You're on FIRE this week Retired! ;0)

"This bill is paid for."

Yeah, right. Spend $26 billion in 2010 and "pay for it" with $12 billion in cuts to Food Stamps that don't happen until 2014.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EXCELLENT POST U.S. Navy!!!

It never ceases to amaze me how the Republicans will try to spin the "tax cuts will save us" nonsense no matter the evidence to the contrary. MSM should put Allen Greenspan on a panel with Boehner, Pawlenty and any other Repub who carries such views. Let them tell their hero how wrong he is. I'm no admirer of Greenspan by any stretch, but on this issue he's right. The problem is, they'd no doubt refuse to show up to debate.

I may be in favor of their proposed spending, but that's definitely credit-card style repayment. Not a good idea. It's fuzzy math at best, dangerous spending habits at worst. It got the American consumer in trouble, and will lead to trouble for us once someone calls in our debt.

I would love it if the budget could return to a balanced state. Or even perhaps a surplus, and use the extra to help pay down principle on our sovereign debt. But that won't happen.

Great Job Navy Retired...voted

"I would love it if the budget could return to a balanced state."...Sean@8:29

True, Sean. However, at the current time, you'd have to have a budget before you can balance it! Remember, Dems decided they'd do that "next year". Abominable.

Retired

your post was great, it pointed out the lust that republican have for the rich and the lack of consern they have for the working man which i bet almost all of them were growing up. they were not all rich but when you must represent the richest American and there interest, you come off as a pompous out of touch person.

great post. keep it coming, you pointed out how bad of hyprocrites the republicans are. but my question retired is, how do the republican expect our youth to compete for the jobs these rich business owners offer, when they don't want to invest in keeping out school system solvent. i wish republican politicians care as much about education our kids as they are at giving tax cuts to the rich, to me investing in our youth will give us a much better return on our investment.

Jeff,

I hear you loud and clear. I saw a piece yesterday evening where a state (I think it was HI, not sure) is going to a 4 day class schedule. We once were the leaders in Education, especially math and science. Unfortunately we are no longer.

The goal of the republicans is to suck every single nickel out of America and give it to the top 2-3%. If education suffers, so what. If our roads and bridges and sewers fall apart, so what. If the middle class becomes extinct, so what. If people loose their 401K's, homes, Health Insurance etc, so what. As long as the republicans get what they want the hell with the rest of America. We see more and more proof of this every day.

The bill in front of the house today is design to help the teachers, fire fighter and police just as you said. We need more of this. The republicans forget: do you know what we call nurses, fire fighter, police officers and teachers. CUSTOMERS. This is what small businesses need to survive.

A job well done US Navy...voted

Here's an article from Robert Reich explaining why even Greenspan is partly wrong on the tax cuts issue:

http://robertreich.org/post/924181375/greenspan-rubin-and-herbert-hoover

U.S. Navy, You make alot of sense. Why don't I hear Democrats making this case to the voters? The MSM absolutely refuses to educate the public on these issues, and the right wing noise machine is cranking their propaganda 24/7. I hope you write letters to the editor of your local paper, because non-political junkie type people need to hear this.

SeanDoonan:

I would love it if the budget could return to a balanced state. Or even perhaps a surplus, and use the extra to help pay down principle on our sovereign debt. But that won't happen.

That's never going to happen if the Republicans get their way and Bush's $670 billion dollar tax cut for the rich is continued -- and the estate tax is repealed. Local governments are going to continue to tear up paved roads and put in gravel, take down street lights, and fire police and teachers.

See Paul Krugman's article today. I assume you love civilization even more than you like balanced budgets. But the United States is on the road to becoming a Third World country, with out-of-control crime, a small ruling class and a large pool of cheap labor consisting of uneducated and unskilled people desperate for a job and willing to work under abominable conditions. That's what the Republicans have in store for you. And it's happening all ready. Welcome to their nightmare.

Ginger LV,

Your posts are right on. This country is going in the toilet and those mostly responsible are hiding behind rhetoric and snarky remarks. They offer nothing but their denial of their responsibility. They try and put it all on President Obama completely forgetting that he is the one trying to fix what they broke in the first place. It took them 8 years to get us into this mess, President Obama and presidents after him are still going to be dealing with this crap for many years to come.

The rebublicans agrue to lower the deficit and in the next breath they want to add 800 Billion dollars in deficits to reward the top 2%. They want us to go back to the Bush era which darn near bankrupted this country. There's a game plan for ya.

Right on Navy. The Repugs want to use the reverse Robin Hood philosophy. Steal from the poor, give it to the rich and let them keep it. And they wonder why everybody (in their right mind) hates them. President Obama, please let these tax cuts expire. You need it and we the "little folks" need it.

What's hilarious is that if you notice, the Libs continue to blame the Republicans for everything. What is absent from these rants of theirs is their cheer-leading of all of Obama successes, because there are none.

Next item in the Liberal Playbook is to compare Obama to Reagan. The Libs will be telling us "Oh, Obama has the same approval rating as Reagan did at this same time in each of their Presidencies!!".

Too funny. Who would have predicted that 20 months into the Obama presidency that the liberals would be comparing Obama to their anti-Christ, Ronald Reagan?

The children are the future, lets invest in the children so we have a future. GREAT POST, keep them coming, I voted!!

What this shows is why independents need to start looking into a third option. The republicans in congress have little to offer in the way of deficit reduction as they refuse to accept that taxes will have to be raised. Democrats still cling to the belief that by raising taxes they will lower the deficit but somehow control their need to spend the additional funds. As an example look at the bill they are voting on today. No sooner do they save 26B than it goes out the door on a new program.

Independents will vote against democrats this fall because they do not like the direction the country is going. That does not mean that they want to go in the direction republicans are proposing. They are looking for gridlock until a third option is available.

We are getting that in NJ with Governor Christie. We may not like all the cuts he is making but he is making decisions and treating us like adults. Money does not grow on trees and we have to live within our means.

Beware folks...the republicans have their message...EVERYONE got the memo.

From Palin to Kyl to Washington....they all want us to believe extending the tax cuts for the richest are a good thing for all of us. They so want to believe it's 1950. They so want us to believe that corporations will take care of all of us. They fail to share that corporate ownership has changed since 1950. The sense of obligation is no longer about employees and their families or the quality of their products. It's ALL about the bottom line. THAT is what has changed so drastically.

Democrats - Independents.....we need to offset this message at every opportunity. They still believe if they repeat it long enough and hard enough that we'll all swallow the message. Our message needs to louder, stronger....and HONEST

"The goal of the republicans is to suck every single nickel out of America and give it to the top 2-3%. If education suffers, so what. If our roads and bridges and sewers fall apart, so what. If the middle class becomes extinct, so what. If people loose their 401K's, homes, Health Insurance etc, so what. As long as the republicans get what they want the hell with the rest of America. We see more and more proof of this every day."

It's that sense of entitlement that bothers me the most. These are people who are so out of touch with reality, so hopped up on Ayn Rand that they can't see that the things they're trying to kill are what made America great in the first place. A stable middle class, a highly educated workforce made us what we are. If we lose those things we're not America anymore, we're Malaysia, with all the stability and economic power of a third world nation.

You DEFINITELY have it right! That's why the GOP is now known as the "Greedy Obstructionist Party".

you forgot to mention the portions of this bill that has been paid for by cutting school lunch vouchers for the poor in 2014.

Lotsa misinformation being circulated this morning,But what else is new. The Food Stamp reduction in todays bill, would go in effect in 2014, if enacted at all.The person on Hardball yesterday was'nt a Louisiana Senator, but a Congressman. This is Why America is so screwedup.

As a Democrat, I'm delighted that Sec. Of Defense Gates is proposing, cutting around 10,000 positions which will save a $100 Billion if followed thru. Over 3,300 which are Contractor's. Mr. Gates, I hope that You stay on with President Obama as long as it takes. Thank You Sir!

I'd also like to see the Homeland Security Dept. discontinued.This program was brought about by the previous administration, Only because they failed to listen to the People already employed by our Government. By doing away with HS, we Americans could save alotta $$ by getting rid of this Monstrosity of failure to the Taxpayer. The CIA, FBI, & Secret Service did thier Job prior to 911, Only to have President Bush, Not Do His.

Airport Screeners, with the tools now in place, could be brought into employment by the respective airlines/airports.

The Dept. of Homeland Security is a useless Monstrosity, brought upon the American Taxpayer, as a kneejerk reaction, because the previous administration had thier heads pointed in the wrong direction.

Saddam Hussein:

Mission Accomplished !

You forgot to mentioned that there is talk about retirement age going up to 70!

Great comments and arguments from the left side of the aisle, today. The usual lack of recognition of what President Obama has done from the right, it's just easier to say that than argue truth.

I'm still waiting for a right winger to tell us exactly what the republicans have done for John Doe lately. Let's see, they voted against support for the 9/11 rescue workers, voted against unemployment, voted for unfunded war spending, voted against aid to small businesses, voted against jobs creation legislation while demanding jobs be created, voted against aid to States during this crisis which means voting against teachers, fire fighters and police officers. It will be a long wait because there is nothing that the GOP has done. President Obama has a long list of accomplishments for his 20 months, the GOP has a long list of failures from 2001-2006, the biggest failure was failing to pay for anything they did--yet today, they rail against the debt they created. Call democrats tax and spend but at least they believed in payiing for what they were doing. An economic Great Recession calls for federal government spending to stop the bleeding not for hunkering down and doing nothing. Hoover might have a lot to tell today's GOPers but I doubt they'd listen.

I just can't see how this bill is paid for. This is a Congressional tactic that is frequently used. If it is paid for the money should reside in the treasury RIGHT NOW but it doesn't. Whenever Congress says something will be paid for via FUTURE reductions in something, you can just about chalk it up as BS.

That is like me borrowing a dollar from you today and saying I will pay you back next week when I get my check knowing all along that my entire check is already consumed by bills.

What do you people classify as rich? What I gather is anyone making over 250,000. If I am a small business making 250,000 and you're placing me in the company of multi-BILLIONAIRES then I will still be taxed to death.

And................the top 2% had their tax cut - so where are the jobs????? How many years have they had their tax cut?? So where are the jobs???????????????????????

I would like to show the perspective from a small business owners point of view. I am seeing a lot of talking points coming from the left, not a lot of back up. I am a small business owner with a salary of $175,000. We have over 100 employees, sales of over 60M and a net pretax of 8.2M. That goes onto my personal taxes as an S corp. This put my household in the top 1%.

I left over 8M in the business to fund growth, jobs etc. Exactly what Obama wants me to do. Last year we added nearly 40 jobs, using the profits to do what they are supposed to do with our profits.

The tax increases will not decrease my income, I will raise it to off set the net take home pay to make sure what I netted in 2010 is what I will net is 2012. I will once again not take home a bonus or increase my net take home pay. It will reduce the amount of money that I will have to reinvest into the company in the form of increasing inventory, new employees, bonuses to those employees, equipment etc, (neary $800,000 less with the fed and state combined). I guess that I am in the .0004% of the popluation as retired Navy pointed out. And since small business is responsible for job growth, I felt the point relevant. You need not agree with it, but I hope you understand it.

Elise, SF. The jobs never disappeared. They went overseas. I believe that both parties allowed the jobs to be outsourced through Free Trade, vs Fair Trade. NAFTA, WTA, etc. I am a very disapponited Obama voter, I assumed he would protect the unions and keep jobs here. That doesn't seem to be the case.

Do any of you people know what are in the Bush tax cuts? You attempt to lead people into believing that it is only the rich that get the cuts. As usual you are wrong, mislead and duped into the thinking that got us in this mess. The tax cuts are across the board, yep that's right even the "working man" gets them. When they go away, everyone's taxes are raised.

If only the rich got these tax cuts then why did The Obama administration proposed keeping tax cuts for people making less than $250,000 per year.

You hate the Republicans and blame them for what the Democrats screw up. Barney Frank and his housing for everyone got us in this mess, its documented fact you can go look up. For some strange reason, even after the facts are proven and in your face you still think the Democrats did only good for this country. GW: 52 months of job growth, Obama: 0 Give it up, your party has failed America time and time again, you resort to blaming those who tried to stop you when all hell breaks loose.

The problem is not Democrats or Republicans, its our leaders. Conservative values made this country the best in the world, Liberal values made us the most caring nation in the world. With both we are brought to greatness and with both we are doomed to destruction. Stop blaming others and start taking responsibility for yourself. You voted the current idiots in office, next time vote for someone who is going to fix things, not some radical that lies his way into office. Demand some background checking, hell if it was a republican you would have!

cdahl:

I am a small business owner with a salary of $175,000. We have over 100 employees, sales of over 60M and a net pretax of 8.2M. That goes onto my personal taxes as an S corp. This put my household in the top 1%.

I don't know about the top 1%, but if your salary is $175,000, the repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy do not affect you. You need to be single and earning $200,000 or married earning $250,000 in order for you to get a MARGINAL tax increase.

I agree with you about where the jobs are going. American workers cannot compete with foreigners making a dollar an hour working under horrible conditions unless they, too, are willing to make the same pay and work under the same conditions. I think this is what will eventually happen here. People have to eat, even if it's only a bowl of mouldy rice every other day.

Ridgelon:

Do any of you people know what are in the Bush tax cuts? You attempt to lead people into believing that it is only the rich that get the cuts.

I think most of "us people" here are well aware that the tax cuts apply to middle- and lower-income people as well as the rich. What YOU don't seem to know is that the Democrats want to RETAIN the tax cuts EXCEPT for famlies making above $250,000. Got that?

As I understand it, all of the Bush tax cuts for all income groups will expire if Congress does absolutely nothing. The Democrats' plan to retain the Bush tax cuts for lower income groups requires special legislation that I expect the Republicans intend to block unless the tax cuts for the wealth are retained as well. They are playing a game of chicken with the Democrats, who will probably chicken out and keep the budget-busting tax breaks for the rich so they won't get blamed by the Republicans for raising taxes on the middle class. The Republicans are much better at playing chicken because they know they won't get hurt by the collision and they just don't care if the country gets hurt.

Houston re:cdahl

I think you may have missed the part about his "S" Corp. By law, those earnings are taxed as his personal income, so it would appear to me that he has roughly 8.4 million in earnings to be taxed. I'm not overly sorry for cdahl, wish that I were in his shoes in that respect, but his taxable income is well over the threshold for increased tax rates.

cdahl:

Thank you for your post. I assure you I find it very relevant. Congratulations on your business. I love to hear success stories. I wish more business people like you would post as well.

I agree with what you said about jobs and where they are going. I hope this situation reverses itself. I read an article over the weekend that some companies are bringing jobs back to the USA.

From what I understand the logistic issues on getting their products produced (manufactured) overseas then shipped to the USA for distribution is becoming costly. The company (cannot recall the name) claims that to account for the time lag they need 4 Million in inventory, if they pull back to USA that number reduces to about 1 Million.

I think (at least hope) that more and more companies will see the shift as foreign companies see the workers demand better pay, rising costs to get the finished good back here etc. start to shrink that csot differential. I do honestly believe as the cost difference narrows many companies will forgo the smaller margin and bring jobs back. This can ony help them in the long run.

Again thank you for sharing with us. Have a great day and I wish you continued success.

Please come visit with us again. I welcome your thoughts.

"I would like to show the perspective from a small business owners point of view."

"And since small business is responsible for job growth, I felt the point relevant. You need not agree with it, but I hope you understand it."

cdahl, I can assure you most of the FR lefty liberals will not understand the point you make. Even those that do, won't care. In their minds, you are evil for making millions in your small business. You are someone to be taxed as much as possible so the govt. can send your money where they think it's best spent.

I cant stand behind a party that violates federal law.

New reports today that the U.S. State Department is sponsoring the Imam behind the Ground Zero mosque project sending him on a taxpayer-funded global journey to promote Islam.

WHAT???? How can they do this with separation of church and state??? Why are we allowing this to happen???

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/feds_funding_zero_imam_mideast_trip_OTq9dmoHpxbaKvJbB4VLGM

Houston,

You, like most people are misinformed about the small business argument, because the Reps are arguing the point. And I mean this sincerely.

As a small business owner, I take home $175,000. but the company made 8.2M (even after my salary, and those of over 100 others). Therefore, on my personal taxes, my income is nearly 8.4M. Although my take home doesn't reflect the upper 1%, I am in it by the way the tax forms are set up. Deductions don't mean much either, because if you take the interest I pay on my mortgage, $13,000 per year, deduct it from 8.4M, it doesn't really do much to lower my tax rate on the money I actually take home ($175,000). It is the argument from small business that seems to get lost. If you tax the 8.4M another 5%, it will take out $420,000 out of the economy that I use to reinvest into jobs, inventory etc.

In a small business, or S corp, you put your take home income on line 7 and the business income on line 17. Add them together and that becomes your personal taxable income. I would be on board with the Dem's proposal to tax the upper 1%, if they only looked at take home pay, or what is on your pay check and not tax what we leave in the small business, which is fueling the economy. It goes back to the arguement that I know how to best spend my money productively, the government doesn't. Of course, this is only one viewpoint out of millions, and it by no means makes other opposing view wrong, just different.

Thank you, Retired Navy Vet.

We do a lot of business with the armed forces (electral power systems for the tent cities, etc overseas), have a number of Retired NTL Guard here that served. I continue to be amazed at the level of character quality coming from our men and women here whom have served.

US Navy,

You have some good talking points but it would be better defined as a Union Bail-out or Payback Bill!

Reinstate the death tax at pre-Bush levels.

Let the Bush tax cuts expire.

THEN take the knife to Social Security, Medicare, the Military, the Federal Education budget, Federal salaries and benefits, all Federal programs across the board.

Because that's what it will take to even BEGIN getting out of the hole.

And assuming the economy generates record revenues for the next twenty years.

Elise, SF. The jobs never disappeared. They went overseas. I believe that both parties allowed the jobs to be outsourced through Free Trade, vs Fair Trade. NAFTA, WTA, etc. I am a very disapponited Obama voter, I assumed he would protect the unions and keep jobs here. That doesn't seem to be the case.

OHHHHHHHHHHHH the jobs never disappeared?? Sending overseas means they disappeared! Republicans pushed trickle down economy, sent jobs overseas, and they want to do it again. Sure that makes sense. And frankly I could care less if dems voted for it also - they are so weak.

I am not disappointed with President Obama. I am disappointed with most of the Democrat politicians that can not stand up to the Republicans - with the dems help, bills are coming out that are watered down to placate the few Republicans.

Elise,

I get your point. But other than spend money via stimulus and hire government employees, can you name one program or idea that Obama and his team has come up with that promotes US jobs and reviving our economy? I am willing to listen.

And, I was very upset when Obama said that we have to abide by WTO agreements to provide raw materials for the US stimulus money. Meaning:

1. Washington asked the US Taxpayers to go further into debt in order to revive our economy.
2. Building bridges and "shovel ready" projects would create jobs.
3. If China's bid on the costs for the steel used on these bridge projects was less than our steel costs made with US Labor which was the point of the stimulus, China gets the order.
4. Although I understand the WTO agreements (and I do not agree with them), they are written for our annual budget, not stimulus asking the 50% of the population that pays tax for more money in the form of debt or taxes to provide jobs and right our economy.
5. As a taxpayer being asked to fund the TARP and other stimulus programs, I am happy to do it. But I am not on board with helping other countries get their economy back on track with my tax money. I can't see any opposing view that can possibly be viable.

http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB123370411879745425.html

And SF Elise,

In regards to the tax cut, it allowed us to reinvest into our company. We increased sales from 5M to over 60M, and employees from 12 to over 100 during that time. The tax cuts allowed us to do this combined with interest rate reductions, which some attribute to spending during that period. We start our people at $12.00, without a HS diploma. That is over $4.00 more than competing businesses around us. We put in a training program, and as I am sure you can imagine, our retention is nearly 100%. Each employee without a HS education has gotten bonus of $1,000 to $8,000 depending on hitting their criteria, those diplomated and degreed get more. We continued this during the recession. At our company you get a 100% match on your 401K, and are 100% vested from day 1. We offer full healthcare benefits for our employees and their families. It costs the average worker approx $40.00 per check. After health care passed, we are rethinking that program and considering covering the employee only, and not the family as they will be covered by the government program.

In our case the trickle down effect actually worked for those employeed here. I would hope that we are not the only example. So to specifically answer your question "Where are the jobs", we added 102 jobs since 2000. 0 in 2010.

After healthcare passed, and with the upcoming reverse of the tax cuts, hiring is on hold.

cdahl,

Being a worker bee type, I am not familiar with the finer points of corporate taxes. But on reading up some, I've seen suggestions that business owners in your position should consider restructuring. If you're plowing the whole 8 million into investments, perhaps the government needs some way of assuring that the investments will be used for business and not for personal reasons. I don't see why anyone should be taxed for 8 million dollars a year if they're not stashing it away in their private stock portfolio.

Houston,

To clarify the definition of investment for me. It was in CNC machinery, powder coating booths, extrusion equipment, raw materials such as stainless steel and copper for our manufacturing's production, and hiring employees. It was NOT personal investment in things such as stocks or whatever. That investment comes from my take home pay, or paycheck.

That is the point that many of us are trying to make. (The tax is on 8M, or I paid tax of 2.7M or so). All the money other than my take home pay was reinvested into the business. My mutual fund portfolio comes out of my paycheck. The 8.2M was reinvested in the form of purchasing equipment, raw materials, hiring, and a building expansion. If you tax this for an additional $400,000 next year, it leave us with $400,000 less to spend in the economy.

And if your raise my take home or paycheck by 5%, (remember I take home $175,000 but with the way taxation works I report an income of 8.4M, I will raise my income by X percent so that the net paycheck remains the same.

Ultimately, I am for taxation, and we can certainly pay it. The debate as to whether to increase or decrease taxation is a good one, with both sides having good points. I would simply like to see the IRS rules qualify the upper 1% as take home pay, not combining take home pay with what the business profits are. So, if I take it home, tax the begeebers out of me. If I leave it or reinvest it in the business/economy, leave my take home pay alone.

On doing a little more searching I just found out this: Politifact rates the Republican claims that the Democrats' plan to repeal the upper-income tax cuts would impact large numbers of small businesses is a PANTS-ON-FIRE LIE.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/04/randy-neugebauer/lawmaker-claims-democrats-want-hit-small-businesse/

What impact would raising taxes on the top two income brackets have on small businesses? According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the same source that Neugebauer cited in his blog post, "In 2011 just under 750,000 taxpayers with net positive business income...will have marginal rates of 36 or 39.6 percent under the president's proposal." That translates into only 3 percent of all taxpayers with positive business income. Yes, you read that right. Only 3 percent of all taxpayers who reported having positive business income will see their taxes go up under the proposed Democratic initiative.

Notice that is 3% of all those reporting business income, not 3% of all taxpayers.

My vote cancels your vote retired moron

cdahl,

You need a new tax accountant. and let's not forget that you have the option to carry current gains BACK seven years AND you received some VERY lucrative credits to invest in your machinery and other capital expenditures. The problem is that you should have restructured to a C corp and then converted your investment portfolio. Further, you could create a variety of trust instruments in your personal portfolio that would ultimately avoid tax liability for generations. If you're a 60M operation versus a 5M - you really need to change your tax mentality.

Regardless, kudos to you for finding a way to expand during a really tough time for most.

So much for Liberals being completely ignorant about how business works.

Joe you missed your talking point for today, "lets extend those tax cuts for the rich" Fox is going to be vary disappointed in you Joe. But I'm sure you'll get it in before the day is over.

Joe forgot about the police jobs that are going to be cut if this bill is not passed. I know far-right conservatives hate teachers, but I thought they loved law and order. Only if they don't have to pay for it, apparently. Oh well, they can always use their "Second Amendment Remedy" to the crime problems in the brave new "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" world they want to create.

Sure Houston and Mo, and it's all free money being given to the states, by The Great Obama. Santa'Bama, right guys?

Wouldn't it be nice if the country had an economic plan that encouraged the growth of the private sector, you know so people would be employed and paying taxes to pay for all these government programs? Instead we have Obama-Nomics, where the government is King, and to heck with those criminal corporations!

But it's "For the children". It sure is, and they're the ones that will be paying for it too.

I'll tell you what, Mo, if you can find ANY post of mine where I advocated "lets extend those tax cuts for the rich", I'll call Barry "President Obama" for a week. Good Luck. I really do enjoy sending lefty liberals on wild goose chases!!!

Houston,

Good post, they do seem to forget a lot. Selective memory.

"Recovery Summer"

That's something that Orwell's Ministry Of Truth might have come up with.

Brilliant!

"Wouldn't it be nice if the country had an economic plan that encouraged the growth of the private sector, you know so people would be employed and paying taxes to pay for all these government programs?"

What party did 5 of the last 8 Presidents belong to, I forget? What party does Alan Greenspan, who ran the Fed from 1987 to 2006 belong to, I'm not sure I remember. Who controlled all 3 branches of government 2000-2006? Boy, their policies didn't work so well, we blew this enormous bubble that burst in 2007, when we must have had a Democratic President. After all, it says right here http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/1021/p09s01-coop.html that the economy does much better under Republican government. It does say that, doesn't it?

"BTW, do any of the FR lefty liberals see the tragic irony of the Dems even thinking about paying off their labor union backers by taking food out of the mouths of the poor????"

Apparently the morning FR lefty liberals have no problem with this. Maybe the real, compassionate, caring, FR lefty liberals are sleeping in this morning.

Or maybe the FR lefty liberals, know that the Dems in Congress are just full-of-sh!t, lying politicians and just don't want to have to admit it.

Here we go with this Democrat tactic again. If we don't pass a certain bill; teachers, firefighters, policemen will be laid off. That is a crock of BS. That is just a way to garner votes through deceitful tactics. If those municipalities have squandered their budgets on new football stadiums, new courthouses, new fleet of city vehicles, etc....throwing more money at them will not help. A new accountant, city manager, mayor is whats needed.

I guarantee there are cities out there with their hand out for that government money that don't need it. Anytime something is being handed out and people see it as being FREE, everyone wants it whether they need it or not.

JoAnnaSmith

Sure Houston and Mo, and it's all free money being given to the states, by The Great Obama.

JoAnna is another "conservative" who doesn't seem to like the police very much. What do you have against them?

During the 60's, conservatives used to put bumper stickers on their cars reading: "If you don't like the cops, next time you're mugged call a hippie." Today's version would be: "If you think cops are an undeserving special interest group, next time you're mugged call a Republican."

Houston,

Too much of a blanket statement. In my city, they are talking about cutting the police force by 4%, or the number that was hired with the stimulus. This is because they are in a larger defict than faced in 2009, and without Fedral help they cannot carry the expense. The basic debate comes down to this.

Should the Federal Government be wrapped up with taxpayer dollars in local state affairs. And if so, for how long?

From a conservative point of view, I support having the revenue prior to spending the money. And my conservative point of view is actually why I have voted for Democrats the last 2 election cycles.

Since they're planning to send this money to those States that are planning to cut the most jobs, don't you people think that MAYBE before giving these people more money, they give us a plan as to how they are going to correct the problems they helped create in the first place? Force unions to at the very least not start handing out 100% pensions until the retirement age for Social Security instead of age 50-55 (depending on your state)? Regardless of the union, you can't pay out MORE than you bring in.....unless you know Obama is going to ride on his steed with an open check to bail them out. Who pays for that folks? WE DO! Also, why is it when it's time to cut jobs, it's ALWAYS the teachers, fire fighters, & cops that get it first?

Houston!

JoAnnaSmith

Sure Houston and Mo, and it's all free money being given to the states, by The Great Obama.

JoAnna is another "conservative" who doesn't seem to like the police very much. What do you have against them?

Houston , you're getting to be about as lame as Feisty. Take a day off from being a moron just once in your life.

Not THAT's funny...

The large mouth FR a@@ calling someone LAME! lmao!

Boy Howdy! They've done gone bat sh!t crazzee alright!

On doing a little more searching I just found out this: Politifact rates the Republican claims that the Democrats' plan to repeal the upper-income tax cuts would significantly impact small businesses is a PANTS-ON-FIRE LIE.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/04/randy-neugebauer/lawmaker-claims-democrats-want-hit-small-businesse/

What impact would raising taxes on the top two income brackets have on small businesses? According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the same source that Neugebauer cited in his blog post, "In 2011 just under 750,000 taxpayers with net positive business income...will have marginal rates of 36 or 39.6 percent under the president's proposal." That translates into only 3 percent of all taxpayers with positive business income. Yes, you read that right. Only 3 percent of all taxpayers who reported having positive business income will see their taxes go up under the proposed Democratic initiative.

Notice that is 3% of all those reporting business income, not 3% of all taxpayers. So cdahl is in a select group indeed if the tax cuts would impact him adversely.

Thanks for the link, I am always learning, open to all sides and very non-emotional in my stance. It allows me to rethink views.

Also, to stress: I agree with the increase in taxation, just split the business away from my personal paycheck. And if you are going to raise it, please don't squander the revenue on pet projects and then come back for more.

I am a fiscal conservative, meaning if our revenue is X, we can't spend x + something more. I will continue to vote for the party that supports that basic premise. And it has been a little hard to find over the last 15 years.

Thanks again for the post.

Cdahl, you're welcome. I accidently posted the Politifact link in this thread and so I reposted it in the original thread where tax policies were being discussed. But since you replied here, I'll just say that I don't think business expenses should be taxed as personal income, either. I agree that any laws that do that shuold be changed, even if they impact only a small percentage of tax payers.

On the question of fiscal conservatism, I'm all for it, too. But not when the economy is in bad shape. You certainly must know that businesses go into debt sometimes for various reasons, and the government has to do it, too. This seems to be one of those times, and not just in MY opinion, or Paul Krugman's opinion, but even in the opinion of Mark Zandi, a former economic adviser to John McCain.

Houston,

I do agree with debt spending when it is essential. And the last couple of years that was the case. I do not agree that the money needs to be put into programs that will either have to be eliminated or continued via debts spending or taxation when the economy comes back. I would love to see the government come up with a plan that actually starts to elimiate debt and keep spending under control, at the very least during economic good times.

Thanks for being open and the posts. It is refreshing vs. the "I'll throw mud at you and you can call me names" that we seem to be seeing all to often.

Cdahl and Houston,

Nice posts you two. See people, we can have rewarding and meaningful dialogue when we want to. This is a perfect example. Very refreshing guys.

LouisJ:

Nice post to start the morning. I would be nice to see a list of what our President has accomplished to date under the most adverse of conditions. People are angry and scared so the person sitting in the White House will get all the grief fair or unfair.

We are headig into some very trying times. I saw yesterday where schools are going to a 4 day week. We were once the envy of the world in Education. Now we are middle class or sometime in the bottom 1/3rd.

Some States are unpaving their roads. Once the Technology of the world is going back to gravel streets. Anybody know where I can buy a good used horse and buggy? I may need it soon.

Fire and Police Departments are doing rolling black outs. This is great for the criminal element in this country, what does it do for us?

I just saw the ultimate stall from republicans. They want to pass a bill that requires their people to take 20 days to read each page of a bill. It would have taken 50+ years to read the HCR under that rule.

To add inslt to injury they (the republicans)want to close congress from November to December in addition to all the other recessess. These guys do not work a full day now, we have bohener with 119 days of golf per year, just shows up every now and then to say NO and goes back to Happy Hour.

Louis, it is going to get tougher out there. Hang tough, good post. Stay safe and be well.

Thanks Vet, and thanks for your posts as well!

Republican obstructionism is choking Liberty and its people. However, it appears many of them (Right Wing Fringe extremists) like it.

US Navy

Where pray tell are we going to get the money to pay for all these things?

Oh...thats right....that would require liberals / progressives to actually cut spending which again libs/ progressives have NEVER found others peoples money that thay dont want to spend

So until you guys are willing to admit that government cant be everything to everyone and we cant give schools money to study cracked out monkies -- and still have money to pay the unions..... I maen teachers.

Larry, Here Here. Im thinking we should let the Treasury Dept know Navy's printing money in his basement. I specially like the guy advocating a 90% tax on "rich" people. Thats why I'm now in I am an advocate for free stuff. Just show me door to liberal bliss and give me my gift package.

Sorry Larry, but your posts always make me sick.

That's the understatement of the day Tom! ;0))

What all of you are forgetting is that Police, Education, Fire Fighters are a State & Local Issue. It is not the Federal Government's responsibility to fund these programs in any way shape or form.

Gee Larry, I know you don't like to have your opinion sullied by facts, but a deficit that grows during a recession is normal http://economics.about.com/od/recessions/a/budget_deficits.htm . It shrinks pretty rapidly once growth begins again because tax revenues grow rapidly. Unless, of course, we have an economic policy that squanders that money http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html .

I could be accused of being unfair to you by accusing you of preferring opinion over fact, but we've already discussed the importance of the "monkeys on crack" research to determining how to combat addiction in humans I stand by it. You chose not to engage on that issue before, preferring to just smear researchers doing important work to benefit mankind. Gudonya.

Louis J. Great post.

I saw where the GOP wants to close Congress from election day until the new session starts in January. My thought, fine anyone who doesn't show up loses their pay check and the benefits that go with it. I prefer my legislators to work for my tax money that pays them; a two-month paid vacation doesn't cut it.

PuCkiE
Larry, Here Here. Im thinking we should let the Treasury Dept know Navy's printing money in his basement. I specially like the guy advocating a 90% tax on "rich" people. Thats why I'm now in I am an advocate for free stuff. Just show me door to liberal bliss and give me my gift package.

It's actually 'hear hear' as in listen listen, which I've found only a few actually do. They are too busy readying their next assault, searching for a gotcha instead of actually hearing what someone is trying to tell them.

Do you even begin to understand what happened from 2000-2006? Prior to the Bush administration and even into it, our country was moving forward, our economy was thriving our technological gains were staggering and because it happened on Bill Clinton's watch (could have happened on anyone's, but it just happened to land on his), instead of continuing the prosperity and putting our country first when the Bush administration took office they changed the course of the country's direction and threw it off a cliff. From surplus to record debt, from job creation to massive layoffs, relative peace to TWO wars. We were lied to, stolen from and basically told to have intercourse with ourselves if we opposed any of these things.

Now, here we sit, decimated by the failed policies of the Bush administration and we are trying to find ways to drive our country further apart? We have a man (and yes he is only a man, not a messiah) that is trying to do what he thinks is the right way to put us back on track. We elected him to do that. My favorite arguement that I used to hear is that he is trying to do too much. When I try to overacheive at work I get commended for it, not told 'hey Steven can you scale back the effort a bit?'

I consider myself a pretty level-headed person and I usually investigate stuff before cut and pasting it, but in all honesty what I have seen from the Republican party embarasses me as a member of the same species. Yes, I agree less government is better WHEN THINGS ARE GOING OKAY. When they aren't, like Katrina, 9/11, the economy, etc I expect my taxpayer money to be used to FIX them.

So quit all the bickering and lets get TOGETHER as a nation and a people get our problems fixed by trusting our President and his plethora of people that are a lot smarter than most of the people on these boards and quit saying NO to everything.

Hey, if at the end of the day his policies suck, at least we can be heard at the polls. We will never know though if we just keep blocking EVERYTHING.

I have been reading the various posts, and I am amazed of how many believe our administration is working well during these troubled times. Well, I disagree. Several posts comment on the lack of funds for teachers, police, public employees, etc. I feel we can still maintain services without the high costs of service, if we have the opportunities to restructure the labor contracts of these folks.

A recent research paper I read indicated public sector employees cost the employer an average of $60K annual - $50K average salary with $10K to benefits. The average private sector employee cost is $70K annual salary with $41K to benefits. And our leader and his legislators are asking for $26B more to pay for the private sector unionized employees?

Can anyone tell me what a private sector employee produces, other than paper?

I draw a blank....

Larry M.

And you are going to pay for the Tax Cuts how??????????

Steven, it's interesting for you to acknowledge that what happened to Bill Clinton could have happened to anyone, but are able to blame George Bush personally for what happened to him.

Interesting, but not surprising.

Steven, Highlands Ranch, CO

Excellent post! Very well said.

Richard, Washington State
Steven, it's interesting for you to acknowledge that what happened to Bill Clinton could have happened to anyone, but are able to blame George Bush personally for what happened to him.

Interesting, but not surprising.

I am blaming President Bush's administration because in my opinion they made a series of monumental mistakes that led us to the state of the nation when he left office. I thought I was being fair in NOT giving the Clinton Administration full credit for the prosperity we enjoyed under his administration, but that it was an upswing that he presided over and I felt did quite well despite his extremely poor judgement in his personal endeavors.

I'm not sure I follow the 'not surprising' comment... and I never once said George Bush or blamed him 'personally'. I said the Bush Administration. Please don't misquote me as I was very careful about it. :)

No one person could do what has been done to our country.

Fair enough on the Bush "personally" vs. administration fine point.

Aside from that, you simply take the position that the Bush administration was directly responsible for all the "bad things" that have happened.

That's what's not surprising. The current president has the same approach. Same ol' same ol'. . .

Richard, Washington State:

Aside from that, you simply take the position that the Bush administration was directly responsible for all the "bad things" that have happened.

Strawman alert: Steve wasn't blaming the Bush administration for "all the bad things that have happened." He blame them for all the bad things for which the Bush people are responsible (in Steve's opinion, and that of most people except for hard-core Republicans in deep denial).

Without all the demagoguery can someone explain to me why removing the part of the 14th amendment that deals with anybody born in the US is a citizen is such a bad thing? Is there any other country in the world that has a similar law? What is the advantage of retaining the statute? What are the cons of removing it and keeping the rest of the amendment? Does this amendment apply to tourists/visitors who may be in transit or have a premature birth?

I know of no country that has a law that considers the baby legal visitors, for example a family on a work visa, a citizen of the host country. Even countries that have large guest worker programs did not give this right. Why this right should be extended to someone here illegally is a mystery to me so what are the arguments to keep it? It seems to me that this is a historical anomaly that could be removed.

Now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli you'll know. It's not as unique to the US as has been represented.

Without all the demagoguery can someone explain to me why removing the part of the 14th amendment that deals with anybody born in the US is a citizen is such a bad thing?

Alan, NJ - the answer to your question is that by DENYing the birthright of babies born in the United States will set the stage/open the door for SOMEONE to deny YOU of YOUR birthright in the future.

It is as simple as that.

The writers of the 14th Amendment were VERY CLEAR in their writing. There are no ambiguities there.

My own personal take is that the writers were pretty sick of the 'birthright' that nobles, queens and kings had as a product of being born, and that birthright followed these people until their death. however, the serf never had a chance to have a birthright (other than being poor and a part of the 'underclass'), and I think that this 'wrong' was righted in the 14th Amendment.

The proponents of this 'debate' have a very SELFISH motive. This is a SMOKESCREEN that obscures the REAL reason why this is brought up - to stir up people's emotions to get enough support to get elected. They have NO INTENTION of repealing anything (mostly because they don't have the support to repeal and rewrite a Constitutional Amendment) and this issue MAGICALLY goes away after the November election.

Really.

So, to ask a question while answering a question, since when are we in the business of DENYing anyone of their rights? It seems to me the last time that was done, America was a pretty divided place. I am explicitly referring to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and was that REALLY a good look for America?

America has always been INCLUSIVE of people from all over the world. It makes no sense for us to turn our back(s) on what we are as a country. If we start DENYing people rights, we might as well ship the Statue of Liberty back to France because we CERTAINLY won't need it here any more.

And for those of you that say that America is 'full' - get a grip. There is plenty of room - and money - in this country for all who want to be productive. Now if we can just stop those AMERICANS that help illegal immigration for their own profit, we may be onto something...

Seems that the Wiki list is a little bit outdated.

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/birthright-citizenship/nations-granting-birthright-citizenship.html

The trend appears to be away from birth right citizenship.

Alan, luckily for all of us it takes quite a bit to amend the constitution. it also allows for debate that will stop a knee-jerk reaction to someone's politics.

Pietro:

"So, to ask a question while answering a question, since when are we in the business of DENYing anyone of their rights? It seems to me the last time that was done, America was a pretty divided place. I am explicitly referring to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and was that REALLY a good look for America?"

So what is the benefit of keeping this clause? What citizens right will be affected? Will any person here lawfully be deported? Will their offspring be denied citizenship? As far as I can see the only benefits to this part of the amendment accrue to those that are here illegally.

Posted by Sheri92:

Perhaps you haven't noticed that the current Republican crop prefer to waste time rather than getting anything that matters done during the Obama Administration. Have you seen Republican governors who screamed loudest against the stimulus money handing it out to their constituents as proudly as if they'd printed it themselves? Even if they managed to get this through Congress--and I'm sure nobody would be more surprised than they, the 50 states wouldn't get it done.

Stirring up their xenophobic base about something that isn't going to happen--especially when they expect to be able to blame the Democrats for that--is a great use of Republican time. Nothing they DON'T really want to happen will happen (if they wanted to get tough will illegal aliens, they had YEARS when they could have done it against all Democratic opposition and they didn't) and they can bash the Democrats for flouting the will of the people as if they actually wanted something different.

A waste of expensive legislative time to me, a win/win to Republican legislators and Republican would-be legislators.

Sheri92, I hope you don't mind that I reposted what you posted in another thread. Your thoughts are very appropriate to the discussion here on this thread, and I agree with you 100%.

I hear the GOP talking about the 14th Amendment but not one of them has answered how they would change it other than those pesky illegals from south of the border. They just blow smoke about illegals and babies. Where do they draw the line, just children born to illegals. What if one parent is a citizen and the other an illegal. What if the mother is the illegal and the father a citizen. What about the children of legal immigrants. The GOP paints this with a broad brush but it is not a simple fix. Is their room for debate, yes. But changing the Constitution takes years not months. It would be easier to reform the immigration laws and solve the problem rather than using the Constitution as a substitute solution. Illegal babies are not the problem, the immigration system is.

Posted by Alan, NJ:

So what is the benefit of keeping this clause? What citizens right will be affected? Will any person here lawfully be deported? Will their offspring be denied citizenship? As far as I can see the only benefits to this part of the amendment accrue to those that are here illegally.

Alan, the benefit of keeping this clause is two-fold:

1. NO one OUTSIDE of the United States can EVER strip an American of their birthright as an American Citizen.

2. NO one INSIDE the United States can EVER strip an American of their birthright as an American Citizen.

Although the above statements seem redundant, the spirit of the statements are clear - if you are BORN in the United States, you are an American Citizen. PERIOD. Now, as a part of BEING an american citizen, you have rights AS a Citizen and responsibilities as a citizen. I think you know your rights as a citizen, but the RESPONSIBILITIES of being a citizen is to PROTECT the rights as they have been bestowed upon you.

That is OUR birthright given FREELY to us by the writers of the Constitution (and this amendment).

Now, if you decide to throw away your rights, that's fine. You can even renounce your citizenship, and that is fine too. However, NO ONE can TAKE your citizenship from you - unless you set the stage for that to happen.

I believe that is why there is a citizenship Amendment to the Constitution. I mean, really, why not just make it a law? Why go through all of the trouble of making a Constitutional Amendment?

I believe that the writers of this Amendment did this so that citizenship and soverignty could be protected and not subject to the whim of political influences (in this case, the Republicans).

Let's just say, for laughs, the Republicans were successful in repealing the 14th Amendment. That would mean that there would be precedence to DENY people of their citizenship. Here is an example:

Let's just say that Pietro was successful in becoming the President of the United States. As soon as Pietro gets into office, the Pietro Administration passes a decree that all men named ALAN will be stripped of their American citizenship.

The Pietro Administration would have PRECEDENCE to do that because the 14th Amendment was repealed earlier by the Republicans.

The unintended consequence: You NO LONGER have an AUTOMATIC Birthright to become an American citizen; you have to go through some sort of 'test' to be an American citizen, and if the Pietro Administration decides something crazy that there will be no more 'ALANs' in the United States, what is in place to stop this from happening?

The answer is NOTHING - because the protection you with the 14th Amendment was repealed.

The only thing you would have would be stupid expressions of shock on your faces because you would be powerless to stop Pietro, that madman that runs the Pietro Administration. Oh, and yes, the Pietro Administration would be able to LAWFULLY deport all ALANs that reside in the United States and expatriate the ALANs that were United States Citizens to the countries where they are currently visiting/residing.

Do you see where I am going here?

This is a very DANGEROUS and slippery road that the Republicans are trying to take us. Although I do not believe that talk of repealing the 14th Amendment is nothing more than just that - talk - it does stir up the emotions of people AGAINST other people.

As they say - a divide house CANNOT stand.

Rome is now burning, while Nero is fiddling. Will we put out the flames or listen to the fiddling?

That is the question. Let's hope America has the correct answer.

Without all the demagoguery can someone explain to me why removing the part of the 14th amendment that deals with anybody born in the US is a citizen is such a bad thing?

You know Alan I got kind of curious about that very subject when all this controversy got started so I went back and checked my birth certificate since I had to have it to get a passport. Now that isn’t the only way to get a passport I realize but it’s the only way somebody that was born here can do it that I know of. Looking at it it has a place for a mother and a father but no place for the immigration status of either. So I would say that the worth of the 14 Th amendment is that it provides the base for every one of us that were born in the U.S. to be recognized as citizens of the U.S. How else could you do it? Looks short sweet and to the point to me. Course being recognized as a citizen also make me subject to I.R.S. audits but so far the tradeoff has been worth it.

Gee Alan, you sure went from saying "no other country does this" to "not as many as you think" in a hurry. Could it be that you weren't all that concerned about the accuracy of your original statement because it made the point you wanted? And "repealed birthright citizenship" is a bit of a blanket statment that includes "modified the terms of birthright citizenship" since you've chosen a as your source a group who wants to reduce immigration.

Notice it doesn't say "illegal immigration." These are just people who want fewer of those darned furriners in OUR country.

Yes, one of the few things Bush did right. Like most things, he didn't do enough and was mostly talk and very little do. He talked, for example, about alternative energy but not one penny was spent promoting hydrogen, solar, or wind power by his Administration. Unfortunately the hateful far right extremists got their way in his Administration and that is why they love him so much.

no joe, no bo, nj

Today, the House votes on a 'taxpayer cash for union votes' bill.

That is exactly what this bill is-a pay-off for loyal unions. As with most things Democrats do, it is revolting-and another reason why the GOP is up an average of 6 points on the realclearpolitics average of polls.

Now No Jo i understand how you feel about the stimulas, you were against it like Obama was against the war in iraq. you may be right when thats all over, just like he was in Iraq.

But where i don't understand and please respond, if you can. i thought you were a retired public school teacher. this as many have called a Teachers or Food Stamps Bill. if any body know the situtation that is going on now is you. the decreasing revenues from property tax and states strained with medicare and medicaid bills, local towns having to lay off cops and firemen. no jo you know that a teachers pension is like living on welfare, belive me my mom had a hard time when she had to retire. my view of the chicago teachers union is not good, my mom was cvery active in the union but when budget cuts came and cut here position the union deserted her. but i must seperate that from the needs for our children who go to PUBLIC SCHOOL. if you hate the union, you can't take it out on the kids. i had to realise that!!! so why are you against the very kids you took joy in teaching.

Jeff, I'm not against the kids-I am against the union.

Thanks to the union, I was relegated to 200 minutes of 'face time' with the children out of a six hour day. That included playground/lunchroom duty. That same union, after I left to continue my education, went out on an illegal strike two months after 9/11-in a town where we lost almost 400 people. moms and Dads. Aunts and uncles. Friends and neighbors.

All of a quarter of a percent raise. Oh, and Jeff? When the judge started putting people in jail for contempt of court, he did it alphabetically. Magically, when he got near the part of the alphabet where the union leaders names fell, they agreed to go back to work.

Why were these people in charge? Simple, Jeff-there is no secret ballot for election. Voice vote.

Not until parents begin to demand more controll over what goes on in the classroom will these unions be brought under control. Certainly it will not happen with Democrats in office. They are their puppets-and they buy union votes with our money. It is disgraceful.

My most beloved No Jo:

One of the reasons I did not go into the level of detail that you desire, is because you never do the same for me.

I provided two links that did not gloss over any of the issues, including the ones you raised above.

Here's the thing . . . you are really extraordinary at pointing out what is not right . . . you are not too good at the "what do we do about it" part of the game.

When items that you present are proven to be factually untrue, you simply ignore it and never address it.

When you live up to the standards that hold me and the President to, perhaps then I will be more comfortable having a "conversation" with you.

But as things stand today, I don't really give a flying fig about the type of minutia that you post about polls and actuary comments at the end of reports.

President Obama has a plan and you don't, so even if his plan sucks, he beats you everytime.

I don't have time to argue paint colors in a burning house with you.

What is YOUR plan to address the health care crisis in this country?

Can't wait to hear it.

So-to summarize your response:

if you can't refute it, or spin it so it looks good for Obama, you refuse to address it.

Right. Got it.

By the way, there is no health care crisis-that was manufactured by Obama to ram his plan through. Close to 90% of people are happy with their doctors and their health insurance. No crisis there.

Now, costs are a problem, but the simple solution to that is to remove state mandates, and let people buy whatever and how much insurance as they desire/require.

Unfortunately, that would not fly with Democrats because, after congress acted to remove the state mandates, there would be no job for the government. No link to life and health to run on in future elections. Can't have that, now, can we?

After all, as Lenin said, 'get them by the stomachs and genitals, and their hearts and minds will follow'.

no joe:

Find a hobby . . . because I am over you . . . you don't listen . . . if you believe that 90% of Americans are in a state of blissful health care happiness, then I say enjoy life in your alternate reality.

Our two worlds don't actually touch, so really there is no need for us to discuss things . . . you handle the problems on your planet . . . and I'll stick to the ones on mine, 'kay?

I don't have the luxury of wasting time trying to convince you of anything . . . and I really wouldn't want to if I did.

I am flattered that you think enough of me to continue to seek my opinion . . . but debunking your lies has begun to bore me now . . . maybe next week . . . folks can either verify the stuff you post or believe it . . . I really could care less.

I for one, know from personal experience, that you are not a "reliable source".

'Nuff said.

no joe, no bo, nj

Jeff, I'm not against the kids-I am against the union.

I know, my mom was the same way. she complained about the union all the time, she got tired of teachers abusing the fact the union was strong and no matter what they did or did not do(teach our kids) they knew the union would protect there jobs.

Why were these people in charge? Simple, Jeff-there is no secret ballot for election. Voice vote.

No Jo i know exactly what your talking about believe me, but i must look at in chicago arnie Duncon, the union hates this guy, he fired alot of teachers and closed schools that were not performing. he made teachers accountable for the kids learning. but on the flip side, like my post last week about the kid that was shot 22 times, that untill PARENTS take control of making sure there kids are perpared for learning and not accpet bad teachers, or administrators who use to tell me that they know what best for my kids, when i know they don't.

No Jo i had a department head tell me that because my son was keeping up in his chemectry class he should take a easier class to get a better grade, i faught with her on that, i told her that how will my son compete in the real world unless he takes a the classed that challange him. i went to the assistance principle and he stayed in that class. see if i had let them do what they wanted instead of who i knew was best for my kid he would not be in college but flipping burgers. after that they knew me, they knew that i was not going to settle for second best, i made alot of eminies but i did not care.

See No Jo i think you and i have found common ground, but the governments will not break that union parents will. once parent get back in the schools and not let teachers and even more important administrators with there 20 degrees try and tell you what best the union you and i both hate will continue.

Oha No Jo evanston town ship high school was happy my last kids graduated, because i was a pain in there ass!!!!. but i and my x-wife were not going to let that school have our kids, there ours.

Wow, there is no health care crisis? Well son of a gun. Here all this time I thought there was. I suggest you get the word out quick! All of those people across America that have had to file bankruptcy because of medical bills should be told. Oh, and you should probably stop by some of those events where the doctors and dentist set up shop for a day in a stadium or other venue. You know the ones, where people start lining up days before to get treatment. I'm sure that those people that were never able to get the proper follow up care after major surgery or such will be happy to know it was never a "crisis". And I will go ahead and pass along the word to some good friends of mine that are in the middle of various fundraisers and such to come up with a way to pay for the treatment required for the brain tumor that was recently discovered. Thanks for the update. All this time I was worried that this country had a health care crisis, I can rest easy now and concentrate on more important things like gay marriage or something!

no joe, no bo, nj

Today, the House votes on a 'taxpayer cash for union votes' bill.

That is exactly what this bill is-a pay-off for loyal unions. As with most things Democrats do, it is revolting-and another reason why the GOP is up an average of 6 points on the realclearpolitics average of polls.

And also today the teabagging republicans vote no on a bill for the working American people.

That is exactly what these teabagging republicans want, more tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the poor. And the reason the teabagging republicans are at a dismal 9% in the polls. Put that in your pipe and smoke it no joe all blow, that is if you can get rid of that wacky tabacky your smoking now.

so, Nash, the translation is, 'if you can't refute it, ignore it'.

Yep. Sounds right.

You are also right about our living in two different worlds. In the utopian dream world you inhabit, all of Obama's grand schemes make life a pure delight; in my real world, the unintended consequences you ignore exacerbate every problem he tries to address.

Unfortunately for you, the majority of people live in MY world. But don't worry-I'm still betting you get to be president of the Obama fan club. It's just that it's a very small club membership-getting smaller by the day.

oh-and unbelievable? you should go on over to factcheck.org. They debunked that DNC talking point last year.

The study that purported to show all those bankruptcies was done for that very purpose-so of course they got the answers they sought. However, they used some very unorthodox methods and measures to get that talking point.

Included in medical bankruptcies are gambling debt, (gambling addiction, I presume), illicit drug use, and alcoholism. Despite the existence or health insurance, or its lack.

They then asked people if they were SURE that medical bills hadn't caused them to run up so much debt. After asking a few times, many agreed that, in fact, by jove, that was the case!

The fact that the average medical bill in these cases was one thousand dollars should give anyone pause-anybody who goes bankrupt over a $1000 bill needs a keeper in the first place.

Like the true actuary's report vs. the spin from the trustees, you'll keep spouting this particular Obamaism.

Too bad the rest of the country is no longer listening.

"By the way, there is no health care crisis-that was manufactured by Obama to ram his plan through. Close to 90% of people are happy with their doctors and their health insurance. No crisis there."

I'd expect a teacher to have some respect for facts, but apparently not because the facts don't back that up http://www.gallup.com/poll/141815/Americans-Confidence-Medical-System-Rebound.aspx .

This is NOT about unions, it is about educating our children. There are more good teachers than bad ones and many who can go one way or the other. I have no doubt the good ones aren't happy to see the bad ones rewarded the same way they are.

Republicans are very good at blaming all our troubles on unions--Reagan started it--while ignoring the benefits unions provide for the rest of us. We are seeing a shift in unions, it is slow, but there is increasing realization that unions should not protect bad workers and especially bad teachers.

In discussing teacher unions, everyone ignores this. President Obama and his Sec of Education Arnie Duncan have angered teacher unions by requiring teachers be held accountable, they also want bad teachers fired, and are promoting quality charter schools. You did not hear anyone from the Obama administration protest the firings of over 200 teachers in Washington DC--because they were bad teachers. Teacher unions are not happy with the Obama administration.

Jody, Iowa

this is what everybody is missing, while they take crap about Obama and unions. my sisters, sister inlaw is a teacher in kansas city and we know how bad those schools are, while i was telling her about arnie duncon after he was named ED secetary all she wanted to know was will he protect teachers, i told her about the teachers that were fired in chicago and the schools closed because they were and had not been performing for years, all she wanted to know was, did they reasign the teachers fired, i told her NO. they had to find some other way to earn a living, at that point she got real quite wondering about her schools in kansas city and what may happen there. 2 months ago i saw her at a family function and she told me that alot of her FRIENDS were fired, but that evil guy in washington.

jody this kind of information will never get out because the republican want everybody to think Obama is in love with unions like republican are in love with the rich and tax cuts.

Ginger, how can that be true? I heard Rush, with my own ears, say just the week before last that all the hotels in Arizona were full to bursting and turning people away. He said the fact that the President sued Arizona to prevent the new law from going into effect was the reason they were having such a boom in tourism. He said folks were flocking to Arizona to show their support for the good citizens of that state and their disdain for the President. I didn't make this up. I heard it. I think it was the day before the judge ruled on the stay, but I'm not sure about that.

Rush wouldn't lie to me would he?

I dunno, were his lips moving? That's how you can tell.

TRR Barboursville, WV

Last night I was watching Hardball and Chuck Todd was filling in for Chris Matthews and Chuck was interviewing a Senator from Louisiana (can't remember his name). He asked several times how would they pay for Bush's tax cuts and he could not give him a straight answer.

That answer is easy. Just do what the Democrats do, declare it "Emergency Spending" and add it to the deficit, or say you'll pay for it today by cutting food stamps funding in 2016.

Raising the age of Social Security may not be a bad idea.

After all, I believe at the time SS was initially created, 50% or some significant portion of Americans didn't live past 60 or so, so the time living beyond the start of benefits was reduced. Perhaps if we re-examined the system and put the age of full benefits at 70, 72, or somewhere in that general vicinity, we may end up saving ourselves. (What's my source? I spoke with the writer Amity Shlaes after she gave a lecture at Hofstra)

Sean,

Yeah, the Tea Partiers will just love that idea!

SeanDoonan (I-MA)

Raising the age of Social Security may not be a bad idea

Difficult choices have to be made. Raise the age of eligibility, cut benefits, tax people more, or privatise some/all of it. At least the Republicans are proposing solutions. The Democrats on the other hand just want to use the issue as a scare tactic to the elderly by saying "The mean ol'Republicans want to steal your social security!".

But why worry? Lets just be happy! Lets get back to our "Recovery Summer" and just enjoy how well the country is being run by Obama and the Democrats!

That $26 billion dollars to pay off the state unions (again) get passed yet? I guess government union jobs are more important then the private sector jobs because those are the only jobs the Democratrs seem to care about.

Yea Republican......Oooops Sorry I forgot Im getting free money now. Pssssst does that mean I HAVE to vote Democratic. Im still a bit confused.

TRR.....God Morning,

You can be sure if John of Orange, would have his way raising the SS age to 70, it wont apply to the lifetime politicians.

If by taking two months off, Congress would like to have their salaries cut for two months, then that might work.

However, the suggestion, is that they take off Nov and Dec thereby stopping any actions on legislation by a lame duck session, This proposal by Repubs. is based on their fear (they play that tactic so well) additional legislation will be passed by the Dems. and there would not be much they could do about it. This suggestion, is their basing it on big wins in Nov. .....let's prove them wrong.

PuCkiE

Yea Republican......Oooops Sorry I forgot Im getting free money now. Pssssst does that mean I HAVE to vote Democratic. Im still a bit confused.

Obviously!

PuCkiE

Yea Republican......Oooops Sorry I forgot Im getting free money now. Pssssst does that mean I HAVE to vote Democratic. Im still a bit confused

That's the plan. Otherwise, no more freebies for you Puckie.

JS1

I know that the Rethugs will vote for cutting food stamps that's because if it has anything to the middle class they vote yes and anything to better this country they vote no.

The fact that the number of recipients are going double over the next 10 years and the number of contributors are not means that the case for raising the retirement age, means testing the benefits and maybe reducing the payments is a demographic one not a political one.

BTW SS does not have a 4.3T surplus. It is owed 4.3T by the Treasury. The taxpayer funds the treasury as it does not have a savings account. When treasury bonds are redeemed the money comes from current taxes or in today's world 40% borrowing.

GM...Good Morning

We will prove them wrong!

Rethugs haven't done a thing for We the People since beginning of 09 because their main goal was or is how can we get back into power.

The Rethugs haven't done a thing for the middle class for the last 10 years.

I remember when I got my big tax cut from Bush it was $4.00 per month. I'll tell you it really went far when I had to buy groceries!

Oh did you notice how Boenher the Orange man blended in with the color of the room when he was on MTP.

TTR Im confused, when did Middle Class become a swear word. Im trying to be a good Ugggh Dem Uggh Crat. But I'm Middle class I dont want to lose all my free money, Oh great Oracle of Liberty tell me what I should do.

@Da Noid:

Just because it's part of the Tea Party platform doesn't make it a bad idea. I don't accept any one party's platform wholesale - that's why I classify myself as a left-leaning independent.

We should also stop raiding what's left of the Social Security surplus (if there is any). If we had left it alone where it was, we might not even be having this discussion anyway.

Puckie, you should start by trying to make sense.

It's more than a few years, Puckie. The Republican Party has been trying to destroy the middle class for 3 decades now. http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/gdp-per-capita.html

The way to "pay" for Bush's tax cuts is with spending cuts.

No one has tried that.

PuCKie

I'm so sorry that you don't want to lose your free money. Yes, I'm middle class and I've never applied for free money.

Plus get off the meds and you'll make more sense.

Hey, Nash-if your hero Obama had done what you prescribed, he would not be president.

He crammed a stimulous bill down out throats based on Keynseian economics, which have proven to fail every time that policy is used.

He crammed a healthcare bill down our throats, despite public outcry, and the evidence from other countries with socialized medicine that it costs too much and does not work well. Heck, if he wanted an American example of the costs he could have looked at Medicare and Medicaid, which told the whole story in few words. His solutions will only exacerbate the problems.

His counter to being shown the actual results of his programs: 'I won". Un huh. Real class, maturity, and intelligence on display there.

Fannie and Freddie are now looking for another $1.8billion of taxpayer funds which will be borrowed from other governments-so much for the wonders of Obama's Financial reforms.

You know, you write quite well-if only you would apply your standards to Obama, you, too, would come to see what an abject failure he is as president.

"Pretending that all the oil in the Gulf has magically disappeared now"

Nash, were you aware that this story came out of Barry's White House and is being strongly pushed by them?

Even a major Obamabot like PMSNBC's feisty redhead, Ed Schultz, is not buying it and is calling out the White House on it on the Mr. Ed Show.

LOL!!!

Now Nash... you of ALL people should know by now that asking tough questions from the MSM & right wing nitwits will only be met with the obligatory sound of *crickets*! lol

They don't have ANY answers other than the spoon fed talking points du jour!

If it wasn't so sad it could actually be comical!

no joe:

Having a vote in Congress is not cramming, it is representative democracy when you are in the minority. Get used to it.

not-so-funny-joe:

Again, I am left to wonder how your comment is in anyway relevent.

The simple fact is, there isn't a whole lot to do about all the oil that went into the Gulf, and not much that we know to do other than test the fish, and if the levels are okay, then they are okay. We can't know the long term ramifications yet . . . but my point is how all the grandstanding and political foolishness has magically abated now that the convenient prop of the visual of the oil spewing into the Gulf is gone.

None of that political theater did anything to help this country or the residents of the Gulf . . . so this is not about "Barry's Whitehouse", this is about a broken political system focused on phony narratives instead of actual solutions.

Like I said, you are mildly amusing when I am in the mood . . . today not so much.

No Joe, care to cite some examples of Keynesian economics not working? What "evidence from other countries" that "socialized" medicine doesn't work? The fact that they outlive us? The fact that their infant mortality rate is better? Boy, THAT'S an epic fail!!

Wow, terrific post, Nash! Can't say it any better than you did! I voted.

Um, Auntie? go buy an econ textbook. However, here are just a few:

despite the liberal yearning to ignore fact and use emotion,(they 'feel' that the new deal worked), Keynseian policies did not help, and actually exacerbated, the Great Depression. It was not until manufacturing ramped up in the lead up to World War II that we got out of those doldums.

Were you around in the late '70's? That's when the JMK chickens REALLY came home to roost. High unemployment, high inflation, interest rates through the roof-we actually invented a new term for the situation, stagflation, because high inflation and high unemployment were supposed to be mutually exclusive.

The Brits were a bit more stubborn than we were-they stuck like glue to Keynes-implementing even more of his policies than prior to the war. As a result, their economy did not recover until the eighties-when Maggie Thatcher turned the economy around.

The Germans have been shedding Keynes' policies systematically since the early '90's, when they decided that twenty years or so of 11% unemployment was simply too long. The French are, just now, unraveling many Keynesian policies.

Obama just keeps implementing more.

As to national healthcare systems: Germany has done away with theirs, as the costs were too high. France is looking for a way out, and in England, there is a two tier system-NIH and private. Those who need immediate care make sure that they have private insurance, because the waits for the NIH are ridiculously long. Try doing some research on the medications denied those dependent on NIH.

As for Canada-it was just a few months ago that one of their ministers arrived in the U.S. for needed surgery. Explain that one in the context of how great their system is.

Magical thinking is the hallmark of Obama worshipers. The rest of us outgrew it by age 8. So, you'll come up with something, but it won't fly with people who clearly see the truth.

God I hope Feisty will become my next ex wife. She turns me on when she uses those special endearing names. Please call me a nitwit one more time.

President Barack Hussein Obama! ;o)

Four more years!

Four more years!

Four more years!

The ONLY candidate with the EXPERIENCE to get the job DONE!

Cool under pressure . . .knowledgeable on the issues . . . politically courageous. . . giving America what she needs, THE TRUTH!

The right man at the right time.

A thinker.

A doer.

A fighter.

Obama/Biden 2012 . . . The vision to lead, the courage to act!

(I'm FIRED UP and READY TO GO!)

No Joe, besides the Wall Street Journal and its water bearers, who says the New Deal didn't work? Who says Germany gave up its national health care system? First I've heard of it! I was around in the late 70s. Tell me what Keynes had to do with Johnson's "Guns and Butter" approach? As far as the Canadian minister, who paid for his visit? Canadian health care regularly sends its citizens here - AND PAYS FOR IT!!

I'm glad I'm on the same side as you are, Nash!

Here, here!

Nash said: "Again, I am left to wonder how your comment is in anyway relevent."

Ummmm, Nash, because your original comment was bashing the Republican's:

Pretending that all the oil in the Gulf has magically disappeared now that there aren't any political points left to score is not a solution.

when the ACTUAL TRUTH is that the only ones pretending the oil is gone is your beloved Barry's White House??

Sorry, Nash, that the ACTUAL TRUTH sucks for you, deal with it.

Auntie-how about the BLS?

Unemployment rate-1929,(as the starting point)-3.2%

1933-24.9%

1939-17.2%-the Supreme Court had cut off many of his programs by then.

1940-14.6%

Ready for it? 1942-4.7%

All that government spending did very little to get Americans back to work. If you want a real eye-opener, read the "Railroad that Went Out to Sea"-about Flagler's Key West extension of the Florida East Coast railway. Thousands of World War I veterans, moved into camps by FDR. Housed in flimsy buildings. Kept there during hurricane season, when the building managers pled for them to be removed. Most of them killed when caught in the Labor Day storm. Real humanitarian, that FDR.

Maybe you could do some reading about his compassion for the hundreds of thousands of Jews who begged to come to this country BEFORE they were sent to work camps. You know-the ones who were ignored. Or his loving kindness to Japanese Americans, who were sent to internment camps.

Yeah-he was quite a guy. Except for all the facts that don't quite bear that out, that is.

"Ummmm, Nash, because your original comment was bashing the Republican's" - Joe

--------------------------------------------------

Joe,

Can you read? The word "Republican" did not appear in my post and I specifically said that this was not an issue of one party versus the other.

P.S. Have you heard the news? President Obama is doing a kick a$$ job of leading our country! Instead of dropping lilke a rock, our economy is stabilizing. And when we vote out the last of the "all talk, no work" Congress-crooks, we can begin growing again! So there is the "certainty" you have been so desperately seeking - happy now! ;o)

We don't need to keep debating this.

"It was not until manufacturing ramped up in the lead up to World War II that we got out of those doldums."

NJ has already admitted that the large amount of deficit spending and demand for labor created by the military during WWII put our economy right. Too bad we didn't have the wisdom to avoid dramatically tightening the money supply and pulling government stimulus before the economy was on a sound footing http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article16941.html or we could have been out sooner. Of course there are plenty of people demanding that we make that same mistake again.

But we don't have to rely on NJ to back that up, actual Economists also agree http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/economy/17leonhardt.html that the stimulus worked.

Thanks for adding your backing to the concept that economic stimulus works, NJ!

Gee, No Joe, why did you neglect 1921? 9.9%, a 4.7 percentage point drop?

Robert Rosen, in his book "SAVING THE JEWS: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Holocaust" does not agree with you.

Doing some quick reaearch, I find NO conncection between Roosevelt and the railroad incident in question. The bulk of construction on this railroad was completed in 1912, so what thousands of World War I veterans were doing there is anyone's guess.

I'll give you this, No Joe - you're creative!

One other ignored item, FDR listened to the republicans and cut back federal spending too quickly which caused the doldrums. The right will always continue to deny that FDR's policies worked--it's what they do for a living.

Typo - 1921 should be 1941!

"Can you read? The word "Republican" did not appear in my post and I specifically said that this was not an issue of one party versus the other."

Nash, PULEEEZE, Your first 5 points (copied below) are ALL whining about lefty liberal interpretations of Republican positions, and I'm supposed to believe number 6, which I commented on, is NOT targeted at Republicans because you didn't type the letters r, e p, u, b, l, i, c, a, and n????

I repeat: Sorry, Nash, that the ACTUAL TRUTH sucks for you, deal with it.

And demonizing teachers and policeman as "special interest groups" because they are represented by a union is not a solution.

And changing the constitution to change who is a citizen is not a solution.

And "taking our country back" and "standing up to 'Obama' and 'Pelosi' is not a solution.

And continuing to cut taxes with no way to pay for it is not a solution.

And spreading lies to scare folks is not a solution.

Pretending that all the oil in the Gulf has magically disappeared now that there aren't any political points left to score is not a solution.

We do need a private sector and a government.

The latter is far better when the former is dominant and thriving.

You go Nash, go! I'm right behind you. Four more years!

I'll bet the mere thought of that causes constipation in most of the conservatives posting today.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

Great post, Jody. Obama is popular amongst Democrats in Maine, but I can't imagine his presence on the campaign trail boosting Libby Mitchell for governor, because state elections are just a different animal. Possibly, if popular ex-governor Angus King endorsed her, that would help, but state politics is state politics, national is national. Maybe Obama can boost turnout in African American communities, but he couldn't do much in Maine, I don't think.

June, the "Animal Farm" needs a replacement for their minister of propaganda. You are hereby appointed as the new Squealer.

Still not making any sense puckie. But keep trying.

Social security isn't free, there, skippy. You've been paying into it since you started working so that some day, you and the rest of us could retire and enjoy life a bit.

It is easy to say to raise the retirement age to 70. That sounds great if you work in an office but what about the hard labor manufacturing jobs, the jobs that require 8 hours of standing, of lifting heavy boxes and pieces of equipment. I've watched people in the early 60's work heavy manufacturing jobs; they now have back problems, neck problems, muscle strains and they go home after their shift physically worn out. There are much easier fixes to social security but the GOP would label them tax increases. One is to raise the amount of earned income on which social security benefits are deducted. Oh, but that affects those making the most money so we could not do that.

Well said Jody, if they want to give me back all the money I've paid into Social Security over the last 48 years plus interest of course, they can do what they like with it. But, since that's not likely to happen, I'd like to have the money I was promised when I signed up and I want the original contract honored.

I'm planning to retire at 62, I've worked hard to pay my way out of debt, cars paid for, house paid for (almost) no credit card debt to speak of and I've earned a modest pension to supplement my social security. The wife and I have a modest investment nest egg. No, I am no means rich. But I have not squandered my money on bigger houses, bigger cars, etc. We've lived within our means and we've earned everything we have.

I'm not getting any FREE money when I retire. I earned my pension benefit. I paid into Social Security. I've worked my entire life, starting with my first paper route at 12 until now just days away from my 60th birthday, and I'll be darned if some right wing nut job is going to denigrate what I have earned or try to take it away from me while comparing me to being on the dole. I have earned my retirement and I plan to enjoy it and sad little puckie can just go suck an egg.

es

Another great post by puckie.

PuCkiE
hahahahaha, Bev I was thinking the bridges are free and clear this morning.

I'm not quite sure what you mean; however I will say itsn't it great to live in the land of the free? I'm hoping you realize the repubs lied; otherwise the government take over would mean no bridges at all.

Still not there puckie. Keep trying.

Don't try to figure out what puckie means Beverly, he doesn't even know what he means.

Still not there puckie. Your still not making any sense.

PuCkiE

I see now you have a dim wit mindset with no future in mind; just doom and gloom like the typical trolls who don't know which way is up.

There's hope for you. Read US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired post. If you don't understand it, it's nothing unusual for a typical Tbagger.

Actually Im not teabagger, Ive managed to purchase and pay for 3 homes count them 3 Paid for. Ive also managed to evade giving my retirement money to people who havent worked and never plan to work, but want what I have. Oh yea, I spent 10 year in OUR military as did my father and his father and so on. I was part of the honor guard for the peace accord ( actually got to shake hands with Anwar Sadat) few weeks before he got his head shot off. Here the take, Im 8 years away from retirement. A comfortable one, I have a disabled wife and a blind son. Who I <------ see the I pay for and have always planned to pay for. I didnt need anyone coming into my life telling me where I can get insurance (mine worked just fine) And as a closer I will say that I grew up in a very poor family 5 kids mom held 3 jobs, I quit school got my GED and went off to defend this country. I have worked for everything I have, I like it where it is and how it is. I dont want anyone from any party to tell me what to do with whats mine up to and including my weapons (which I proudly and legally carry where ever I go.) Specially since I live in Deeeeeeetroit which if you have been reading lately is the 3rd worst city for crime in the US.

Bev, Do you actually know what a teabag is and have you ever gotten one?

Maybe you need to go back over to Fox, where your ramblings will make some sort of sense. But by all means keep posting here if you want to continue looking stupid.

Stop me if you've heard this one before...

OFFER US SOME IDEAS!

Da Noid...Stop regurgitating your tired old DNC / Organizing Against (For) America talking points..... they make you look silly and uninformed.

In the health care debacle alone, Republicans offered over 44 pieces of specific legislation and all were sidelined and never allowed to be floored due to the Dems controlling the agenda. That is fact confirmed by my Rep in a written letter on Congressional letterhead............. so stop with the offer some ideas BS.... there are ideas out the tailpipe and Obama isn't interested in listening.

Also, numerous Rep. leaders have requested meeings w/ Obama to never be heard or even responded to.

So when you, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc. all say where are the ideas, you look foolish as many Americans are on to you simple minded, childish games.

Cheers.....

And your a Real American citizen because of ?

The Narcissit/dictator/traitor-in-chief must be a reference to President GW Bush....who stripped some individual rights with the Patriots Act, who sent the country into war under false pretenses....who spent away the surplus and watched the economic meltdown happen.

But if it's not, then please explain to whom you refer and why.

Da Noid, did you get any ideas from Stop-the-statistics? I didn't think so just more rambling from a nut.

Kate are you asking them to back up their nonsense? (:^D Don't hold your breath.

Oh well, if a Congressman wrote it then it MUST be true! And on real Congressional letterhead no less! Some people get so cranky when a minority vote of 40 Senators isn't sufficient to win on every single issue.

Maybe you should start by looking up the definition of "socialism".

Here's a hint...it is not, "Whatever the RNC tells me it is."

Da Noid... Pls. see first sentence in comment 22.2. Still applies.

I'm real clear on the definition..... too bad you're so delusional.

By all means Stop-the-statists, seeing as how you so up on the term "socialism" please educate us on the meaning. Not the Fox meaning the real meaning.

Stop-the-stupid <---really more of a suggestion

You clearly have no idea what socialism is. Try again. As Nash might say...you have been dismissed.

Article says, "White House tries to snap a losing streak......" That will be tough when the entire administration is entirely comprised of hard left, Socialist, Liberal ideologue losers that are hell bent on killing all private sector business in this country.

Obama is far to the right of Eisenhower. In Ike's day, Restraint Of Trade was outlawed.

Funny thing is, Obama will take credit for the small growth in jobs in the private sector at the same time he's trying to kill their businesses with his European, Socialist policies ..... What a hypocrite.

I saw a bit down that you're an expert on socialism. Great! Can you explain dialectical materialism and show how Obama conforms to that dynamic?

And next, could you explain why Article 1, sec 8 cl 1-18 of the constitution are NOT socialist, since they grant congress the right to raise taxes and impose levies and control business, i.e. expand government in perpetuity.

since socialists don't believe in personal property, you could prove someone is a socialist by simply taking his property since a socialist would consider you the owner of his bass boat or flatscreen tv just as much as he is. G'wan and take it. What could possibly go wrong?

Whats that got to do with anything? Who cares how many students of color there were. Why is it people have to toss a race card at people like its a tip.

Keep trying puckie you will get it eventually. Not, theirs no cure for stupidity.