center. Iran was not named as being responsible for terror in Iraq. However, read what I posted again, I said Shiite militias committed terrorist counter attacks in retaliation for Sunni terrorist attacks. Again, from the NCTC.

      Iran is accused and accused and accused, but there is no evidence, in some cases the evidence is just the opposite, and in some cases they are accused of plots where there is no evidence there was a plot.

      I know about Turkey. Remember, I said it was secular before this govt took power. Just yesterday several of my contacts with Turkish insight were saying that exact thing, Turkey is a democracy that is voting for theocracy.

      They are saddened by that. Turkey used to be a lot better. Many of them are leaving Turkey, or already have.

      Erdogan didn’t just fire them, he put a few on trial, a few of the top ones.

      It was Bush who fired the Iraqi command, not Obama.

      What difference is there between Iraq and Yemen as far as US bases? Bin Laden would have been set off by US forces there no matter why.

      The comparison is Saudi Arabia in interfering in a civil war in Yemen only to kill Shiite. ISIS is much the greater threat, and the US want’s a coalition, but Saudi Arabia won’t lift a finger to right Salafist Sunnis, no matter how many people they murder how brutally.

      The point being, how the hell is Saudi Arabia our friend?

  7. Redd_Melendez says:

    I never denied government played a role.

    You diverted the argument with that straw man after I explained how the Abolitionist movement forced it politically.

    That’s after you were exposed as having no clue what treason was or the case law defining it.

    I made this clear but you needed a way to save face.


  8. Redd_Melendez says:

    9 trillion in new debt.

    Nothing more needs to be said as Obama had the Congress to stop expenditures he inherited but ran the debt up more instead.

    I rest my case.

    1. BobFromDistrict9 says:

      Good, take a rest. Then try to figure out how he could kill about 9% of the economy and not toss the whole thing into a deeper recession.

      That’s how much blocking Bush’s last deficit would have cost. I don’t see how he could even do it without deeply cutting military spending, social security and/or medicare. All that in one year with no one having time to adjust anything to survive.

      At no time have you seen me say one word indicating I think it would have been any kind of a good thing for him to balance the budget while the country was sliding into a depression. That would probably finish this country off.

      1. Redd_Melendez says:

        Translation: Spending is only bad when a Republican does it.

        Why doesn’t Obama propose it now?

        The GOP would support it.

        Oh that’s right, austerity works best with an expanding GDP but we don’t have one.

        Nothing stopped Obama from not approving NEW spending.

        Huge hole in your claim.

        1. BobFromDistrict9 says:

          Spending is good when it’s spent well. So republican spending is often quite bad.

          Why doesn’t Obama propose what? A balanced budget?

          Do you know anything about the history of balanced budgets in the 20th century?

          Why would he propose it now?

          Austerity is meaning less, seldom has anything to do with good. Yes, we do have an expanding GDP. It’s just expanding too slowly.

          Why would Obama not approve new spending? Just because it’s new? There is a lot of new spending that should be enacted and signed.

          Do you actually have something coherent to say?

          1. Redd_Melendez says:

            Of course. Welfare spending good but national defense is bad. Austerity only means temporary setbacks and not permanent as many other variables are affected with a stronger dollar. The GDP is up and down and is not showing any momentum.

            you aren’t even smart enough to get my point on new spending.

            You don’t spend your way to prosperity in the real world.

          2. JKellogg says:

            My problem with our current spending pattern is that too much of it goes toward programs and services whose supply and demand curves are too elastic — which automatically builds in dead-weight losses.

          3. Redd_Melendez says:

            Yep, the velocity of such spending never lasts. Constituency politics encourages pay offs instead of sound investment.

          4. BobFromDistrict9 says:

            “Of course. Welfare spending good but national defense is bad.”

            I’m sorry to hear you believe such a foolish principle is true. I find that statement truly absurd. Ok, neither is really a good thing, but both are better than the alternative.

            Without welfare spending people go hungry, starve, live on the streets, etc. People literally die without welfare spending.

            However, you need to remember, welfare should carry you over until you find work that you can support yourself on. Then the next thing we have to do is to make sure there are enough jobs that pay enough for everyone to have a job that supports a family.

            Without national defense spending we would have been destroyed long ago.

            If you look at the times when the national debt was paid down to the point where it was within reach of being paid off those times are marked by one factor. Everyone of them resulted from a drastic reduction in military spending. So, why wasn’t the debt paid off? I every case but one that drastic reduction was followed by war, This country was seen as vulnerable.

            That one exception was ended by the Great Depression. Which, in turn, was followed by WWII.

            The GDP is not showing momentum because the free trade agreements robbed us of our ability to run our own economy, and the major banks and investment houses are looting what we do recover. The Billionaires are taking almost all the gains. Without a customer base manufacturers in this country can’t sell, and importers take an even bigger bite because customers have to go cheap.

            Austerity does damage that lasts a generation or more. You don’t realize how much loss is never made up.

            A stronger dollar is great for those who have a lot of them. For those trying to get enough to survive it is truly awful.

            You don’t have a point on spending.

            In the real world you do spend your way to prosperity, otherwise there would never be any investment.

          5. Redd_Melendez says:

            You didn’t catch my sarcasm?

            No you didn’t and you admitted the value of defense spending too.

            Why are there more poor people now than during the depression? Because being poor pays well to those who figure out how to game the system.

            Next, austerity does very little damage in a strong economy and that has been shown time and time again.

            A strong dollar is awful for the poor?

            Explain that one.

            Finally, investment is contingent on profit in the real world and if you are going to use the “investment” argument don’t forget to cap the spending at the point where its still a net gain.

            Investment is not spending and they are not the same thing when a profit is not in the equation.

            I have a very sound spending argument because in the real world companies go belly up if they spend money without considering the net return.

            You are not very business savvy are you?

          6. BobFromDistrict9 says:

            You are not very bright, are you.

            I understood you perfectly. You were being a fool and I used that as an opportunity to educate you.

            I did the calculations that gave me the data do educated you on defense spending. What I didn’t tell you was, from before 1941 until today this country has been in a big military spending mode. Yet the debt to GDP ratio dropped from 1946 to 1981 from 122% of GDP to 33%. It did that because social welfare spending improved the productivity of the workers, and taxes were kept high enough to control the debt.

            “Why are there more poor people now than during the depression?”

            Because there are 2 1/5 times as many people in the country today, and we are in another depression.

            Austerity in a strong economy is not the question. Given 100% employment we can pretty well do away with welfare completely. That is my goal, yours is to keep unemployment up, and let people starve.

            A strong dollar means you have to work harder for every dollar, and most people have fewer of them, and your debts are till valued at the lower dollar value.

            IOW, You owed $50K, you still owe $50K, but each dollar will buy what 50 cents would before, only you are being paid at the current purchasing value. So, your former $40K/yr income is not $20k/yr. Yet your debt payments remain the same.

            Oh, yeah, poor people. Your former income of $25K a yr is not $12.5K/yr, but your debt is still $20K, and your debt payments are still the same as they were when you earned twice as much.

            That is exactly what happened in the great depression. The GDP dropped by about 45%, and deflation took hold. So the dollars you did have were worth more, which made the depression look less of a problem. If, however, you owned a home with a mortgage that was twice your annual income, which is not bad at all, suddenly your mortgage is 4 times your annual income. Your income is matched to the value of money, so now you have half the income to pay the same debt.

          7. Redd_Melendez says:

            The PER CAPITA percentage of poor people is higher so you are going to have to explain that and not duck it like you did.

            Ny goal is to keep UE UP? Please explain how you concluded that. I favor low taxes, low regulation. less litigation. and free market policies that INCREASE employment. That Straw Man is weak.

            A stronger dollar means it goes farther and only a complete IDIOT would say its bad. I get how you calculated that but it ignores far too many variables for me to take serious. That is all a result of government interference in the free market in ways that go beyond being the enforcer of the law.

            The Hawley- Smoot Act is what caused the great Depression and isolationist tactics had a huge effect on the dollars world wide strength. The Coolidge tax cuts got the blame there too but it was FDRs intrusive policies that did the damage.

            You sure ignore a lot for an “educated” man.

          8. BobFromDistrict9 says:

            The poverty rate was aprox 22% in 1959. It has fallen as low as 11% since then, but is back up because of the Bush depression. According to the stats I found, it’s been as high as 15%, but was 14% at last report. However, those stats tend to lag by a fair amount.

            “Ny goal is to keep UE UP?”

            I am assuming that was multiple typos. Your goal is to keep unemployment up. Since the policies you favor tend to lead to higher unemployment, what else would one conclude. Since you impute malice rather than a difference of opinion so freely, why are you exempt?

            Fair trade increases employment, free trade reduces employment in this country.

            The free market does not exist, never has, and never will until humans evolve to a higher state. A competitive market is possible, but is the antithesis of a free market.

            Apparently you never even noticed my comments on how debt does not go down when the dollar goes up. Since a strong dollar tends to discourage exports, and encourage imports, it tends to reduce employment. Aren’t you familiar with that simple fact?

            A strong dollar favors the rich, and makes the poor poorer.

            I went back to an article in The Economist:


            I had previously researched the numbers for myself, but didn’t fell like going through that again. The “Historical Statastics of the United States from Colonial Times to 1970” is not an easy read.

            Few economists actually believe Smoot-Hawley caused the depression. A bit of mathamatical thinking should show why. At that time imports were about 4% of the US economy. Smoot Hawley increased duties on imports an average of about 20%, or 8 points. That was an increase, most imports were not subject to duty so they were not affected, about 60% IIRC. The total price increase was calculated at 6%.

            So, your claim is, a duty increase of 20%, or 8% of price, leading to a price increase of 6% on 40% of 4% of the US economy led to a world wide economic breakdown, otherwise known as the Great Depression.

            That’s a price increase on the economy of less than 1%. And you claim that caused a worldwide economic collapse?

            BTW, FDR opposed the bill. It was Hoover who signed it.

            You sure ignore a lot for an “educated” man.

          9. Redd_Melendez says:

            That is because my education factors in the unholy marriage between politics and economics. While you talk to economists, I talk to business men and women who actually hire people.

            The Bush depression?

            You mean you are admitting Obama has failed to get us out of it?

            Wasn’t he hired to get us out of it?

            Yet you are still blaming Bush 6 1/2 years later?

            Trillions of dollars later you are still blaming Bush.

            Lower taxes do not result in high UE and the graphs on government revenue shows revenues go up and not down when investment is encouraged. We see that in Coolidge, JFK, Reagan, and Bush.

            I do not believe in laissez faire economics though as you imply.

            I have never met an employer who fired anybody because of a tax cut. The problems you cite have to do with an over heated economy and can be controlled rather easily.

            FDR’s policies were failures and the recession of 37-38 show this to be the case after 6 years a of macro Keynesian free for all spending spree produced a recession. I did not make the claim you allege either.

            “We’re Spending More Than Ever and It Doesn’t Work”

            Guess who made that quote.

            Treasury Secretary Henry Morganthau admitted that FDRs policies failed.


            Yeah, that really proves your point when FDR’s architect of the New Deal admitted what you say works FAILED!

            Nice revisionist history.

          10. BobFromDistrict9 says:

            You talk to business men who try to hire people for as little as they can get away with.

            I listed the REASONS Obama failed to get us out of the depression. You can read, can’t you?

            I blame Bush for what he did, I blame Obama for what he didn’t do. Truth doesn’t run on a timetable.

            Trillions of dollars later I am blaming Bush for what would not have cost so man Trillions of dollars if he hadn’t screwed up like he did.

            “Lower taxes do not result in high UE and the graphs on government
            revenue shows revenues go up and not down when investment is encouraged.”

            You have managed to weasel word that so magnificently I had to quote it. You never directly tied your first few words to your conclusion, you left it to be inferred. Yet you will spin anything if you are given one inch to do it, so I won’t give you that inch.

            You claimed support for free market policies.. now you say you don’t support a free market. If you want to take bits and pieces either specify which pieces you support or be called out on fraud.

          11. Redd_Melendez says:

            No, I talk to business people who pay market value for the best people. No business excels thinking like that and your lack of real world experience is on display with that claim.

            You also blamed Bush for 6 1/2 years of failure and didn’t “explain” anything. Had Obama gotten the economy going austerity would not be an issue. Instead, he squandered more and more. You say things that only make sense to liberals. I said I believe in the free market not laisez’ faire.

            They are not the same thing.

            The government has a role in prosecuting fraud, antitrust violations, etc.

            Stupid comment but inaccurate.

          12. BobFromDistrict9 says:

            I worked in a company that paid production workers competitively with the auto industry, and they are the top of the manufacturing food chain, or used to be. That’s real world experience. I was at the top of the working class food chain, upper middle clase, top 20%, for most of my working life.

            Yes, I have real world experience, where is yours?

            Those who talk about “market value” or “competitive” are just faking it out.

            You’re right about one thing, no business excels like that, and little of American business excels any more.

            I blame Bush for 14 years of failure. He set this country up to fail when he cut taxes during a war. He threw away a plan to pay off the national debt with no actual reasoning behind it.

            One more time. I already listed where I found Obama guilty. You won’t blame Bush for anything.

            Free market and Laisez’ faire have so little difference as not to matter. You shot your distinctions.

            “The government has a role in prosecuting fraud, antitrust violations, etc.”

            Bang! Goodby bye Free Market.

            “Stupid comment but inaccurate.”

            Yes, yours was.

          13. Redd_Melendez says:

            The level of stupidity in your post is limitless.

            First, I was never asked to criticize Bush. I can find lots wrong with his Presidency but not single him out like you have. I love how you blame Bush for 14 years but he was in office for eight. So was Bush the first President or did Bush also inherit tons of government from Presidents before him? FDR started this whole mess and was the first President to transform America with his programs that still exist today. Then there is the SCOTUS decisions and legislation the Warren Court sanctioned.

            Your argument would fly if Bush was the 1st President who expanded governnment.

            So ‘free” markets equate to fraud? Wrong! Crony Capitalism does when government fails to prosecute a political donor.The FREE Market is only free to engage in legal business and government is there to enforce fraud and antitrust violations.

            Not to do what Barney Frank & Chris Dodd did when Bush was President. You conveniently omit that in your straw man premise this is only about the Executive branch.

            More selective stupidity.

            I can talk days about how Bush screwed us but I won’t let you single him out and thats what bothers you.

            Your selective sophistry is amusing.

          14. BobFromDistrict9 says:

            I didn’t ask you to blame Obama for anything either, but that didn’t stop you.

            I blame Bush for his screw ups that are still hurting us.

            OTOH, even 14 years later the 6,000 or more military who died in Iraq and Afghanistan are still dead. So why not blame Bush?

            Notice that there were NO economic disasters like this from WWII until Bush, and a constantly declining debt to GDP ratio?

            It was the reforms of FDR continued under republican and democratic administrations that protected us, until Reagan started tearing down the defenses this country had against economic disaster.

            “So ‘free” markets equate to fraud?”

            Since they do not exist and never have, yes.

            “The FREE Market is only free to engage in legal business and government is there to enforce fraud and antitrust violations.”

            And there goes your free market. Boink!

            “Not to do what Barney Frank & Chris Dodd did when Bush was President.”

            For the first 6 years of the Bush II presidency, absolutely F-en nothing.

            They were in the minority, they had zero power to do anything.

            “I can talk days about how Bush screwed us but I won’t let you single him out and thats what bothers you.”

            I told you what Obama did wrong, you narrowed it all to Obama, and didn’t say a word against Bush.

            What annoys me is how you make things up and lie.

            Your selective sophistry is contemptible.

            Class dismissed.

          15. Redd_Melendez says:

            I am done with you. You sidestepped everything.

            Good bye!!

            That was pathetic

          16. BobFromDistrict9 says:

            That was pathetic.

            Goodbye…Won’t miss you.

          17. Redd_Melendez says:

            This link blows your claims up.

            Reagan bad, Bush bad, Obama good.

            You twist reality like a sick liberal.


          18. BobFromDistrict9 says:

            You twist reality like a sick Republican.

            Reagan bad, Bush I mediocre, Bush II awful, Obama Mediocre.

            Reagan and Bush II inherited better economies than they left their successors. Bush I inherited a deep in deficit govt. Obama inherited a major disaster.

            The only thing you blow up is your credibility.

            The “Class Dismissed” meant I’m tired of wasting time on you.


          19. Redd_Melendez says:

            Working for a company is real world experience on running a business?

            No, you are cutting and running because you can’t explain the 0.2 % GDP or explain why you deflected the free market points without addressing them.

            Obama….absolutely awful.

            You set it up so the GOP is always at fault.

            Adolescent liberal.

          20. BobFromDistrict9 says:

            What does running a business have to do with anything. The issue was what workers are paid. Nothing more than that. And yes, working in a company that pays TOP wages is relevant to that. Did I mention, anything under $20hr for the best workers is BS.

            What .2% GDP? One bad quarter is not an administration. Reagan had 4 bad quarters when the GDP was negative. I have explained over and over, Obama inherited a depression. All three republicans before him inherited economies much better than that, yet they passed on economies worse than they inherited.

            Nah, the GOP is not always at fault, but GOP policies are, even if adopted by democrats. Which is why I call Clinton the best Republican president since Eisenhower.

            Adolescent? How old are you, 99?

            Like I said, class dismissed, don’t bother me anymore.

          21. Redd_Melendez says:

            Running a business means you understand how punitive mandates affect the ability to survive or the ability to keep people employed..

            I didn’t think you would understand that.

            Next, Reagan did not have a sluggish GDP 6 1/2 years in to his Presidency.

            Reagan inherited mandated spending from every President before him and FDR’s policies were not cheap. Reagan had to rebuild the military while the Democrat Congress expanded social programs ALL DURING RECOVERY..

            I knew you had never met a payroll which is why you don’t understand the effect of liberal policies on business.

            You walked in to that one but it discredited you..

          22. BobFromDistrict9 says:

            All businesses in this country supposedly run under the same rules. So all you bloviated about is BS.

            Sluggish GDP? With all that Keynesian spending he did he shouldn’t have had one.

            It was Reagan who decided not to even try to cut welfare, read David Stockman’s book, “The Triumph of Politics”.

            Reagan inherited a better economy than he passed on. The economy he inherited had one problem, an Arab Oil cutoff.

            Reagan did NOT need to rebuild the military. The only problem the military had faced was the high price of fuel left them underfunded. His ship build up was abandoned shortly after he left office, under his republican successor.

            You walked in to that one but it discredited you..

            Now go away and stay away.

          23. Redd_Melendez says:

            You just lost ALL credibility claiming Reagan inherited a better economy than he left.

            Why did he win big if the economy was good in 1980? We had 21% interest rates and STAGFLATION.

            The economy was cruising in 1988 too.

            That’s it.

            That was the last straw as you have no credibility left now.

          24. BobFromDistrict9 says:

            Have you forgotten interest rates are set by the FED? I do blame every president for a long time for not jumping on the FED, and that includes Reagan.

            Interest rates from the Business cycles Indicators files the govt stopped publishing. This is from the last they published.

            U0M109 109. Average prime rate charged by banks, NSA (pct.) MI194501B194501E199512U960130AVGM2

            1978 9.06 7.93 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.27
            8.63 9.00 9.01 9.41 9.94 10.94 11.55

            1979 12.67 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75
            11.65 11.54 11.91 12.90 14.39 15.55 15.30

            1980 15.27 15.25 15.63 18.31 19.77 16.57
            12.63 11.48 11.12 12.23 13.79 16.06 20.35

            1981 18.87 20.16 19.43 18.05 17.15 19.61
            20.03 20.39 20.50 20.08 18.45 16.84 15.75

            1982 14.86 15.75 16.56 16.50 16.50 16.50
            16.50 16.26 14.39 13.50 12.52 11.85 11.50

            1983 10.79 11.16 10.98 10.50 10.50 10.50
            10.50 10.50 10.89 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00

            1984 12.04 11.00 11.00 11.21 11.93 12.39
            12.60 13.00 13.00 12.97 12.58 11.77 11.06

            11.07 10.98 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50

            1990 10.01 10.11 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
            10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

            That was the last straw as you have no credibility left now.

            Now stop wasting my time.

          25. Redd_Melendez says:

            Great argument if wages were the only expense in this equation but they are not.

            This is about the business owners ability to squeeze the wages you demand government impose, capped by what the market will pay for the product, with other expenses, taxes, and balance it in a way where they can still make a profit. Then there is volume the location does, overhead, and accounting expenses, legal fees, etc.

            I didn’t think you would understand that running a business involves a balancing act that is a lot more than just paying wages.

          26. BobFromDistrict9 says:

            The only point is, you spin away from the original point that you aren’t worth my time.

          27. Redd_Melendez says:


            I am forcing you to explain your expertise in meeting a payroll since you seem to know every businesses numbers in order to make the claim they can afford the increase.

            Turns out you know nothing.

            You just can’t discuss this without going off script so you bail every time I get you there.

            You claim Obama inherited debt and spending but ignore every other President did too. You also make the Executive Branch all powerful and Dem Congresses impotent when the GOP occupies the WH and then flip that script when a Dem is in office.

            Seeing you do ideological gymnastics is amusing!

          28. BobFromDistrict9 says:

            “You just can’t discuss this without going off script so you bail every time I get you there.”

            I kick you ass every time you go there. This time you have really done it. You just admitted you are working from a right wing script.

            “You claim Obama inherited debt and spending but ignore every other President did too.”

            I say every president from the end of WWII to Reagan reduced the Debt to GDP ratio. Every republican since increased it.

            You lie about the rest.

            Seeing you do ideological gymnastics is disgusting!

            Good bye.

          29. Redd_Melendez says:

            Your point is moot since the President ALONE has no authority to spend a dime.

            Ignoring this shows you don’t understand how separation of powers works.

            Congress was Democrat most of that time too.

            You killed your credibility by claiming Carter left Reagan a better economy than he left and also ignoring the Congress’ role to make your claim fit.

          30. Redd_Melendez says:

            Its obvious you have never owned a business.

          31. BobFromDistrict9 says:

            What other than a law practice did you own?

            Your comment barely even touched mine.

          32. JKellogg says:

            I’m gonna give you both a bit of ammo here. The level of public spending is a hugely important factor of the root of the problem. Go here:


            Now overlay GDP and TCMDO on the same chart. Next read this:


            Further, much of what our current administration has done to bring the deficit down, is smoke and mirrors. Things like baseline budgeting.

          33. BobFromDistrict9 says:

            What is the stlouisefed link supposed to show? TCMDO?

            The Washingtonsblog link is valuable, and supports much of my thinking, Though his solutions are kinda scarey, they also may be necessary. I left a comment on that.

            Oh, he also had a link to an NBER report I ordered. Looks interesting.

          34. JKellogg says:

            It’s easy enough to find out and is a closely watched metric. It’s been renamed by the Fed to “All Sectors; Credit Market Instruments; Liability, Level” but it still keeps the acronym TCMDO. Which stands for “Total Credit Markets, Debt Outstanding.”

            So when you create the chart at FRED, just type in TCMDO as a data series. What you will see is that we are spending ourselves into oblivion with government spending an important (but no where near the majority) part of the equation.

            While I’m no doomsayer, and think the Ron Paul, Peter Schiff crowd are nuts, sooner or later we are going to have to pay the piper. Just because I don’t ascribe to Austrian Economic Theory doesn’t mean their predictions could never happen.

            Keynesianism has been falling from favor for several years now. This 2012 paper is a tad technical but it does a good job of summarizing how economists reach a consensus and why Keynesianism ins’t so prominent anymore.


            However, that hasn’t stopped politicians from continuing to to Keynes as justification for well… pretty much any kind of spending they want.

          35. BobFromDistrict9 says:

            Ok, I have done a lot of research at the st Louis Fed, but mostly interest rates and GDP and whatever. Been a while since I wen there.

            I did find the chart interesting, but I have to look at the actual data and relate that to the general economy.

            What I see from the chart is, private debt has outrun the GDP drastically. Which is just what happened just before the great depression. It ran fairly low until the mid ’70s, then started up slowly, but the big swing began in the 1980s.

            Ron Paul and Schiff are nuts, mostly because their entire view is the rich have to get richer for the world so survive. tough luck ordinary mortals.

            What we need to do is go back to the 50s-60s-70s economics of higher taxes on the rich, and a slow reduction in the debt to GDP ratio. Mostly, though, we need to get the private sector debt under control. Time to increase taxes on investment income, and tighten the screws on corporate management.

          36. JKellogg says:

            Schiff is nuts because his gold has driven hin mad. Ron Paul is nuts because, well, he’s Ron Paul. 😉

            The problem is spending. In the individual sector, people have been oversold on the value the debt can buy. The business sector is far more complex. The bigger the firm the more complex it gets.

            I’m not talking about this in the macroeconomic sense. (except when it comes to the decisions of governmental entities) It’s root lies in the microeconomic decisions any large firm makes to stay competitive in an increasingly global environment – – from business modeling to measuring the elasricities of the past, current, and future products and services that firm offers, to complex matrix game theory, and much more.

            But the issue remains spending. One thing that concerns me is the growth in the sheer size of the finance sector. Aside from potential economies of scale (including globalization) I think it’s value is largely self-serving, but I further think it’s a huge mistake to think we could just do away with it.

            My point in bringing this up is that companies, while not perfect by any measure, are far more efficient, at eliminating inefficient products and services. This would be especially true when individuals and households start spending responsibily.

            The same can’t be said for government. The process is far slower, has built-in “economic dead-weight inefficiencies,” is far more subject the political pandering, and some inefficient programs can even become permanent. Now, don’t take me for aTea Partier, because I’m not. But, government DOES have a spending problem!!! More taxes, then, is not the solution!

            Therein lies the devil in the details of taxing the rich vs the poor, because it includes the oft used mantra, epiyomized most recently by Thomas Piketty, that taxing the rich will solve the problem. The rich can afford to move their money, or if they’re rich enough, they move away!

            The economics don’t addup either. The people who end up paying for any “tax incidence” are those for whom that product or service is least elastic – – usually that ends up being the middle class, BECAUSE the poorer you are, the less elastic your spending – – and the poor don’t have it, so it falls to the next up the ladder. In the end, taxing the rich as the end solution to what’s a governmental spending problem, is little more than a convenient (usually liberal) ploy to buy votes.

            I don’t buy into the liberal taking points. I don’t care much for a number of the ones I hear coming from the other side either.

    2. BobFromDistrict9 says:

      From $11.7 T to $18.1 T is $6.4T.

      That’s from Bush’s last fiscal year to 4/23/2015 from

      1. Redd_Melendez says:

        Obama didn’t reign it in and its crushing consumer buying power.

        He owns it.

        1. BobFromDistrict9 says:

          Lack of jobs is driving the deficit and crushing consumer buying power.

          It was “It’s the economy stupid”.


          It’s the jobs…stupid.

          1. Redd_Melendez says:

            Who has been President for 6 1/2 years?

            Where are the jobs?

            Still blaming Bush 6 1/2 years later is weak.

            I thought the stimulus took care of that 6 years ago?

            I agree with you but not on where the blame belongs as BO was elected on the promise of fixing the problem.

            You are admitting Obama’s failures.

          2. BobFromDistrict9 says:

            I blame Bush for what he F-ed up and Obama for what he F-ed up.

            Bush’s damage is still hurting us. Hell, Reagan’s damage is still hurting us.

            The stimulus was not long enough. Obama made the mistake of trying to deal with the republicans instead of twisting their arms. LBJ would have known better. That is where the long time insider knows better.

            Yet the republicans are going straight for the outsiders.

            Every president is elected on the promise of fixing the problems.

            I have listed Obama’s failures repeatedly. Where have you been?


            Yes, he should have listened.

            “We have never begun to tax the people in this country the way they should be…. I don’t pay what I should. People of my class don’t. People who have it should pay…. After eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…and an enormous debt to boot!”

            Yes, Obama should have increased taxes on the rich as much as he could have, and focused his economic policies completely on jobs. Jobs that pay more, and increasing pay on existing jobs.

            The Stimulus was a policy that worked before, but he needed to raise taxes on the rich.

          3. Redd_Melendez says:

            Previous Presidents or Congress had no role?

            Hell FDR is still killing us.

            Selective ideological tripe!

            Obama rammed the stimulus through and didn’t need GOP votes.

            What next? Everybody gets equal change at the store no matter if you pay with a $100 bill or a $1 bill?

            The Framers didn’t believe in income taxes at all. Morganthau admitted stimulus spending FAILED! So why would it have worked if the stimulus was bigger?

            Also, why cap it at 1 trillion if it works like you say?

            Why not bet the whole farm?

            Nobody would suggest capping it if it didn’t have a point of diminishing returns.

            You now need to list FDRs failures, LBJ’s, etc,.

            Lets hear it because Reagan inherited mandates too.

          4. BobFromDistrict9 says:

            Previous presidents and congresses? What you are asking is not clear, However, if you are asking about presidents and congress before Regan, no, they were not a problem.

            According to the Federal Budget History files, 2013: At the end
            of WW2 the debt load was 122% of GDP. It went down under
            every president, war and peace, recession or prosperity, liberal
            or conservative, republican or democrat, until Reagan. When
            Reagan took office it was around 33%.

            Under Reagan it started back up, under Clinton it started back
            down again. Under Bush II it went back into climb mode.

            In 1981, 32.5%, in 1989, 53.1%, in 1993, 66.1%, in 2001 56.4%,
            in 2009 85.2%.

            So, Obama was handed an economy that was at risk of another
            depression, and a debt load that is headed for crushing.

            If the country went into depression the GDP could drop as much
            as 40%. The debt would not drop, so the debt load would become
            horrendous. 90% jumps to 160%. Higher than this country has ever
            seen. If the GDP dropped 25% that still pushes up the debt load
            to around 130%. That is a crushing debt. And that is why we
            might well not be able to get out of another depression.

          5. Redd_Melendez says:

            This graph shows all but one recession occurred during times the DEMOCRATS controlled Congress.


          6. BobFromDistrict9 says:

            Well, you really went overboard on Cherry Picking your data.

            Where does it show recessions on that graph?

            Oh, in 2001 and 2007 the Senate was tied between Reps and Dems., not controlled by Dems.

            Your chart goes back to 1857, when the republican party was just forming and never controlled anything. So I am going from 1861 on when it was politically competitive.

            Comparing your graph to the NBER chart,, I find:

            Before WWII there were 19 recessions. Four were under Democratic control of the Senate.

            After WWII there have been 12 recessions. Of those 6 were under Democratic presidents.

            That’s a total of 31 recessions from 1861 to 2009, Democrats had control of the Senate for ten of those, Republicans had control for the other 21.

            You gave only control of the Senate, is that because it looks worse for the republicans when you include control of the house. Why didn’t you look at control of the federal govt in general? Is that because, like Republicans in general, you cherry pick your data? On top of that,

            I looked at control of the govt long ago. From the Civil War until the Great Depression Republicans controlled the federal govt pretty well entirely.

            From the Great Depression until 1953 the presidency was held by Democrats, and the Senate was most years. From the first post WWII presidential election,1948, until 1981 the presidency was evenly divided between Rep and Dem, the Senate was mostly controlled by democrats. While 5 of the post WWII recessions under Dem Senates occurred in that period, only two were under Dem presidents.

            After 1981 the Republicans took control, and things really went to hell.

            Between 1981 and 2009:

            We had 8 years of Reagan in which the Republicans had
            control of the Senate for 6. We had 4 years of Bush 1, we had 8
            years of Clinton in which the Republicans had control of
            congress for 6, and we had 8 years of Bush, in which the
            Republicans had control of congress for 6.

            Since 1981, when Reagan took office:

            From 1981 till 2009 the Republicans held the presidency for 20
            of the 28 years.

            The Republicans have the presidency and at least one house of
            congress for 16 out of 28 years.

            There have been only two years in which the Democrats controlled
            the presidency and congress.

            From 1995 to 2007 there have been only two years in which the
            Republicans did not control both houses of congress. And those
            two years they controlled one house. During those two years the
            Senate was tied, so the Republican Vice President had the tie
            breaking vote, which gave the Republicans control of the
            Senate, and thereby the entire congress.

            From 2001 till 2007 the Republicans controled the entire federal
            government, Presidency, congress and the supreme court. For two
            years the senate was evenly divided, but the Vice President
            could cast the tie breaking vote.

            From Jan 2007 to Jan 2009 the Democrats controled the House,
            and the senate was tied 49-49, with two independents who
            caucused with the dems, but are not otherwise bound by party

            Since 1981 there has not been one single *DAY* in which the
            Democrats have controlled the entire federal government.

            From 1981 until 2009 there were only two years, out of 28, that
            the Democrats could enact one single law without Republican
            cooperation. (Pass in congress and sign.)

            Between 2001 and 2007 there was not even one year the
            Republicans could *NOT* enact any bill they wanted without one
            single Democratic vote.

            According to the Federal Budget History files, 2010: At the end
            of WW2 the debt load was almost 122% of GDP. It went down under
            every president, war and peace, recession or prosperity, liberal
            or conservative, republican or democrat, until Reagan. When
            Reagan took office it was around 33%.

            Under Reagan it started back up, under Clinton it started back
            down again. Under Bush II it went back into climb mode.

            In 1981, 32.6%, in 1989, 53.1%, in 1993, 66.2%, in 2001 57.4%,
            in 2009 90.4%.

            So, Obama was handed an economy that was at risk of another
            depression, and a debt load that is headed for crushing.

            If the country went into depression the GDP could drop as much
            as 50%. The debt would not drop, so the debt load would become
            horrendous. 90% jumps to 180%. Higher than this country has ever
            seen. If the GDP dropped 25% that still pushes up the debt load
            to around 130%. That is a crushing debt. And that is why we
            might well not be able to get out of another depression.

            When Obama took office he was facing a national debt of about
            $12 trill. That debt had built up in the 232 years before his
            inauguration. Yet almost 80% of that debt had built up under 3
            presidents, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

            Around 10% under Clinton, though he spent his first term working
            to control the debt, and his second to eliminate the deficit and
            stop the growth of the debt.

            All other presidents combined produced about 10% of the total

            80% of the national debt Obama inherited produced under the last
            three republican presidents. And 100% of the growth in the post
            WWII debt load.

            Obama inherited a rolling disaster, and the right is determined
            to undermine anything he attempts to deal with it.

          7. Redd_Melendez says:

            You mean you don’t know when we had recessions and can’t tell from the timeline?

            I love how you moved the goal posts after you failed to respond and changed the subject.

            So far, we have learned that the executive branch is ALL POWERFUL when the GOP is in office but suddenly becomes power less when the Democrats get the WH. When the Dems get the WH suddenly Congress becomes all powerful. Yep, the problem is ALWAYS the GOP and when you do blame the Dems, its not because their policies failed but always because the GOP somehow blocked them nefariously forcing them to settle.

            The fact Obama didn’t need a single CONSERVATIVE vote his first two years means nothing to you so you ignore it. Chaffee, Snow and Collins are liberals.

            The liberal play book is so predictable.

            Obama has added enough spending on his own and failed to reign in anything when he had the votes so he owns it.

            Why is the GDP an anemic 0.2 % if things are going so well?

            Oh I know, its the GOPs fault.

            I assign the GOP plenty of blame but I don’;t live in your blame the other guy world and understand separation of powers so I would never make a claim as stupid as the one you are making.

            Obama failed and made the mess much worse but you are too childishly ideological to admit it.

            Typical liberal!

          8. BobFromDistrict9 says:

            I am the one who gives everyone the link to find out about recessions. www,

            I said it doesn’t show recessions on the graph. Since Obama did not have a recession it would be difficult to. He did inherit a depression, but that’s another matter.

            I didn’t move any goal posts, you spin and lie.

            You did change republican to conservative. Nasty bit of deception there.

            Obama has certainly reined in the deficit, he’s cut it drastically. But don’t let the truth stand in your way.

            The GDP is not .2%.

            Like I said, you lie and spin, and I’m tired of it. Go away.

          9. Redd_Melendez says:

            Links don’t prove causation nor do they factor in Congressional numbers, etc. I showed links you ignored.

            Now its a depression? Is that the newest excuse for his weak economy? That its still Bush’s fault?

            Yes, the GDP last quarter was 0.2%. So is it higher? Then how can we be in a “depression”? You have talked yourself in to a corner again there as that conflicts.

            There is a huge difference between a CONSERVATIVE and a Republican too.

            You could have just saved yourself the typing and wrote “GOP bad, Democrats good”

            You don’t say any more than that in your simpleton world that ignores half the truth.

          10. BobFromDistrict9 says:

            Some of us have been calling it a depression for a long time.

            If you can’t see how it’s a depression, you have no basis on which to even discuss it.

            “You could have just saved yourself the typing and wrote “GOP bad, Democrats good””

            That’s so obvious it shouldn’t need saying.

          11. Redd_Melendez says:


            That is just a childish excuse for Liberal policies failing. History shows the deeper the recession the stronger the recovery. You are admitting Obama made the same mistake FDR made and he should have listened to Mr. Morganthau.

            FDR’s policies extended the depression and Obama’s extended the recession in to a depression..

            You have no credibility left.

          12. Redd_Melendez says:

            Yeah that 0.2% GDP last quarter is all Bush and Reagan’s fault.

            The fact I showed you 8 of 9 recessions happened with a DEMOCRAT Congress means nothing?

            You’re an idiot!

  9. JKellogg says:

    Um… No. While I can appreciate where you’re coming from,from my side of the economics data mountain, your claims about Reagan are just plain wrong, Bob. Here’s a simplified summary article from just yesterday:

    That’s not to say Reagan didn’t have his flaws and mistakes, but this particular metric wasn’t one of them.

    I’ve been watching your posts for a while now and many of your points have merit. However, the ability to accurately synthesize economic data, and not place blame where it doesn’t belong on any specific issue, will make your arguments stronger.

    At least you have the ability to criticize both sides, It’s sad when people of both parties lionize their favorites as if they have no flaws, huh?

Comments are closed.

Latest Articles