Louis J,

Nice first post this AM. I saw yesterday where the republicans now want to privatized Veteran Medical care. I my opinion as a retired DAV I find this total repugnant. Currently the VA has a cost of less than one cent to administer they medical care. Even when Bush pushed for this years ago the cost to privatize was about five times that. But that is not the only issue. To allow private insurance companies that a money driven to provide care for our most precious blood is a big mistake. Insurance Companies are in the business to make money, and they do that by limiting care (benefits). That's the bottom line. The veterans that we owe this benefit to will suffer and the Insurance Companies will make more record profits.

Is their anything that the republicans support other than Wall Street, Big Business and the richest 2% of the people? They appear to be against the middle class, small businesses, the real small businesses not the ones that Boehner claim are small businesses (see my post below). They are against education, science, green jobs (they do not believe in global warming) etc.

And these are the people that we want to put back into power?????

Louis J. Excellent post to start the morning. The only promise Republican Tea Party ever keeps is to cut taxes, and those they make sure benefit the wealthies 2-3%, including those giant small businesses like Bechtel.

LouisJ

Army Vet tries to ignite Holy War by Killing the President of the United States.

The halls of Congress need to react to this just as much as law enforcement did. This man obviously got his instructions through Glenn Beck and the Right Wing propaganda machine.

You have stressed some very important issues. Although I appreciate and feel your disgust, I think it's time to address our nations bigotry and fascination of assassination of our First African American President by the wingnuts and those opposed to social and economic justice. The media has given added fuel to the fire to Glenn Beck and the Right Wing propaganda machine. It's voices like yours, mine,the left's and other who will have the courage to not feel ashamed to discuss how serious this is.

Tea baggers, as I see it, are so afraid and intent on taking back a country they think they own. Could the fear be exacerbated because minimally skilled, not well-educated think that they own this country because of their skin color? It may be transparently true, for the first time in American history, that most Tea baggers ostensively see their privilege, rapidly dissipating; especially since the demographics in America, suddenly, is changing.

Most Tea baggers are minimally skilled, not well-educated, and easily led in the wrong direction; since it has been proven they are being manipulated by the massive and well-funded campaign of the the billionaire Koch brothers.

Also, any low level idiot would believe President Barack Obama is a plant of some kind like a shrub or woody perennial plant with several branches; (absolutely, and unquestionably so since the GOTP and Fox Noise says so); but, an actual Muslim? Believing the President is a plant is just as crazy as believing the President is a Muslim; really!

That’s putting it mildly. Can anyone say conspiracy theories?

Contradiction? How are they going to reverse the deficit when they want to make the bush tax cuts permanent. Lets see wasn't there something about freezing spending, repealing this horrible health care reform bill and about a dozen other things listed. Your article is only matched in ignorance by some of the responses.

By the way I am a nurse and a veteran. The VA is notorious for waste, politics and a poor standard of care. Privatizing it could only improve upon it like private schools improved on education with better results at a fraction of the cost. Give me a break. You democrats won't be happy until you completely bankrupt this Country like what happened in Greece and whats happening in France. Are you that near-sighted or just that stupid.

The actions of one single moron does not represent the entire party. You didn't see Fox News claiming all those on the left wanted to strap bombs to their chest and walk into the Discovery Channel. Just the fact you can even think that way boggles the mind.

Privatizing VA? If that were true this article would have mentioned it. As a Conservative the only times I've ever even heard that mentioned was from speculators on the left who excel at name calling or fear mongering.

What do you mean the Republicans are only for the richest 2%? Are they raising your taxes? That's an MSNBC and liberal talk show talking point that doesn't even make sense.

The only promise Republican Tea Party ever keeps is to cut taxes, and those they make sure benefit the wealthies 2-3%, including those giant small businesses like Bechtel.

Really? I know you're making this up. Know how? There AREN'T any Tea Party members elected who have done that. There's only one and it's Scott Brown. Do you guys ever read or do you just make crap up and honestly believe it?

And Beveryly, that's the most racist thing I've seen on here in a long time. The fact you think all those stupid white people hate black presidents...but wait...they don't think he's black, they think he's a plant... WTF?? LOL. That's the craziest conspiracy theory I've EVER heard.

Besides, all of you are off topic. This article is about the Contract For America. I guarantee you more promises can be kept against that than Obama kept. How you liking that business as usual, non transparent gov't, stuff?

You are very lucky to have meet MOST Tea Party members. You however have not meet all. I am not a tea party member however several of my collegues are, funny thing they are medical doctors and lawyers. Of course there are people in every party who do not seem to be well educated, since I live near East St. Louis, I could assume that all democrats were high school dropouts. BUT I don't make that assumption, because I don't paint all members of any organization witha broad brush. It seem me, that you, and your fellow democrats as well as the MSM would be well served to quit painting members of the tea party as uneducated hick/rednecks.

True to an extent janet, and well taken. In fact the Tea Party has both -- wealthy interests who are the voices and organizers, funding and message. These are the folks who the Tea Party serves in the same way that the Conservative Movement has always served these interests.

There aren't enough of them to make a significant minority, though, let alone a majority. So they need the misinformed and underinformed, and particularly the easily misled. Without significant numbers of people who like the heierarchical nature of a Conservative society or are capable of being convinced that stacking the deck in favor of someone else is a good thing there is no Conservative victory.

The President's image needs to be humanized. He needs to get out and about among ordinary people, to talk about the nitty gritty aspects of his policies and how it affects them. He's a likeable guy with an important information to impart to the citizens of this country. I don't just mean more appearances on The View, in his snappy blue suit, I mean he needs to be seen in more casual settings, having conversations with people. If George Bush had stayed overnight in a FEMA trailer, post Katrina, think how differently he would have been perceived.

Janet, as a previous resident of E St Louis, a E St Louis high school graduate, a bachelor's degree holder, a MBA holder, and member of a family with all high school graduates (who are of age and came through E Saint public schools) and countless college graduates, I am highly offended at your reference to "since I live near East St. Louis, I could assume that all democrats were high school dropouts".

What?

The level of high school drop outs is high- in many areas- and E St Louis doesn't make the top 10.

The next time you choose to devalue a city or it's people- it might do you well to understand what you think you're saying rather than be called out for making off the walls statements

Amen to that necole.

But back on topic... the Republicans have no pledge... just more wedge. The wedge issues have been outlined in the Do Nothing Manifesto.

And off topic, this community collapse is counter productive and illegitimate. I shouldn't have to send e-mails making pleas to 'un' collapse or restore a comment. I don't even think the "Community" collapsed it, just one Republican that feels they had their feelings hurt. Oh boo fraggin hoo.

This is not a pledge, these are rehashed talking points.

They still dont have a plan, they still are catering to high earners, they still are out of touch, most of them still forget where they came from (e.g. John Boehner) and what it is like to have to work harder and harder to make a living and raise a family.

If this is what they have to offer as the vaunted American Dream, it will only be for the privileged few and for the rest of us a continous nightmare.

GM

Like I said last week. I'm tired of breaking my back for the rich.

Of course the Rethugs don't have any plans...all they want is to be in power. That sums up their plans pretty well.

Louis, before you accuse somebody of being an accessory to attempted murder, would you please provide proof of this whacko getting his "marching orders" for Beck or the Right Wing?

I love it. I absolutely love it. Everyone knows that "private corporations are only looking to make money. They don't care about people." "Only the government cares about people." What crap. Our politicians are greedier than any corporation has ever been. They're far more wasteful than any corporation has ever been. Yet these statist kool aid drinkers continue to insist that only by putting democrats in office and granting them more control over our lives can our society be equal. Try asking the residents of the former Soviet Union how well that worked.

For the record, I support the Tea Party movement. I am neither poorly educated nor racist. I believe that America is great only when Americans are allowed to be great. Opportunities for excellence should be available to anyone, regardless of skin color, religion, or anything else. Sounds eerily like our Constitution, doesn't it? We, as a nation, have been steadily walking away from Constitutional values for the past 90 years. After the first 50 years, enough damage had been done that our nation started losing its place as a leader in the global community.

Now, we have an administration and congress that insists we need to make welfare a little more tolerable and then put everyone on it. Seventy years ago, democrats sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers overseas to die in order to prevent this idea from spreading. Now, we're embracing it like the latest fashion craze from Milan. Based upon some of the views stated here, it seems we should have let Hitler win.

The very notion that walking further down this road will make everything 'all better' would be laughable if it was happening to some other country. We lost our rudder and found ourselves floating down the wrong river. We're heading for a devastating waterfall. Simply slowing the boat won't prevent disaster. We've got to turn the boat around. Limited government. Term limits. No more pork on bills. Individual choice. Reward excellence, not failure.

Excellent bumper stickers, FireinIndy; now the rubber meets the road. Limited Government? Term Limits (which is not in the Constitution) no more pork on bills, individual choice (what on EARTH does that mean) reward excellence not failure: okay, if you are proud of being in the 'tea baggers" group, tell us how you plan on doing this.

Wonderful post... NOT! Making stuff up in your "crystal ball" and implying the totally “ridiculous” is merely seeking to further the same ole boring DEM HATE SPEECH TACTICS… soooo ugly. Want to really see why the polls are changing against Dem's... why people are angrily rallying in the streets... THIS is a great example!! I would say it is the biggest piece of bull I have ever read but... Dem Hate Speech is sooo rampant everywhere that this is just another same ole same ole... Hate spreaders like you ARE the problem... seriously embarrassing.

"The other guy does it too" does NOT absolve you... it makes YOU part the problem... Duh!!

VOTE THE PARTY OF HATE DEMS OUT OF OFFICE!!!

Would you like to point to anything in particular that you have a problem with, or are you just ranting?

hey the Conservative machine is out of control, this is obvious, but they are getting the attention of a large segment of the population, and if they weren't mad before, they certainly are being riled into a frenzy. I don't approve of wide open privatization of government services because then service quality is decided by the stock holders, but services with-in a government service can and does work very well. for instances, food services or maintenance. The thing is their can't be "no bid" contracts. They stink of inside manipulation. Put contracts out for bid every 2 or 3 years, with bonds held for poor performances, or what have you. there is room in this country for both liberal and conservative views, and one can not exist with out the other.

republican scripts...plagarism and gop..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/24/gopers-parrot-lines-from-_n_710541.html

On the one hand I'm immediately tempted to respond "uh DUH!", but it's good that someone is looking for verification that they're all singing from the same page. Thanks for sharing.

Interesting, isn't it? The Republicans make a big deal out of going to the people for our opinion. The survey they posted was nothing but judgements meant to garner support for the same Conservative bill of goods that they've been selling for years, phrased like a push poll. So the results come out and Surprise! As it turns out the American people want EXACTLY what Republicans have been saying and doing for the last generation!

I suspect that if Conservatives actually believed in science it would look something like this. http://www.surrealscoop.com/2008/01/scientists-admit-to-cold-fusion-hoax.html

And the Conservative media would report it with straight faces and rave about the incredible breakthrough.

Who do the Republicans actually look out for?

The “Pledge to America” was written with oversight from Brian Wild, a House staffer who “served as a lobbyist for some of the nation’s most powerful oil, pharmaceutical, and insurance companies.” Wild is on House Minority Leader John Boehner’s payroll, lobbied for AIG, Exxon Mobil, Pfizer Inc., and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce until April of this year.

Oh my; Keith Oberman. The most dishonest and hateful "analyst" out there. I watched one show of his and looked up things as he was citing them. Almost every one was incorrect.

TRR,

I thought the same when I first heard about "The Pledge," yesterday. It just seems like the Republicans will be campaigning on undoing everything that this administration and Congress were able to accomplish over the past two years.

It's as if they sense that a majority of Americans are unhappy with what has been done over the past two years. I'm not sure that is true. I know there are many Americans who are not going to be happy with any victories that President Obama and the Congress are able to claim - but there will always be that group of people that cannot be pleased regardless of what is done. I don't think those people are the 70-80% that Jon Stewart is appealing to with his rally. The woman who told the President that she was "exhausted," is not necessarily unhappy with what has been accomplished - she just wants MORE DONE. Me, too. I want all the partisan BS happening in the Congress to stop and for more programs enacted to benefit the poor and middle class of American (and the upper class, too.)

I could see if the Republicans had actually offered an action plan and solutions to move forward, but it just seems like they want to undo what President Obama has done, and so my question is, "Where's The Beef?"

Thanks for the info, Dennis. If you need proof that the Conservative Republicans are on the hook for our most wealthy and powerful interests you need only look to see who they hang out with.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

Who do the Republicans actually look out for?

I glad you asked that question rhetorically. To restate the obvious, it's anti- healthcare reformers anti-environment politicians, it's pro Wall Street politicians, it's the NRA, it's Rupert Murdoch, but most of it's billionaires like the Koch Brothers.

Really, Doug-1724944? Prove it. What was incorrect? What were your sources?

there are No tax cuts. Only Tax Hikes. or. The Status Quo.. I understand you Democrats think that the money the American People Make belongs to the Govt.. No ones Taxes are going to go down. They are Either going to Stay the Same.. or they are going to Go up..

end the practice of attaching non-germane bills to must-pass legislation;

The Republicans practically invented this. They aren't about to do anything about it/

provide in EVERY bill the specific Constitutional provision)

A radical proposal with the potential to politicize the judicial branch and end the concept of separation of powers as we know it

And, seriously, how can they propose to extend the tax cuts and balance the budget. It isn't possible, and I notice that no specifics accompany the pledge. If returned to power, they'll do what they always do: Run up the deficit and leave the Democrats holding the bag.

"I still would like to know how are they going to pay for the tax cuts!!"

Simple - the same way they paid for "star wars", the first gulf war, the drug bill, the last tax breaks and the wars - they will borrow the money from future generations.

Lets never forget, the only administrations to INCREASE the national debt as a % of GDP since the days of Truman were Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2. No matter what lies the spew - the truth is the republicans are the fiscally irresponsible party of "BORROW AND SPEND".

LouisJ:

The Republicans are going to pay for the tax cut by eliminating the Deprtment of Education, the Department of Energy, The Department of the Interior, Reducing benefits for Medicare and SSA, etc. These are all on the table in Republican Congressman Ryan's Budget/Spending Cuts manifesto.

I get it. Take from the poor and give to the rich.

Unfortunately, low information voters don't get it and will sweep the Republicans into power based on a pack of lies and the whole country will suffer just so the rich can get a tax cut.

After watching Keith Olbermann's segment last night on "Small Businesses" I am more convinced than ever that Republicans are just evil. I cannot believe that they don't have the same information Keith revealed last night and yet they stand in front of the cameras everyday spouting this nonsense about "we can't have a tax increase in the middle of a Recession because it hurts Small Businesses".

It is their mantra. No matter what question they are asked they repeat that bull&*%t over and over like someone with Tourette's Sydrome.

They make me sick!

So this is how the Roman empire met it's demise.

namvet,

The real Question is. Why did the Democrats Over spend so much they they have to Raise Taxes on anyone?

We do not pay for tax cuts we pay taxes. If taxes are cut a responsible congress would reduce spending, the republicans and democrats have not demonstrated any fiscal responsibility, how do we pay for tax cuts? Better question, in a recession how much do higher taxes cost?

No one ever seems to mention that tax revenue more often goes up when rates are lowered. This is what people never get about the Reagan tax cuts, because it is counter intuitive. But revenue went up due to the expansion of the economy that tax cuts create.

So are you better off than when the DEMOCRATS took control of BOTH houses of Congress 4 years ago?

Has the new bigger Gov't helped you feel more secure about our economic future?

What did you expect from a party who's best man was a ... (punchline) ... community organizer?

Welcome to Democrat Paradise. Where the people have less, the Gov't has more, and nothing is their fault.

Remember: when the Gov't gets a raise, the taxpayers get a pay cut.

Can anyone, either party answer the question, how are we going to pay for the government spending? It seems to me that taxing the rich will add $70B per year, but that won't right the ship. Shouldn't we let all tax cut expire adding $220B per year and use that to help curb spending?

Just curious. It gets a little old reading the same old spewed talking points from both sides, name calling etc. Yet no on really wants to discuss issues in an intelligent, mature way,

Sheila, The Roman Empire fell apart because there weren't enough full-blooded Roman citizens to take up the ranks of the Legionnaires, so overland wars were fought with the auxiliaries. This wing of the Roman military typically consisted of conquered tribes and other subdued inhabitants of Roman lands.

The worst thing one can do is send off the people most likely to have a bone to pick with a country to fight for that country in endless conflict. Consequently, Rome lost control of its Western territories due to revolts in the field and eventually succumbed to invasion by German barbarians - Odoacer deposed Romulus Augustus in 476, and the final Roman emperor (in name only) was assassinated circa 480.

As usual, the progressive/socialist/liberals are deliberately fogging the issue of taxes. No one is proposing further tax cuts. It comes down to a choice between leaving the taxes exactly as they are, or deleting the tax cut in place for those making over $250,000 per year. Clearly the best one for the entire country is leaving them all in place. The second choice is a choice driven by class envy and supported by the same group of progressive/socialist/liberals that have been posting here today. I am not in the +$250,000 bracket, but I also do not believe in singling out a group because of envy. There is no other way to describe the position that punishes the wealthy. It is a purely progressive/socialist policy, period. If you believe in doing this, please identify yourself as a socialist/progressive in the interest of honesty.

Left-wing panic attack. Blah, blah, blah. Democrats have mismanged the Congress - and our fiscal state - since January of 2007. You could rewrite the Communist Manifesto to tout capitalism and I'd still vote for change this November. Liberal spending has bankrupted this nation and democrats want us to think that their opposition is the problem?

If voters are honest with themselves and remove their emotions and party loyalty for just two seconds, voters will realize that the GOP is full of crap.

If you truly care about what is happening to the struggling Americans in this country you will do the right thing and not allow the GOP back in office to continue the damage and destruction that they escalated under BUSH.

There has not been enough time for clean up and there is just too much garbage to remove. If it wasn't for the active clean up of the mess that is taking place right now this country would see unemployment numbers off the charts and the homeless and hungry would be overwhelming.

It took years to dig this hole and it will take years to fill it. If voters put the GOP back in office they will see the certain depression and demise of the Nation.

Be smart think for yourself and don't be a follower...

Now is not the time to regress back into insanity and narcissistic power grabs.

I claim no political party or ideology. I am an educated and informed citizen and I have made adjustments in my lifestyle to be able to remain above water for the past 4 years. I know whats a stake and I don't consider myself a follower nor do I consider myself a fool.

Wise up before its too late. Read the international press as well as the U.S. Become an information seeker and you wont depend on party loyalty to make decisions that are counter-productive to your life and survival.

Bottom line...The GOP is not ready and they have not earned the right to make decisions about anything right now and this is a fact.

Matthew,

It is very doubtful that feller, doug, could even keep up with Olbermann's rapid fire style. Let alone find his way to the google to defend what exactly? his honor? odd, no?

AND THIS GROUP BULLY thing some righties think is so clever? It is the height of immaturity. It will stop someday and then HOW do they propose to silence the voices? Weaponry? Yeah for Americans and "THEIR" idea of dissent. No matter how warped and corrupt it may be!

Steve,

What is it with you Republicans? If you want to fund your precious military industrial complex and our bloat Defense Budget we need to pay for it! Raising taxes on the upper two percent to what they were prior to GW and friends would pay for this type negligent spending not tax cuts, borrowing or slashing social programs.

No new ideas here. Gingrich has a contract with America, Boehner has a pledge with America. Different words but same tactic. Gingrich's contract was for the party of family values, then Gingrich resigned due to an extra marital affair and Tom DeLay (the majority Republican leader in House of the Representatives) left due to the Jack Abramoff lobbyist scandal. Then there was Mark Foley as a sexual predator on congression pages, Duke Cunningham going to prison for taking huge bribes, Larry Craig at a famous homosexual rendevous site in "wide stance," Vitter on prostitution phone lists,l etc... Boehner dares to even talk about values again?!!!

The Republican majority congress of 1998 to 2006 gave us the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act regulations against too big to let fail and the Modernization of Commodities and Futures Act and huge loopholes for derivatives white collar crime and the Enron electricity scandal. All Boehner can give us is the same old, same old economic ideas of deregulation, the market takes care of itself and trickle down - all of which previously led to the current recession.

During the Health Care Reform debate, Republicans were being paid by the health care insurance corporations for obstruction and watering down the bill. The polls showed a majority of Americans supported the public option and a large majority of health care professionals favored it. Republicans obstructed the public will in favor of corporate money. During the Bank Reform Debate a majority of the public wanted Wall Street fully regulated. Once again that public will was obstructed by Republicans in favor of corporate money for obstructing and watering down legislation. Then we had the BP oil spill and a majority of the public wanting big oil to be held accountable and Republicans accepting lobbyist money to obstruct such things as lifting the BP liability cap. Once again Republicans were fighting against the public will in favor of corporate interests.

Republicans have no new ideas. They are bankrupt of new ideas and new leadership. All they plan to do is whatever corporations will pay them to do. That's exactly why they have no real ideas of their own.

Steve & Handgunner

"The real Question is. Why did the Democrats Over spend so much they they have to Raise Taxes on anyone?"

Um - not sure what you're talking about. The last democrat administration (Clinton) gave us a smaller government (both by numbers of employees and spending) and produced a budget surplus - designed to pay down the national debt.

The last republican administration (Bush) told us "deficits don't matter", squandered the budget surplus on $1.4 trillion for tax breaks primarily to benefit the very wealthy, Spent over $600 billion on a drug bill to primarily benefit the drug companies, wasted over $1 trillion on an unnecessary war in Iraq, spent $165 billion on a stimulus that was no help to the economy, spent $185 billion to bail out AIG and $750 billion to bail out the bankers with TARP, while leaving office with a budget deficit of $1.3 trillion.

The facts speak volumes - The spenders are CONSERVATIVES!

You "pay for the tax cuts" by cutting spending and reducing the size and power of government. You pay for it by getting rid of excess Political offices and officers. You pay for it by limiting Michelle's staff. You pay for them by not allowing the USDA to give housing loans and grants or pay for law enforcement vehicles for rural communities. There are billions of dollars that can be saved by cutting off the small but vocal special interest groups that survive off the tax payer's dime. Get rid of the grants to groups like ACORN. Cut the payments to groups and individuals conducting studies overseas to research whether people in Africa wash their genitals after sex, or the mating ritual of the "yellow nosed winged horned toad". Cut back the billions wasted in pork barrel projects that waste every tax payer's dollar. Don't allow Reid and company to pass legislation like the DREAM Act that would make the American tax payer cover the college education of illegals. Cut 12 million plus people off the tax payers dime by kicking all the illegals out of the country. Force government workers to retire at age 65 instead of only after 20 years and set their wages to those of non-government workers that do the same job. Make all government workers pay into social security. Get rid of the pension programs for Congress and the President. That's just a start.

Do you think Congress has the right to keep expanding the government above and beyond the enumerated powers granted to them by the Constitution? Leave it to the Libs to think that the government has the right to keep raising taxes and expanding government to suit the President's agenda. Pull your heads out and get off the entitlement wagon. Regardless of who is in power, we the people should not allow Congress to keep taking our money just because they can't spend within their means.

Namvet,

Nice try. but it was the Republican Congress that gave us smaller Govt and smaller Deficts, I understand that you think its the President that passes Budgets.. but that is a Job that the Framers of our Constitution put squarely on the Shoulders of the Senate and the House..

You can spin it howerver you like. but facts are facts.

Steve 505729 Writes:

there are No tax cuts. Only Tax Hikes. or. The Status Quo.. I understand you Democrats think that the money the American People Make belongs to the Govt.. No ones Taxes are going to go down. They are Either going to Stay the Same.. or they are going to Go up..

So if there no "no tax cuts, only tax hikes" as you said I assume that you agree that Bush's "tax cuts" hurt middle class Americans then? Because they sure didn't help. I know I was there and I have a memory, which I'll use to help me make my decisions in November.

Some old ideas are good ones. You know like Freedom and Liberty. Don't spend more money than you have. A regulated Free Market System generates taxes for local, state and Federal government, the government does not drive the economy. They work every time they're tried.

Big government programs are not compassionate or efficient. They cost MUCH more than ever advertised and certainly more than a free market option. It's being demonstrated again. A government hammer is still more than a Home Depot hammer.

It's funny that Democrats are not touting all of the Health care bill changes that Republicans agree with, and none of the bloated expensive items that Republicans and most of the Nation disagree with.

Sheila

Your problem is that you look to Keith Olberman for NEWS. He is not the news. He is a far left leaning commentator and spinner. Try watching things like CNBC. Or better yet, try opening a small business, provide goods and/or services that create income that also pays the salery of at least 7 people. And pay your taxes.

AND KEEP IN MIND. KEITH OLBERMAN FAILED TO PAY THE PROPER TAXES ONCES AND WAS CAUGHT. ONLY THEN DID HE 'ADMIT HE MADE A MISTAKE' AND PAID THEM

And yet we hear not one Democrat say why Gov't should grow at twice the growth rate of the economy in good years and 5 times the growth rate in the last 2 years.

It is unsustainable to keep using the Democrat playbook. We have done it for 80 years. But now as payment for all the "benefits" draws near, our standard of living is declining. But they scream like a stuck pig if you want to return to 1990 Federal Funding Levels (even when adjusted up for inflation). In 1990, how many people starved? How many were denied public education? How many were turned away from a Hospital because they wouldn't or couldn't pay?

It is time for a real change. 80 years is long enough. A Gov't that spends what it takes in is not a radical idea. It is a prudent idea. Leaving more money in the hands of those that earned it is not a radical idea. It is a prudent idea.

And speaking of being prudent, a prudent person saves money for a rainy day.

So the Gov't, who is SOOO much wiser than the citizens, how much do they have saved for a rainy day?

Does the spending freeze at 2008 levels include the cost of the wars this time? The Iraq war represents one trillion alone that was never in the budget during Bush/Cheney.

In regard to tax cuts for small businesses, neither Party is addressing the definition of "small business." Right now S-Corps are large multinational corporations to wealthy individuals (including many in Congress). Cuts need to be targeted to businesses that create jobs only.

Why does the Pledge ignore Social Security and Medicare? Because the Republican/Tea Party plans to abolish these programs. They don't want senior voters and voters nearing retirement to know that, since these voters tend to vote Republican – And in general, these are popular programs for the majority of voters.

Why do they focus on Iran? Because that's the next war they plan to start. Don't forget, the neocons seek perpetual war and the industrial military complex wants perpetual profits thereof.

In the meantime, the hypocrisy of not wanting "germane amendments" attached to bills is rich. Republicans have been notorious for this. BTW, since DADT is about the military, and was originally passed as an amendment to the defense bill, why not repeal it the same way? Remember how blacks weren't wanted in the Civil War? Why would we refuse anyone willing to fight for our country?

As for the record filibusters, blocks and holds, if the Dems do the same thing to a Republican/Tea Party majority, I don't want to hear any boo-hooing from conservatives.

************** THE REPUBLICAN TEA BAG PARTY PLEDGE TO AMERICA!!!!!!! ***************

We Republican Tebags Promose To ALL of You Americans Suckers:

We Will Finish off America by:

1) Making the Bushy Boy Shrubber Tax Cut Bonus for The Wealthy and Corproate Class PERMANENT!!

2) We will wage war in every Country that does not support our Motto: Love Thy TeaBagger First!!

3) THERE WILL BE JOBS!!!!!! and LOTS OF THEM!!!!! Burger Flipping Jobs, Uhh.. Maximize That Order!!

4) Our HealthCare Solution is Here! NO Wasteful American HealthCare System! You Sick? die Quick!!

5) We will cut Wasteful Government Spending EXCEPT For OUR New TeaBag Police State! Yes, in our merciful Police State, NO MORE Painful interrogation!!! Kill First Ask Questions Later!!!!

6) A NEW Class of Americans! The COOLIE CLASS @ 1.00P/Hr Uhhh BEFORE OUR WAR Taxes....

Are you, Brother and Sister American, even considering the Republican Teabag Party will have CONCERN FOR and TENDER MERCY In Their heartless chests for America's National Healthcare Crisis and We Americans???? A MONSTER is Forming for the 2010 and 2012 elections. That VILE Monster is "Innocently" Titled "The Tea Party" associating it with The American Revolution of 1776. It is really "The TeaBag Party" for all of the republican club's politico bagmen and bagwomen on the dole with their hands out to Corporations.

The "Tea Party" NOW is IT?? Ahhhh....The craftiness of the Republican Tea Club, a collection of the world's running sores, Pedaphiles, Perverts, sociopaths, war mongers, crooks, criminals and con artist snakeoil salesmen, BOTH In Congress and the Boardrooms, with ONE THING IN MIND.....I Want ALL The Money!!!...ALL THE MONEY!!!! And They don't care HOW They Get It!. Let the ends justify the means!!..... the Republican Tea Club has earned such a Demonic, Seedy and Totally Disgusting reputation, SO! Do what others have done....Change your name and approach!!!

Their "Tea Party" invites The Hurting Class and the Greedy Haves to their ranks with a promise of change from "That Commie/Socialist wimp" Prez O!!!!. Well, Surprise Dummies!!! You vote the "Tea Party" INTO POWER, which is the MILITARIST IRON FIST of the Republican Party, and YOU"RE GOING TO Get a taste of REAL HURT, BIG BIG TIME!!!!! Like: Unending Wars in Afghan, Iraq, Iran, Somailia, Yemen and anywheres the Rich Republican Industrialists can Ply their Trade and Weapons For HUGE PROFIT While the blood of America's Youth soaks into the soil. How About NO Healthcare AT ALL !!!! That's right, You Are Sick??? Die Quick!!!!There ISN' t going to be ANY American National Healthcare System as in other countries Who TAKE CARE Of Their Citizens instead of throwing them to the national health insurance company Wolves. How About: Minimum Wage reset at $4.00P/Hr with burger flipping jobs for all!!! How About: Hey!!, Oh My God!, What happened to my Social Security Check, I am OLD and MY LIFE Depends on those Funds?? Your Money's GONE! Republican Teabags controlled congress and "Phased Out" Social Security for the Republican industrialists profiteering and their "war effort". The republican rich are tucking away Your Social Security Money into their TaxFree Pockets!!! They Are Criminals!! Remember?? And YOU ARE Sh@fted Voter!! How About Republican Wall Street Getting control of ALL Banking in America, through leveraging and buy outs and YOU are watching them TAKE Your Money out of your accounts VIA Phony trumped up "Fees"!!!! THESE Are just a MINI Taste of what's in store for US if the Republican "Tea Party" gets hold of America's Reins of Power with NO Controls...And Remember Their Boy Bushy!!!!!!!, His father's IDIOT SON, Who DE-REUGULATED ALL Controls on Corporations during his SHRUBBER REIGN 2001 - 2008. look at The CATASTROPHE Bushy and his Republican Party PUT ON All of US EXCEPT the upper wealthy class!!!. Be Careful, Be Very Very Careful what you vote for! The Republican Tea Club Is Sarin Gas to America.......

Giving ANY Power to the Republican Tea Club is asking Dracula to guard our BloodBank

Dave-309982 The tax cuts you want to give is just that a gift. When they were passed it was with a clause that they expire (end) in 2010. Well here we are. Obama is to enforce the laws of the country. The law says the taxes on the rich go back up. Boehner wants to out do Bush by making them permanent. I say the only god thing Bush did was have a sundown clause in these cuts. Anyone have an estimate by the GAO as to how many jobs these cuts created?

Next, I think hades froze over because I agree with John Boehner. The governmebt has failied us. As Mionority leader, thereby a part of the gov't, Boehner has failed us as well. Since he is a failure, he should stop his re-election campaign and give all the campaign funds he has raised to the gov't to place in the general fund. That can be used to pay off federal debt he helped make. All other members of Congress should do likewise. Realizing that will not happen, let us agree that Boehner is part of the gov't that has failed us. He has failed us. Can't trust him. He may argue that Dems would not listen to his ideas. What are or were they?!! You have never said. Is this it? If so, stop running for re-election. Quit being part of the problem.

"No one ever seems to mention that tax revenue more often goes up when rates are lowered."

A very convenient Conservative narrative that confuses correlation with causality and sells it to us by pandering to our desire to get something for nothing. It ignores a VERY important point -- that the economy expands over time. THAT is what causes revenue to rise after a tax cut. In fact tax cuts never fully pay for themselves and the end result is always LESS revenue than the government would have had without the tax cuts. It's going to come the closest to a full return when tax rates are already very high as they were when JFK cut taxes, but the top marginal tax rate was nearly 3 times the current top rate and current tax rates are the lowest they've been in 60 years.

In the real world you can even make a case that at times tax cuts are bad for the economy. http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/25/beaton.html

Seattledad wrote:

Big government programs are not compassionate or efficient. They cost MUCH more than ever advertised and certainly more than a free market option. It's being demonstrated again. A government hammer is still more than a Home Depot hammer.

Not always. Medicare might be expensive, but it is far more efficient in terms of health care delivery. Medicare's overhead is 1 cent on the dollar, while private insurance has overhead of 30 cents. Insurance companies are up in arms over the HCR bill's increase in care requirements - they're eventually going to be required to spend 85 cents of every dollar on health care, up from 70 cents. (I'm not necessarily defending the HCR bill, only noting that governmental programs aren't necessarily unwarranted on the basis that government is inherently inefficient.)

Ryan wrote:

And yet we hear not one Democrat say why Gov't should grow at twice the growth rate of the economy in good years and 5 times the growth rate in the last 2 years.

Do you have figures for either assertion?

I assume you're talking about growth of spending, which implies greater spending, not growth in general. Obviously, the idea behind the increased spending recently has been to jump start the economy. Even if you disagree with it, you can see why it's not at simple as "Dems for big brother".

John B. wrote:

"No one ever seems to mention that tax revenue more often goes up when rates are lowered."

A very convenient Conservative narrative that confuses correlation with causality and sells it to us by pandering to our desire to get something for nothing. It ignores a VERY important point -- that the economy expands over time. THAT is what causes revenue to rise after a tax cut. In fact tax cuts never fully pay for themselves and the end result is always LESS revenue than the government would have had without the tax cuts. It's going to come the closest to a full return when tax rates are already very high as they were when JFK cut taxes, but the top marginal tax rate was nearly 3 times the current top rate and current tax rates are the lowest they've been in 60 years.

Thank you. I'm sick of hearing that the causal relationship between tax cuts and growth in revenues. Regan's cuts weren't responsible for growth, and in fact, he had to very quickly reverse many of them over the course of his presidency. The 2001/2003 tax cuts weren't responsible for growth either - we were exiting a recession caused by the tech bubble. The return of wealth to previous/greater levels from the recovery explains the increase.

One thing though - taxes increasing/decreasing don't ALWAYS result in greater or less revenue, as you stated. There are levels at which taxes would have a negative effect on wealth and some at which a positive effect would be felt. I just don't think the ending of the Bush tax cuts is even in the ballpark of either effect.

"So for the candidate for Congress who tries to talk local issues, the avg. swing voter tuning into the political debate wonders why they aren't participating in the NATIONAL political debate."

This is especially true since members of Congress are coerced to vote with their Party's leaders about 97% of the time.

So the REAL question for voters is "Does my candidate support the policies of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, or do they support the policies of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell?"

All of the rest of the things, like 'charisma', looks, rhetoric, etc. are MEANINGLESS. Democrats will virtually ALWAYS vote with Pelosi and Reid, and Republicans will virtually ALWAYS vote with Boehner and McConnell - regardless of what they might SAY about their so-called "independence".

Michael Lockwood

Yes cutting the size of government is a good idea, but you failed to state that it was GWB and his creation of the "Homeland Security" is actually one of the biggest and most bloated depts created. Many of its arms are totally redundant and ineffectual. By have the Intelligence depts actually share intelligence like they should before 9/11 might have actually prevented that from happening> So before you go off on some tangent, GWB grew the government much more than Obama has. And as for the tax cuts, Olbermann had on his show exactly who some of these "small businesses" that you Repubs want to protect. They don't appear to be that small and some have assets in millions if not billions of dollars like the Koch brothers. So the scam you and your ilk are planning is becoming more apparent. Gingrich had his "contract on America" Boehner has his "pledge against America". Same crap, different name.

They didn't add anything so droll as paying for it

maybe from social security, after they privatise it...

No one ever seems to mention that tax revenue more often goes up when rates are lowered. This is what people never get about the Reagan tax cuts, because it is counter intuitive. But revenue went up due to the expansion of the economy that tax cuts create.

No, that's just thoroughly disproven Laffer Curve nonsense that the GOP has been running on since the 80's, because it's easy politically to ALWAYS be 'for' tax cuts. The fact is, tax revenue fluctuates based on a myriad of issues, not just "tax cuts make tax revenue go up" (which is false anyway).

Fact is, tax revenue increases when MORE taxpayers are paying taxes. So more people working has more to do with it than anything. If you recall, there was a recession in 2001-2002. But employment LAGS after any recession, so when workers were finally being hired again, that was... when? Oh yeah, around 2005-2006, and what happened? Tax revenue went up, because taxes had been CUT twice before that (where it dropped), and then it went back up because more people were working.

Not hard to understand for most people, but because it won't fit on a bumper sticker, Republicans don't like the truth.

So are you better off than when the DEMOCRATS took control of BOTH houses of Congress 4 years ago?

Well, no, but I was worse off THEN (under Bush and the Republican Congress's mismanagement) than I was under Clinton, so Bush really did start the whole mess that we're STILL mired in. And losing 750,000 jobs PER MONTH in January 2009 was hardly Obama's fault, but he WAS handed the keys to the mess at that point. Kinda hard to blame the guy that was given the keys to the car at that point. The drunk had already driven it into the ditch.

Has the new bigger Gov't helped you feel more secure about our economic future?

Actually, yes. I know that in a few years, my health insurance company can't force me off with a big premium rate increase "because they want to," reducing my personal liberty to pursue my dreams in this land of opportunity.

I also know that two ridiculously expensive and UNPAID for wars that REPUBLICANS started will be winding down and costing me, my children AND my grandchildren less, FINALLY. That makes me feel better about our economic future.

I also feel better that the stimulus money did what it was intended to do - stop the freefall that Bushie started. And what do you know? The recession officially ended in June 2009, right when the maximum effect of the stimulus money was being spent.

So yes, I'm glad Democrats were in charge, given how irresponsible Republicans were when they were running things and spending us from 5 Trillion to 10 TRILLION in debt - while running TWO unpaid for wars AND passing two UNPAID for tax cuts.

What did you expect from a party who's best man was a ... (punchline) ... community organizer?

Pretty much what we got: A guy who is smart and understand the issues better than the last-in-his-class vet that you GOPers nominated, who has the temperament of a Tasmanian Devil. Did you really want to see McCain as President instead? Sheesh....

Welcome to Democrat Paradise. Where the people have less, the Gov't has more, and nothing is their fault.

Welcome to the Republican Paradise: Where the rich have more, the poor have even less, and everything is blamed on the Democrats who didn't make the mess in the first place, but are asked to clean it up anyway.

Pass the popcorn, folks! It's gonna be fun.

The author seems to understand little, other than partisan rhetoric. All of his alleged "contradictions or omissions" have very easily identifiable answers:

"How does this demonstrate the GOP has new ideas when its first policy proposal is making the Bush tax cuts permanent?" It is new because the current administration is letting them expire.

"How do you reduce the deficit if you make those tax cuts permanent?" By cutting wasteful handouts, by cutting foriegn handouts, by deporting foriegn criminals from our soil, etc.... taxes are not the only thing contributing to the deficit.

"Why work to ensure access for patients with pre-existing conditions if you repeal a law that already does that?" Because it doesn't force people to purchase health insurance simply for being alive. The healthcare takeover does a lot more than just this one thing and the majority of American's do not want most of what it does.

"Why push for tax cuts for small businesses when your party has opposed similar cuts that Democrats have offered?" They were opposed until there was a clearly defined way to pay for them in order to not add to the deficit, so they will find a way to pay for them first.

These are obvious but some, such as the author, seek only to play pathetic political party games.

Nice try. but it was the Republican Congress that gave us smaller Govt and smaller Deficts, I understand that you think its the President that passes Budgets.. but that is a Job that the Framers of our Constitution put squarely on the Shoulders of the Senate and the House..

So your making the case that only a republician congress can control the budget? Okay, then, explain what happened from 2000 to 2006. and don't give us the same old tired "9-11" argument. Increasing national security could have and should have been done in a way that was and is much more effective without costing billions in wasted taxpayer money.

Gee, Steve-567537, if you didn't use 9 years of "data" for an 8 year presidency and provided sources for that "data", then you wouldn't look like a (Steve-567537) idiot.

It sure is interesting all of these "economic experts" throwing around all of these "economic concepts". Too bad most of them are so simplistic and completely ignore the complexities involved. John B. is the only one who actually makes a cogent point and backs it up with a source.

You on the right really need to read some economics books before commenting on it. All I see you doing is parroting the lies you've been fed by the Republicans who couldn't care less about anyone not making over a million dollars.

Jose Von Hussein,

Great post and definitely well thought out. Finally, someone else who understands economics that is more than a bumper sticker slogan. It would be great to see your sources so that I could learn more. Keep it up. Need some more butter on that popcorn?

Thank you Matthew. I wish I could give you a one-off, simple source to back up all I've said, but fact is, it comes from doing things that most conservatives don't bother with: Research, reading, thinking, taking time to understand concepts, etc. Most of what I said is widely available from many reputable, credible sources - some of them are even Republican sources (I don't just read liberal sources for information).

Fact is, a lot of what I said can be determined simply by looking at when certain things occurred, and what the actual numbers are - in other words, critical thinking skills. The government provides many sources of basic, factual information like tax revenue, employment, recession information, etc. So it's just a matter of digging around some of the government websites, Wikipedia (particularly looking at the sources in the links at the bottom of the pages), and other credible, reliable sources that don't just make up information out of thin air.

Butter on the popcorn would be nice, thank you. And a touch of salt.

"How does this demonstrate the GOP has new ideas when its first policy proposal is making the Bush tax cuts permanent?" It is new because the current administration is letting them expire.

Errrr.... no, they are not "letting them expire." They were DESIGNED to expire by the Republicans who wrote and passed the bill in the first place, in order to make them "look" like they wouldn't contribute to the deficit by the Republicans that passed them using RECONCILIATION (because they couldn't pass it any other way). Please keep your facts straight.

"How do you reduce the deficit if you make those tax cuts permanent?" By cutting wasteful handouts, by cutting foriegn handouts, by deporting foriegn criminals from our soil, etc.... taxes are not the only thing contributing to the deficit.

Well, what you've proposed reduces the budget by about 1% or so. Got any useful ideas beyond that to contribute? Oh, and "deporting" people costs money. Where are you going to find the money to pay for that?

"Why work to ensure access for patients with pre-existing conditions if you repeal a law that already does that?" Because it doesn't force people to purchase health insurance simply for being alive. The healthcare takeover does a lot more than just this one thing and the majority of American's do not want most of what it does.

Are you "forced" to purchase auto insurance "simply for owning a car"? If someone else hits your car, do you want THEM to have insurance too, so YOU don't have to pay for THEIR irresponsible actions? We have mandatory auto insurance for the same reason: Everyone pays, that way everyone is covered and that actually REDUCES costs. Besides, the bill reduces costs over time; don't you want a lower deficit? The bill does that. Don't you want more people covered so the health care system provides for them efficiently, rather than inefficiently with more wasted money through delayed treatment as it is now? The bill does that. Don't you want more competition to lower costs? The bill does that with health insurance exchanges - AND does so in the PRIVATE sector. What's not to like?

"Why push for tax cuts for small businesses when your party has opposed similar cuts that Democrats have offered?" They were opposed until there was a clearly defined way to pay for them in order to not add to the deficit, so they will find a way to pay for them first.

Then why don't Republicans be honest and responsible and say UP FRONT where they will find the money?

These are obvious but some, such as the author, seek only to play pathetic political party games.

Actually, most of what you said was flat out wrong, so it's only obvious in the sense that it's obviously from someone who is ignorant of the actual issues and implications.

No Matthew, Jose Von Hussein only eats popcorn with Government cheese on top.

And I bet it tastes even better knowing the Gov't got the money to pay for the cheese by raiding a hardworking American's back pocket.

Steve-567537

Hey 68NAMVET and all other deomcrats....

Listen up!!!! I am so tired of hearing about a Clinton budget surplus that it makes me SICK!!!

Clinton NEVER.... NEVER!!!!! EVER!!!!! had a budget surplus... here are the facts and learn them!!!

Fiscal Year Year Ending National Debt Deficit

Hey Steve...try switching to decaf, okay?

Look here, read and investigate.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

The beautiful thing about factcheck is that, unlike your foaming at the mouth rant, they have references. So, see? You can read that bad news yourself and try to work through your delusion on your own...but consider some anger management. ;-)

I hate to bust your economic bubble but your not only extremely excitable with all of your exclamation marks and calling everybody liars in all-caps but you are just plain ol' wrong. First of all, there is a difference between the words "deficit" and "debt". You need to check those out. I notice that you used both words in your rant...which nicely displays your deep confusion, I might add.

Listen, believe it or not, Stevie, I can understand how a died in the whool right winger like you can really get your panties in a wad when you think of how a democratic (gasp!) president managed to slip one past the guy who's poster you have over your bed (Newt Gingrich) and pass a bill to raise taxes thereby lowering the deficit because I was a republican at the time (now an independent) and I just got all kinds a angry when Clinton won a second time.

But, keep your chin up little camper. Odds are you 'borrow and spenders'will take back congress and you'll be able to once again shuffle the wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy, remove regulations from industry and just, in general, make self-righteous, pompous a-holes of yourselves and call it patriotism.

Now doesn't that make you feel a little better? ;-)

Big government programs are not compassionate or efficient. They cost MUCH more than ever advertised and certainly more than a free market option. It's being demonstrated again. A government hammer is still more than a Home Depot hammer.

hmm...Medicare. Compassionate? It is by my definition of compassion. Is it efficient? Actually it is, and if your compare to oh, I don't know, military spending to use your hammer example, it's VERY efficient.

Another "big" government program tea partiers seem to hate and want to privatize. VA hospitals, very efficient (probably learned from trying to provide to our hero's during the repub years) and is also rated higher by the people using it than private healthcare.

It's actually kind of suprising how efficient those above mentioned programs are. Likewise it's really frightening how inefficient our military spending is. If you want to reforn something, how about how the pentagon spends it's money?? How about getting competeing bids on government military contracts? How about holding the companies with those contracts accountable??

Wow....I think this wins my "Most Stupid Post" award:

pjam09

The author seems to understand little, other than partisan rhetoric. All of his alleged "contradictions or omissions" have very easily identifiable answers:

Especially since I am just pitching fluff at the questions and calling them "answers"

"How does this demonstrate the GOP has new ideas when its first policy proposal is making the Bush tax cuts permanent?" It is new because the current administration is letting them expire.

They will be new because the congress is new. "New congress" equals "everything they do is new".

"How do you reduce the deficit if you make those tax cuts permanent?"By cutting wasteful handouts, by cutting foriegn handouts, by deporting foriegn criminals from our soil, etc.... taxes are not the only thing contributing to the deficit.

By cutting waste, silly!

Sheesh... Like you need a phd in economics to know the "easily identified answer" to that one, I know, right? <rolling eyes>

"Why work to ensure access for patients with pre-existing conditions if you repeal a law that already does that?"Because it doesn't force people to purchase health insurance simply for being alive. The healthcare takeover does a lot more than just this one thing and the majority of American's do not want most of what it does.

And I know this because I am very popular and I have the majority of americans friended on my Facebook page. I know what the majority of Americans think about things...

"Why push for tax cuts for small businesses when your party has opposed similar cuts that Democrats have offered?" They were opposed until there was a clearly defined way to pay for them in order to not add to the deficit, so they will find a way to pay for them first.

Rrriiigghhtt...So the good ol' republicans who never passed an unbalanced budget in 200 years will find a way to pay for them first...yeeaaah...That's the ticket. And by the way, you know I've seen Sarah Palin nekkid.

These are obvious but some, such as the author, seek only to play pathetic political party games.

Oh yes...It's so very droll how those pathetic, politically pandering partiers propogate such pratal

...and such as.

Ryan in Texas,

What are you, about 10? Couldn't refute the message so go after the messengers. Yeah, that took a whole lot of brain power. Go away, little boy, you bother me.

My earlier post was collapsed by the community but I’m okay with that response to the truth.

The Republicans still don’t have a clue and collapsing my post and them presenting a bogus pledge does not a plan make.

To paraphrase a well-worn phrase, “there is none so blind as he who wont see”

I agree, Jose, there are plenty of sources but I'm always open to hearing about more. I've been reading a lot of good economics books lately and one actually changed my view of supply side economics. Bruce Bartlett (Reagan economist, former Heritage Foundation fellow) convinced me that there are times when they are appropriate but even he believes these are not the times for them. He says that President Obama is doing the right things economically for the current conditions.

Pay attention to John B, Des Moines, IA, that man is very smart, knows what he is talking about when it comes to economics and fills his posts with lots of sources. You can click on his name and check out his past posts to get those links he has used.

So there you have it folks. The Democrats say everything is great, and whatever isn't - isn't their fault.

They don't think Gov't is really big enough yet, and since they have been doing such a good job, Gov't deserves a raise.

But they won't tax you, oh no, they will only tax someone else. Someone richer than you. Because somehow taxes are bad, but only if Democrat voters have to pay them, otherwise they are good.

Good thing everything isn't interrelated. And good thing costs never, ever get passed through to the consumer.

Besides, the Democrats give away money for free. And after all, who wants to hear some mean old Republican talk about personal responsibility.

Like the Democrats say "If everything can't be free, then we can at least use the Gov't to take from those that have something we want."

I don't see why this pledge is so awful. I do disagree with extending the tax cuts to the $250k +, but that entire tax cut package also includes the middle class and small businesses (something the irresponsible, biased author failed to mention). If you do away with all of them, you increase the taxes on anyone at the lower levels as well. I think the solution would be to let them expire, then reintegrate the cuts to the small business and middle class.

on government spending (cut government spending to its 2008 level, cap new discretionary spending, cut Congress’ budget, freeze the hiring of non-security federal workers; hold WEEKLY spending cut votes)

What do ton reforming Congress (post the text of any legislation online at least three days before coming up for a vote, end the practice of attaching non-germane bills to must-pass legislation; provide in EVERY bill the specific Constitutional provision)he democrats see is a problem with this?

(repeal the health-care law, enact medical malpractice reform, ensure access for patients with pre-existing conditions);

Ok, patients with prexisting conditions have access in 44 of 50 states as it is. Don't let the liberal media tell you any different. Do a web search on states with CHIP programs and find that out yourself. Yes, it should be national and that is what this pledge states it will do. Tort reform regarding medical malpractice is something that the democrats ran away from and a major factor in the cost increase of healthcare. The rest of the healthcare bill is full of so many beaurocratic committees, extra costs and unaffordable mandates that it won't work. It also fails to attack the root of the problem and that is the spiraling cost of the care itself.

on reforming Congress (post the text of any legislation online at least three days before coming up for a vote, end the practice of attaching non-germane bills to must-pass legislation; provide in EVERY bill the specific Constitutional provision)

At least it's a start and a big one. Yes, it doesn't mention term limits, campaign finance reform, lobbyist gifts/payoffs, but it's something that should be already in law. Yes, democrats, I realize you won't be able to "vote on it so we can find out what's in it" anymore. There is absolutely nothing wrong with forcing congress to vote according to the US constitution is there?

on national security (fully fund missile defense, require tough sanctions against Iran, and enforce the border).

I know....it's racist to enforce the border right? I am a little curious as to the "fully fund missle defense" comment though. If it isn't already fully funded, who is chipping in to pay for it?

These reporters have done a hatchet job trying to point out weaknesses but hopefully some people that read this are smart enough to see through the objections as ridiculous.

Rick, Ky... be nice... the community collapsed the post, not Tyler.... they can only do so much...

Quit ya whining, would you? I know, oxymoron huh?

That was quite the ventriloquism act, Ryan. You just put words into the mouths of an entire political establishment!

1. The Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire. for everyone.

2. It's not that the liberal members want to expand government (really, could you be any more vague?). It's an argument over what to cut, what to change, what to expand, and what to keep. I consider myself a liberal, but I'm for privatizing social security, for instance. I'm also for cutting defense, Medicare-for-all, significant changes to Education, and so on. It's a difference of priorities, and it's not so simple as what the "size" of government ought to be.

3. Democrats buying the votes of the poor is as silly as saying Republicans are in the pocket of big business, as is your implication that Democrats are all poor.

4. It's slightly more complicated than passing costs on to the consumer.

5. Democrats aren't for stealing from the rich for things they want. Liberals are generally for entitlement programs to provide for the needs of the poor. You know, money for food, shelter, some healthcare, until they can get back on their feet. It's not a perfect system, but rarely would you find one. Meanwhile the rich are increasing their margins over the middle class. I wouldn't attribute that to more effort by the rich or less by the middle/lower class.

Michael Lockwood. Did you pay for it by eliminating Laura's "stuff". Why do republicans insist on denegrading what republicans had when a democrat is in the White House--do they not realize how silly and disingenuous they sound. Your post might have been worth reading but you lost me with Michelle's "stuff". Anyone need some boots?

So two wrongs make a right Judy? How can liberals continue to blame Bush for everything and then turn around and say "Bush did it so it's ok for Obama to do it" ?

And if you think that most of us taxpayers were OK with lavish expenditures at our expense at anytime, you are mistaken.

Hypocrisy at it's best.

Joe wrote:

I don't see why this pledge is so awful. I do disagree with extending the tax cuts to the $250k +, but that entire tax cut package also includes the middle class and small businesses (something the irresponsible, biased author failed to mention). If you do away with all of them, you increase the taxes on anyone at the lower levels as well. I think the solution would be to let them expire, then reintegrate the cuts to the small business and middle class.

I think the tax cut pledge is being criticized because it implies a lack of commitment to fiscal responsibility by the Republicans. I’m not saying the Dems are any more responsible, as the tax cuts for the middle/lower classes are still very expensive, but they don’t show where they’ll cut 4 trillion dollars from over the next decade.

What do ton reforming Congress (post the text of any legislation online at least three days before coming up for a vote, end the practice of attaching non-germane bills to must-pass legislation; provide in EVERY bill the specific Constitutional provision)he democrats see is a problem with this?

The criticisms are either that they don’t go far enough (only on must-pass legislation? Why not all? What about earmarks?) or, in the case of providing the Constitutional provision, that we already have a branch of government devoted to that. It seems disingenuous to me. It sounds to me like they wanted to say something about Republicans “upholding” the Constitution, but how would this work? Considering the myriad of interpretations of the document from both sides of the aisle and the supreme court, could this be considered realistic or just pandering to their audience?

Ok, patients with prexisting conditions have access in 44 of 50 states as it is. Don't let the liberal media tell you any different. Do a web search on states with CHIP programs and find that out yourself. Yes, it should be national and that is what this pledge states it will do. Tort reform regarding medical malpractice is something that the democrats ran away from and a major factor in the cost increase of healthcare. The rest of the healthcare bill is full of so many beaurocratic committees, extra costs and unaffordable mandates that it won't work. It also fails to attack the root of the problem and that is the spiraling cost of the care itself.

Tort reform has been shown to be a miniscule amount of health care costs, though it doesn’t make it right that it wasn’t included in the HCR bill. I think this author’s criticism that they want to keep one item (pre-existing coverage/lifetime caps) and remove the stuff they don’t like is perplexing. The more obvious criticism is that they don’t say how they’ll mitigate the costs of removing lifetime caps and nationwide pre-existing coverage. That was why the mandate was put in the bill in the first place.

I know....it's racist to enforce the border right? I am a little curious as to the "fully fund missle defense" comment though. If it isn't already fully funded, who is chipping in to pay for it?

The criticism was about how it would be paid for. In addition, these are not really new ideas, are they? That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it won’t do much other than excite the Republican base.

I didn’t think it was a terrible document, I just though it was overly vague. It still keeps us from debating the majority of whatever specific provisions Republicans would like to introduce.

Fair and well put Anon....and I apologize for some confusing wording in the middle of my post. I had a cut and paste go wrong somewhere (this NBC format is so much worse than the MSNBC)

The insistance on keeping the tax cuts to the $250+ crowd is a mistake on the GOP. There are some distinctions that do need to be addressed though in the way that small business sole proprietorships and partnerships are addressed by the tax cuts (increases). Personally, I am in favor of doing away with almost the entire book of tax laws and instituting a flat tax. Congress (both parties) have built in over the years way too many breaks and deductions for large corporations and the rich.

I also agree that the proposal to end adding non-germane bills at the end of must-pass doesn't go far enough. At least it goes somewhere and possibly opens the door to posting all bills for 3 days along with the earmarks attached so that the voting public can see the graft and corruption. At least this will prevent either party from pulling another "pass it and we'll see what's in it" move (HCR and the Stimulus). If congress had to put in the constitutional provision that allowed for mandatory healthcare, the bill would not have passed in that form. If you think otherwise, please tell me what in the constitution allows for that?

As for the healthcare bill...I have read it and I have been in the industry for 15 years. Tort reform could have much more effect than indicated. I live in Illinois which has no limits on punitive damages, Wisconsin does. Doctors in Illinois pay up to 10x as much per year in malpractice insurance, and have a much higher chance of not being able to get coverage for malpractice if there are claims. So the OB/Gyn in Chicago pays $288k and the one in Kenosha WI pays $30k....that $250k isn't going to solve all the problems. But the OB/Gyn in Chicago runs two to three times the amount of tests, mostly unnecessary, just to cover his/her butt.

Do you realize how many people currently cannot get coverage due to prexisting conditions? Yes, it is expensive in some states for the CHIP programs, but they are available. Why is it expensive? Well, when you have $80,000 in medical care a year, you aren't going to get away with paying $50/month. That system just will not work. Lifetime caps are really a non-issue. It's been a few years, but BCBS hadn't had anyone ever hit the $5M cap in Illinois. It was a $2 million cap in 2000 and it gets bumped up every few years.

I also disagree that enforcing the border will only excite the republican base. Look at the polls that favored Arizona's law. Most were in the 70% in-favor range.

Jody Iowa

Apparently the public school system that you attended failed you. If you go back and read my post I said Michelle's staff, not stuff. If you pulled your head out long enough to read what I wrote and then did a little research you would find that the current first lady has the largest personal staff on record. I think if she was forced to pay for personal staff members salaries the staff would decrease significantly. However non-reading bone heads must think that just because she is in the White House and her husband is President that she needs over 20 people to do her errands and set her appointments. Stay on the couch with your head up your 4th point of contact, but please be careful, if you move wrong you may break your neck.

No matter how you slice it, it always comes back to the same thing with you people: making money is a bad thing as long as there are people out there who are not making that much.

We've reached a point where there are some people in this country who cannot look at a fat man and a thin man standing next to each other without thinking that the fat man somehow got that way by taking advantage of the the thin one--Ronald Reagan

Sounds more like Ronnald McDonald than Ronnie Raygun!

Exactly. There is also a common thread that holds the garment together and that is bi-partisan efforts which there have been none, nada, zilch. Now that the garment is falling apart, the Republican machine tries to take advantage of it by screaming tax this, tax that but not my rich friend. To me that is going to be their biggest mistake in all this.

We, as a nation, have not gained as much equality as Dr. King preached about... at least not philosophically. Just because some were able to loosen the snare of bigotry to elect the first African American president, does not mean we are able to elect a common purpose of decency.

But I believe in due time, the next generation will slowly tamp down that age old staleness. The numbers will overwhelm the Liz Cheney's and we will be able to address many issues that we failed to address this day.

Great post, US Navy, as always.

Contrary to what the Republican Tea Partyers claim, democrats are all for making as much money as anyone can possibly spend. WE just prefer that the rest of us do NOT SUBSIDIZE their profits. WE want quality education and modern schools for every child, not just those who can pay for it. WE like roads, safe bridges, fire and police officers. WE want health care for every American, not just those who can afford it. WE want a level playing field. WE want jobs in the US not jobs shipped elsewhere to reduce corporate costs and taxes.

...and no matter how you slice it, it always comes back to the same thing with you people: The GOP, by hook or by crook, wants to usurp your own economic best interests in favor of those of multi-billion dollar corporations who have a gaggle of lawyers and lobbyists and don't need you to stick up for them.

The word is "Plutocracy"...government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

CU- we don't begrudge people making money. Not by a long shot.

What we despise is people that can't seem to get enough of it to the point they find new ways to get more of it at the expense of everyone else. Like shipping jobs overseas or the continuing non-stop practice of mergers that puts millions of their fellow citizens out of work so they can have even more!

That's not socialism or anything else other than a sense of fair play for 'we the people' of THIS country!

Jody;

Thank you, I read your post below and we are on the same page. Great post by the way.

Now that this misinformation by the republicans is exposed for what it is. Supporting the richest 2% at the expense of the 98%, some are still complaining we are against those that have money. We are not. I like money and I have a great deal of respect for those that are financially successful. What I despise is how some of them did it and continue to do it. I despise those that think because they are rich they are entitled to more and more at the expense of those that do not.

Louie-It's always the NEXT generation, isn't it? Ever wonder why that whole "young people will grow up to become liberal wealth redistributionists" theory has gone thru a couple generations and failed? Because young people tend to do a very sneaky, dastardly thing: they get older. They become smarter. They become more wise to the ways of the world. Basically, they grow up. They naturally start to wonder why they should worry about redistributing the money they make to the people they see around them who are irresponsible, lazy and/or stupid. They start to think that it would be a good idea to take home more on their paychecks BEFORE the gov't sticks their greedy little hand in there.

Navy, Jody, Pat: Great posts, every one. I have some other issues on my plate and won't be able to join you. Absolutely Excellent.

Why is it always the opinion of those on the right that anyone who is poor must be 'irresponsible, lazy and/or stupid'?

I've got news for you- you're wrong. While I will completely agree that there are a LOT of people who live off of government handouts that should be out there working for a living, that is not always the case. And the central question is do you punish everyone for the sins of a select few? Are the 9.6% of US citizens currently unemployed ALL irresponsible, lazy and stupid? Should they all have their unemployment benefits cut off? Are the disabled vets who live off of the Government lazy and irresponsible? What about those with mental disabilities? How about families who have lost all of their life savings and are loosing their houses because they're having to pay for chemo for their sick child?

Just another Republican "CONTRACT ON AMERICA", with absolute intentions of speedingup America's desent to 3rd World classification. Contradictions galore as 1st Read points out, but the Teabaggers won't hear about it on thier News outlets(if ya wanna callem that).

FOXNews, the Central Terrorist News Organization with Political clout among the Zombies, who wonder around looking for a Leader as a recent Poll suggested "60% think they have No leader".

We hear alot about how President Obama has divided America, I say B---L$--T.

America was One Nation before 911, but on 9-12-2001, things began unraveling. Chicken George/Deferment Dick began to divide America by looking for ways to Convince the Zombies, that Saddam was the Mastermind. It worked to the extent that American's began fighting among themselves over whether to Punish Al-Quida for 911 or Punish Saddam.

America fell for punishing Saddam & we've been Divided as a Nation since. Our socalled Patriots did'nt care about America's HONOR, so they joinedup with the Zombies.

If you did'nt wanna wonder around looking for a leader, you were called UnPatriotic!

So here we are, Divide as a Nation, almost 10 years down the road.

President Obama is leading those of us who have a Brain & are trying to help America & American's from the Devastation leftover from the previous Zombies.

You Betcha!

Jody, I couldn't have said it better. The Conservative line that Liberals are all a bunch of socialists who want to cut off the top until we're all equally poor is a fraud. Right now I'm completing my corporate budget that plans for solid growth in both revenue and profit. The management team is thrilled that we've handled our most profitable customer SO WELL that we're being given a shot at taking another substantial piece of business from a competitor and we'll play aggressively on that business.

Does that SOUND like someone who doesn't want to make money? Of course not, but I won't lie, cheat, or steal to do it and I DEMAND safeguards to make sure that others don't take the business I should have by lying, cheating, and stealing. Somehow the "free market" apostles completely miss one of the most important and necessary principles -- trust. If you don't BELIEVE the market is honest you won't participate. Then the whole thing falls to pieces.

Republican admin and congress made Bush tax cuts to expire. All of their ecomomic/budget projection were thus based on expiration. Mean while increased spending Iraq and Medicare D. All not funded. Ballooned deficit/national debt. Now they want to make cuts permanent? What about those projections? Look when you buy new furniture and a new car there comes a time when you have to pay for it. You could just walk away with out payment but I see all over the boards the "conservatives" calling those people deabeats ect. It is time to pay for what we have indulged in. Republicans you ran up the debt now we all must pay. We can not continue to kick the can down the road. As for who gets taxed? The upper 2% got the biggest benefit from the tax cuts it would be appropiate that the contigent pay the biggest part of the bill. Fair.

You're right vet, the republicans don't even try to veil the contempt and cynicism they have toward working class Americans.

I am watching the media dog and pony shows and they are really ripping this new Republican Agenda (that really is not new at all). They are pointing out the conflicts that many are exposing here today and a few republicans are mad that their party has put this out and now is shinning the light back on them to play defense, trying to defend or even explain the contradictions.

Boehner gave a speech about the new agenda only to have it overshadowed by President Obama's message to the UN. Either these guys(the republicans) did not read the Presidents schedule or they did not want their message to be heard and examined in detail?

Now they are going to have to explain why they have two definitions of small businesses. The definition for those in the top 2% that they support (because they are really big business and some major corporations like Bechtel, KOCH Brothers, Chicago Tribune, etc. that contribute large sums of money to the republican party) and the traditional small business must of us think as small businesses that the do not support as per the recent veto of the small business tax cuts, and the other job bills they are holding hostage.

They want to know how the republicans can say they want to lower the deficit while proposing an almost 4 Trillion plan. How can they now try to repeal Health Care when several major provisions becam law today, and the list goes on.

The hypocrisy is starting to come out.

Thanks for bringing it up . I was so pissed off after hearing that I couldn't explain it. Repubs need to read your post and look up what the GOP are all about and to add to it. These major companies give large donations to the GOP and in turn the repubs know that they are cheating on their taxes and look away. THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR TEN YEARS...No wonder why we are debt. I will never vote for a republican ever.

OK Steve, let's play it your way.

How were the Republicans justified in passing a tax hike 10 years ago, just to make their budgets look better?

Most very rich people are trust fund brats like Paris Hilton. As for tax hikes or cuts taxes in general have been shifted into State, Local, and taxes on goods and services. These are retrogressive taxes so if you are a trust fund brat then you don't pay them. But you all better shift your focus on manufacturing and forget tax structure if you want to save your country.

John,

Taxes are nothing but a way for the Government to Take money from the American people. It is not the Govts money. Period. Government needs to stop spending our money the Majority of the American people are Tried of it.

S Corps (the name comes from the chapter of the Internal Revenue Code where the rules for them are set forth) have no limitations on the amount of revenue or profit they can have--they only have limits on the numbers of shareholders and who those shareholders can be. They are typically used for truly small businesses who want to be corporations to have legal protections but who aren't going to pay dividends. They avoid "double taxation"--which would happen if the corporation paid tax on its dividends and then the shareholders had to pay tax on the profits as dividends when they receive them. There is nothing wrong with these large profitable businesses being set up as S Corps. but there is something wrong with suggesting that the majority of them are "mom and pop" operations which will be hurt by having the taxes raised on those making more than $250,000.

Retired Navy,

I often disagree with you but have always enjoyed your arguments, how they are laid out and the fact that when you ponder them one really has to think them through. Although I often come to a different conclusion it is because of my point of view vs. yours. Neither one "right" or "wrong" just different and I appreciate that.

However, this is one where I feel you are incorrect, and I'll bet you'll actually side with me. I do own a small business, and and S corp. Over 100 employees. My take home pay does not put me in the upper 1%, but when you add the business income it is in the 1000th of 1%. I left it in the business, hired more people, gave raises/bonuses bought equipment etc. Exactly what Obama wanted me to do (not because of Obama, but because it was the right thing to do). If you tax that income, there will be less for me to put towards economic investments. And obviously that is the Republican talking point. The left, or yours is that it is an abused talking point, and although can be true the actual businesses that fall into this category are limited or very few.

So if the left is correct, why not exempt the earning of the company if they are left in the business, and tax the crap out of the take home pay that is taken out, taxed at whatever rate you wish? Isn't this what the left wants? Tax the rich dude, but stimulate the economy at the same time?

I am honestly very curious about your perspective, mainly because it is intelligent and very different than mine. Perhaps this old dog will learn something today.

Steve, you can't run a country without taxes to support its infrastructure. Are you so naive as to believe otherwise?

I guess it comes down to whether you think the money you have earned is yours or whether you have no private property and everything belongs to the Gov't.

This has been the arguement between Capitalists and Marxists for ages.

It is the same now, though politically they are called Republicans and Democrats.

Class warfare, racism, religious differences have all been used by Dictators and Despots to justify State control of citizen's assets. Whether it is Mao, Hitler, Stalin, it was all the same playbook.

But just like all theft, just because I am not the victim, does not mean it doesn't matter.

So the Democrats want to isolate the wealthy first. Can you imagine if we applied the same ideology to other crimes?

"Oh, you make over $200,000 a year? And your house was robbed? Well, we won't go after the theif. After all, you can aford to be robbed."

Cdahl--it sounds like you do the right thing with your business so it makes sense to you to tax the take home pay and not tax so much the money that is reinvested in the corp. Problem is---a lot of companies will lower the take home pay to below market and make it all be profits instead.

No, Ryan, that is NOT what it comes down to. It comes down to Honesty and Basic Fairness. I am sure the S chapter should be one of the little tax LOOPHOLEs that should be addressed; but we can see the LOBBYISTs lining up in defense of 'small' business.

I can't wait to watch Boehner pass out some more Lobbyist cash on MY House floor. Talk about ABUSE of Power.

Yeah, but how do guys like Doug manage to post while BRAIN DEAD! Amazing, simply amazing!

Steeler fan, true.

According to your argument, one could make the take home pay Zero and then "dividend" the actual income. But one wonders, couldn't the definition be simply written to avoid this? Basically, government and the people should want businesses to keep as much money internally for reinvestment both in people and capital as possible, correct?

"Taxes are nothing but a way for the Government to Take money from the American people. It is not the Govts money. Period. Government needs to stop spending our money the Majority of the American people are Tried of it."

OK Steve, we'll keep playing it your way. What should the government stop doing in order to not require taxes?

You see, "stop spending my money" doesn't work. It has to be "stop spending my money on X". If it isn't then tax breaks do nothing but build deficits into the budget.

So, what services would you like to see the government discontinue, sufficient to eliminate the current deficit and $800,000,000,000 additional? My, that's a lot of zeroes for people who already have a lot of zeroes behind their bank balances!

Whoever thought the LA Lakers we're a small business venture? Just goes to show you exactly who these Repubs are representing.

Ryan wrote:

I guess it comes down to whether you think the money you have earned is yours or whether you have no private property and everything belongs to the Gov't.

This has been the arguement between Capitalists and Marxists for ages.

It is the same now, though politically they are called Republicans and Democrats.

You're oversimplifying. Clearly there's a middle ground. The debate is over where that middle ground is.

No matter how you slice it, it always comes back to the same thing with you people: making money is a bad thing as long as there are people out there who are not making that much.

Nope. Wrong again. Making money is a great thing, I enjoy making money, so do all the "you people" I know. Making money at the expense of this great nation and it's poeple is a bad thing. Shipping job overseas is a bad thing. Not paying your fair share of the taxes is a bad thing. Using your power and money to influence government to help you while hurting others is a bad thing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with making money, and quite a lot of it. Thinking you deserve to get special treatment in the form of less taxes, the right to destroy fellow Americans and special access to the levers of government because your rich is a bad thing.

Bectel is not a small company! Why do they get small business tax breaks??

Well made points Dave. Thanks.

However, this is one where I feel you are incorrect, and I'll bet you'll actually side with me. I do own a small business, and and S corp. Over 100 employees. My take home pay does not put me in the upper 1%, but when you add the business income it is in the 1000th of 1%. I left it in the business, hired more people, gave raises/bonuses bought equipment etc. Exactly what Obama wanted me to do (not because of Obama, but because it was the right thing to do). If you tax that income, there will be less for me to put towards economic investments. And obviously that is the Republican talking point. The left, or yours is that it is an abused talking point, and although can be true the actual businesses that fall into this category are limited or very few.

Good post Cdahl. This part of your post got me thinking..didn't Obama propose something along this exact line in the proposal for tax breaks for small businesses? Something about a 100% tax break on money re-invested in your small business? Granted it's just a proposal, and of course I doubt it'll pass but if I understand your post and the proposal Obama made it sounds like the same thing. BTW the republicians have a similar standing proposal that call for a 50% percent tax break (or credit). If I'm correct in my understanding the president proposal and your thoughts sound very similar.

Time for me to stop wasting my time here and go research this one. Thank you for giving me something to learn about in my free time today.

Cant Keep Me Down,

All for 90% tax brackets? I find it amusing that you screen name could be converted to reality if your wish comes true. Just how exactly will that benefit employment in this country?

cdahl - What really worries people like myself is that there is never an upper limit stated by the Left on how big a Gov't is too big.

You can get any TEA Party member to agree to a minimal size. There are always some programs that need to be funded at some level. We look at the trend of the last 80 years and think, where are we headed?

I'll hear people say how responsible Clinton was with spending. But it didn't go down in 1 year out of his 8. In fact, the Debt has gone up every year for the last 40.

But you can't even get a Democrat to say they will only expand Gov't at the rate of inflation or of GDP growth.

Hey, the Republicans make a lot of decisions that I hate. Most people forget that Bush made the largest expansion in the Prescription Drug Entitlement. Don't ignore the fact that the Democrats supported it, but that was and will be a huge expenditure.

So unfortunately, we are here. The European style system that I was always told by the Left was superior to our system is falling apart. I can't imagine a prosperous future created by bigger Gov't and higher taxation.

The rest of the world is hungry for what we have and we are getting too fat and lazy to stop them.

So when I hear all this anti business, class warfare stuff, it makes me really worried.

President Obama believes in smart government. I have never heard modern republicans explain what they would consider too small a government. We live in a global society today and as such a govt too small would be potentially as harmful as one too large. I agree with President Obama--smart government is good government; eliminate the things that do not work or are outdated; modernize and streamline.

"You can get any TEA Party member to agree to a minimal size. There are always some programs that need to be funded at some level."

Strange, some of us ask for an answer to that here every single day. Without exception. And no one ever answers. I've asked the question several times and no one has answered. Including you. How about now?

CantKeepMeDown

( Dave-Kentucky) has a conscience and sounds to be balanced and fair, too bad he will be hated and badmouthed by rich, greedy, selfish people or those bought out by them. we need more people to think like him.

Thank you! And I'm used to being hated and badmouthed by people who think doing "research" means listening to Beck and Limbaugh, then reading the far right blogs for further mis-information.

it truly is sad when you read posts of people who are so self centered and uncaring in anyway. its ok to take from society, from their sweat and hard work and money, but when its time to pay in to better the society, all of a sudden those same people who helped make them are lazy,drugged out, boozed out,trailer trash mooching welfare lifers, even though they work hard doing their middle class job.

Agreed. It was amazing to me how fast I went from being a productive "good American" in the eyes of my conservative family and friends and became "a lazy bum who only wanted to collect unemployment" after I got laid off with 250 other "bums" from my former employer. I didn't deserve anything from anybody,certainly NOT the government I supported during their Republician administrations and in fact a family member actually suggested I give up my kids for adoption. Gotta love that conservative right wing christian compassion!!

Conservatives will be the death of the United States of America.

Peace out.

John,

I just got off the phone with a Government person requesting a "widget." The quote is approx 3M. I can quote him something from the private sector that is more widely recognized for approx 40% less, or 1.95M. They won't even consider it. What makes it better is that to move their "widget" the gov't needs to purchase 2 dedicated fork lifts, and hire 1 person to operate those. With the private sector "widget" the units can be moved by hand, faster and easier. And other government military agencies use the private sector every day.

I could save the government over 1M today, but they won't even consider it. However, as always, I will put both options on the quote to cover our arse. Either way it really financially doesn't matter to me. In fact, I hope that the gov't goes for the higher priced one at the same gross margin. As a taxpayer, it really bothers me.

Kentucky Dave,

As a fiscal conservative I appreciate your view point and assure you that nobody should be disrespected the way you feel you were.

I will throw out that I believe that one of the big economic issues we face today in our country is Free Trade and goods coming in that makes our manufacturing base less competitive, resulting in lower profits to tax and increase employment.

Just a thought.

Fair enough, and I have no doubt there's some wasted money in purchasing. Not nearly the $800B needed to pay for that tax break for the 2% though, and at that you haven't started reducing the existing deficit of $1.3T. It's a BIG hole and one of the points I'm trying to make is that "waste and fraud" isn't enough to get the job done no matter what the politicians would like us to believe.

Its not a Tax Break John. its a Tax Hike or nothing. I understand that you expect 2 percent of the Population to pay for the Wants and needs of the people that support Democrats.. hey. i got an Idea. Lets Raise Taxes on All Democrats You pay 70 percent of all the money you make to the Govt.. I will pay my 25 percent.. but i want My 25 percent to go to Protecting this country. You spend your 70 percent in the Govt however you like..

Steve, you get credit for repeating the same Conservative narrative again and again and again without answering any of the questions it brings up. Why did Republicans pass a tax increase bomb that was guaranteed to go off this year? Was it because they wanted a political football and damn the country? Was it because their budget projection had an enormous hole they could only cover by expiring the tax cut? I've got news for you, it was BOTH.

As for deciding where your tax money should go a substantial majority of Americans would have preferred that we stopped our Neoconservative exercise in futility in the Iraqi desert years ago. Tell you what -- you can have a different tax rate about the time those of us who were right about Iraq get our TRILLION dollars back. Why was that money all spent off budget? Oh yeah, I remember now! It was to make the deficit look smaller than it really was!

While you're at it you can do your part in paying of the Federal debt. I'm willing to contribute my part to that effort since I'm an American, but every time you write that check be sure to make note that 70% of the debt was acquired under Presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.

So enough with the Conservative fairy tale about Republicans being the party of fiscal responsibility. Every page you turn there's another example of just how badly they've destroyed our fiscal soundness.

How many of you that support raising the taxes on the rich will benefit this country? If you do go back and check what happened in New York and in Maryland. When these two states decided to raise the taxes on the rich guess what; they moved. Which caused the state to loose the millions of dollars in taxes they were already receiving from those rich tax payers.

Look at it this way. If Lebron James had signed with the Knicks he would have had to pay millions in state taxes. By signing with Florida he not only became a member of a great team "on paper" but he also kept more money in his pocket. The rich have the ability to move. Do you think that by raising taxes on corporations and on the rich that they will just take it in the shorts. Corporations will move to the places more beneficial to themselves. The same with any smart person that has the means to do the same. Many will just move taking their fortunes and their tax money with them.

If it only costs me 6 million to move to a foreign country with little or no taxes versus paying 6 million a year to pay for the privledge of being rich in the USA then I would move. If you tax people andbusinesses into leaving then not only will you not generate the billions of dollars that you want, you will also loose the billions of dollars you are already getting. I hear boneheads crying about corporations and businesses moving overseas and taking their jobs with them. Well you cant have it both ways. You cant tax the crap out of someone and expect them to thank you for it by creating jobs and staying somewhere where the government wants to take all your money and use it for other things or give it to other people.

Michael, as long as you're OK living in Zambia or Uruguay, or the Czech Republic that's a sound strategy. If you want to live in the industrializes world you'll find that top marginal rates will be AT LEAST has high as they are here...in some cases much higher.

Oops...I mean, Fascism! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Oops...I mean, Kenyan Anti-Colonialism! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

DaNoid,

You hit it right on the head. The latest republican agenda as posted by AP shows that repealing HCR and protecting Tax Cuts for the richest 2% is their main focus this election.

By repealing HCR the republicans will actual increase the deficit, do away with the new law you just described and more. Over 30 million people will loose the opportunity for Health Care when fully implemented.

The republicans are not trying to repeal this bill because it is a bad bill for all Americans. They are trying to repeal it because they hate President Obama and he did something good for America that the republicans only talked about doing. The middle class are the people that benefit from this bill and the republicans cannot stand anything that helps the middle class. Their agenda is to destroy the middle class and redistribute the wealth and power to the select 2%. This is how I see it and their deeds to date do nothing to make me change my mind.

NOID!! That was funny! Thank you.

Navy. I agree. I think the spoiled, white, rich kids (the pub's) are so angry and stamping their little feet because the black man in the white house got one passed them that they are shouting that they will repeal it for no other reason than "We'll show you!".

What a bunch of jerks! This country is doomed.

Da Noid, Nicely put but probably a bit obtuse for those on the right.

Wow. I just had a Freudian slip . . . at least I thought it was until I thought about it again. I read this: “Starting now, insurance companies will no longer be permitted to exclude children because of pre-existing health conditions, . . ." as, “Starting now, insurance companies will no longer be permitted to execute children because of pre-existing health conditions, . . ."

Think about it, think about that boy who just died from cancer. Adam something? I don't remember his name but he died because he could not get insurance.

Again,

Us Navy Vet. I understand that you will do anything to Convince people that there are Tax cuts coming. but there are Not. Only Tax hikes.. or Taxes stay the same . Thats it..

Why did Republicans implement those tax hikes 10 years ago? Oh yeah, it was an attempt to hide the fact that their budget doesn't work!

John,

Govt needs to stop spending Money that isnt theirs...

Steve 505729:

You are playing the republican word games to push their agenda.

STTS

@Steve-505729: If you have a point to make, try incoporating cognitive sense into your posts. You'll be amazed at the results.

U.S. Navy

If fact, you are the one who is playing games. You use the name to gain credibility with veterans. You preach a socialist agenda and try to make others think you are just like everyone else. You use class envy as a hammer to convince the mindless to go along with you. I am a Navy veteran from the Vietnam era, but I don't trumpet it as you do. We are diametrically opposed on virtually every issue and that situation is likely to last the rest of my lifetime. Just thought you'd like to know.

Luckily, most people are stupid enough to think you can get something for nothing.

Notice how the benefits come a month before the election, but the costs show up two months after it.

If you ask a 5 year old how to solve problems they come up with Democrat answers.

People are hungry: "Give them free food"

People Don't have Jobs: "Make them a Job"

What if people don't have a house, car, or cellphone? "Give them those things for free"

People can't afford healthcare? "Give them it for free"

But what if people don't want to work and just want to stay at home and watch TV? "Give them free TV"

And one last question...

So how will you pay for all this? "I want my mommy."

Thank you, Ryan. It seems we have far too many who want to jump from mommy to the Federal nanny. Perhaps those who condone this behavior should work harder and harder, and perhaps even pay a higher tax to support it.

"Govt needs to stop spending Money that isnt theirs..."

Another Conservative narrative with no basis in reality. The government provides services -- roads, schools, police and fire protection, air traffic control, agricultural extension, funding of basic research that ultimately aids the economy, flood control, disaster relief, a basic safety net for when life goes unexpectedly bad, and a host of other things. Taxes don't "spend money that isn't theirs", they allow the provision of those services. Inadequately I might add, thanks to a decades-long Conservative push to simultaneously gut those services and insufficiently fund them.

So, what should society STOP doing to eliminate those taxes?

Ryan in... Texas.

A right to work state: that means they can fire you at any time for any reason. A state with great tort "reform"- which means that no matter how lethally irresponsible businesses become, they can write the resulting losses off without flinching. A state that forced modification to textbooks in a publicly funded venue called "Schools" which reflects a religiously funded imperative called "Church". A state that uses illegal immigrants to an astonishing degree in their agriculture and many other places. A state that is home to AT+T- the biggest single Right Wing corporate contributor on Capital Hill- and infamous for killing jobs all over the nation by "surplussing" people in the states that they assimilate, and hiring them in areas where they can pay ever-so-low wages, often Texas. THE state for Big Oil interests. There are exceptions. I've met some very enlightened and intelligent people from Texas- because they left. Some can't- so you do have a few left within the borders of that sovereign southern nation. Go talk to some of them.

Your post is a collection of thinly veiled lies- talking points from media demagogues. Your boys dropped three trillion dollars into the pockets of your buddies in the defense industry in two illegal wars- and you're lining up for a third in Iran to keep the cash rolling in- all while supporting the tax cuts for the wealthiest that make funding all the things you complain of in your post impossible, and all while destroying American jobs for the sake of greed.

I'm not buying it. Good luck on keeping the stupid convinced if you win a victory- nothing good will come of electing blatant sycophants to the rich to any public office, and sooner or later, that child you tout as an authority will tell everyone that the emperor has no clothes.

Again, why on Earth would we allow people who can't even be responsible for themselves and need mommy Gov't to take care of them to dictate policy?

Look at the average Democrat. They take far more Gov't handouts.

So you want the babies running the nursery?

We can't redistribute ourselves into financial success.

We are getting eaten alive in the Global Market. I don't want to cut wages, so the biggest expense left is Gov't. The Gov't that subsidizes people to stay out of the workforce. Only 1 in 3 Americans worked full time before the recession.

We just have too many people not working. And I don't mean those who are willing to work but can't find jobs. We actually have people who won't work because the jobs available are "beneath" them. But then we import illegals to do the work that we won't do. If you are on welfare, you can mow a lawn or clean a toilet. I have done both for money, and you know what, when you clean up at the end of the day you can at least have the pride in knowing you earned an honest dollar.

We can't just keep borrowing money so that the Democrats can grow Gov't at twice the rate of GDP growth. It just won't work in the long run. We are already at 13 Trillion in Debt.

Ryan, provide sources for the following: Democrats take more Government handouts. People are refusing to take jobs because those jobs are "beneath them". Here's a hint. Limbaugh, Beck et al are not sources.

Ryan wrote:

Again, why on Earth would we allow people who can't even be responsible for themselves and need mommy Gov't to take care of them to dictate policy?

You're assuming that all people who take government assistance are irresponsible, or lazy, or both. Please provide evidence of this.

"So you want the babies running the nursery?"

Another statement that belies the Conservative tendency to yield to our "betters". Contrary to the narrative Conservatism isn't about creating a democratic, egalitarian society. It's about creating a heierarchy or class system within our society.

Dave 309982;

Actually as soon as you said socialist I pretty gave gave up on anything you could possibly say since it would be Tea Party/Republican talking points.

No, I do not care what you think.

Hey, if you think we can just skip doing the hard, dirty jobs in America and pay some other country to do them forever, you are more than just misguided.

Even today, with 10% unemployment, illegal aliens come here with no education, not even speaking English, and find WORK. TODAY.

They can even make enough to send 17 billion dollars back to Mexico alone. NOW.

I never said it would be easy, and obviously, that message doesn't play as well as the Democrat message of "Gov't will take care of you, and charge it to someone else."

But I firmly believe we can WORK our way out of it.

You might start a a busboy who has to clean the toilets. But then you WORK your way up to waiter, then maybe Manager or even owner.

But the toilets still have to be cleaned by someone. I've been that person. I'm not scarred of rolling up my sleeves. I'm just not so sure about the rest of the country anymore.

Thank you, Ryan. It seems we have far too many who want to jump from mommy to the Federal nanny. Perhaps those who condone this behavior should work harder and harder, and perhaps even pay a higher tax to support it.

No, despite your desire to live in a feudal state this America where we are all supposed to equal. What you and Ryan seem to want is a class based society. Where oddly enough you'd be something a kin to a slave. Good luck with that Utopia.

A right to work state: that means they can fire you at any time for any reason.

Okay, I take serious issue with this. I've heard the left spin this one time and again and I've heard it parroted endlessly by self-rigtheous Northerners possessed of the same vapidity often expressed by their common conservative counterparts.

A 'right-to-work state' in all actuality prohibits a union from requiring that ALL new hires join that union. Right-to-work laws do NOT prevent unions from being formed; they do not prevent unions from protecting the rights of those who choose to become a part of that union. What these laws do is grant an employee a choice absent in states without them. I know personal anecdote is not the best basis for an argument, but hear me out:

When I was much younger and working through college, I went to work for a grocery chain that had unionized labor. I was approached by the union representative and asked to join - flatly stating no, I didn't wish to. The idea of owing dues every paycheck when every cent available was needed didn't sit well with me. Fortunately, living in Texas gave me this choice; despite that, because I didn't join the union, I suffered significant harassment from unionized employees during my shift, so much so that I quit after a single semester. That incident led me to decide that I would never work for an organization that had a labor union within my place of work.

I expect to come into my job, set about my business and earn my pay. If others feel compelled to join a union, wonderful. I do not - and that decision should NOT be forced down my throat by any government, local or federal. The claim that anyone can be fired for any reason is an outright, bald-faced lie: it is only made because labor unions have an interest in acquiring more workers to retain greater fees and achieve this by painting right-to-work laws as a gateway to abuses from management.

A state with great tort "reform"- which means that no matter how lethally irresponsible businesses become, they can write the resulting losses off without flinching.

Excuse me? Do you live on another planet? Tort reform concerned caps on non-economic (read: psychological) awards given to the plantiffs of lawsuits in medical malpractice cases. Since tort reform was instituted in Texas back in 2003, medical malpractice insurance premiums have decreased by more than 50% and the number of claims and lawsuits cut by virtually the same figure. The number of licensed practitioners steadily increased from an issuance of just over 2000 annually to more than 3600 in 2009. Charity care given by Texas hospitals increased 24% in that same time frame and there's been a net clinic in the opening of new clinics in 40 of Texas' most under-served counties.

That bastion of liberalism, California, has had tort reform on the books since 1975 - their malpractice insurance premiums increased 283% from 1975 to 2009 compared with 925% for the rest of the country. California even limits attorney fees to 40% of the judgment award rendered when a case is decided in favor of the plaintiff.

A state that forced modification to textbooks in a publicly funded venue called "Schools" which reflects a religiously funded imperative called "Church".

Are you really so naive as to believe EVERY Texan condoned this? Are you at all aware that the voting bloc which approved these changes caused MASSIVE protests in Austin, Houston, San Antonio and Dallas-Ft. Worth? Are you so taken in by the superiority of the New England mentality that you think Texans are incapable of knowing when the wool's being pulled over their eyes and that people here aren't still furious over the changes?

A state that uses illegal immigrants to an astonishing degree in their agriculture and many other places.

As compared to which other agricultural states? Do you have specific numbers nationwide, or are you just taking a cheap shot? Are you at all aware that current immigration law concerning the use of migrant labor in agricultural endeavors is informed by legislation from 1986 that uses language expressed by Californian growers not wanting an interruption to the harvest of more sensitive produce?

A state that is home to AT+T- the biggest single Right Wing corporate contributor on Capital Hill- and infamous for killing jobs all over the nation by "surplussing" people in the states that they assimilate, and hiring them in areas where they can pay ever-so-low wages, often Texas.

Wages are usually appropriate for the cost-of-living expenses in the area: have you EVER been to Texas, or are you assuming someone needs to make $50,000+ a year to lease a good apartment/rental or mortgage a decent home here?

THE state for Big Oil interests.

And THE state holding 25% of America's proven oil reserves, as well as THE state with the second-highest GSP, at nearly $1.3 trillion. THE state with the country's LARGEST wind farm, producing the most wind power, about 9200 MW, over the next largest, Iowa, which only produces 3670 MW.

How much of the pie does your state contribute?

There are exceptions. I've met some very enlightened and intelligent people from Texas- because they left. Some can't- so you do have a few left within the borders of that sovereign southern nation. Go talk to some of them.

Because, clearly, anyone with an education wouldn't want to live in Texas and can't wait to leave. Of course, that makes so much sense - which is why we house Mission Control, the world's LARGEST cancer research center, two level 4 bio research labs, perform the most number of heart transplants in the world and guarantee entry into state-funded universities any public high school graduate who earns their degree in the top 10% of their class.

We also had the Superconducting Super Collider, which would've been the world's largest and most powerful particle acclerator had it not been cancelled in October 1993 by the 103rd Congress, which was controlled in BOTH chambers by the Democratic Party at the beginning of Clinton's first term. That, TWENTY YEARS before Europe built the Large Hadron collider - ours would've been completed TWO DECADES BEFOREHAND and still have been superior in scope and ability to the LHC as well as keeping America at the forefront of scientific research and advancement, something the Democrats are always SO quick to champion.

Your post is a collection of thinly veiled lies- talking points from media demagogues.

And yours isn't?

Your boys dropped three trillion dollars into the pockets of your buddies in the defense industry in two illegal wars- and you're lining up for a third in Iran to keep the cash rolling in- all while supporting the tax cuts for the wealthiest that make funding all the things you complain of in your post impossible, and all while destroying American jobs for the sake of greed.

Annnnnd what of NAFTA? What of granting favored trade status to the Chinese? What of the costs incurred to America over the long-term on these two counts?

I'm not buying it. Good luck on keeping the stupid convinced if you win a victory- nothing good will come of electing blatant sycophants to the rich to any public office, and sooner or later, that child you tout as an authority will tell everyone that the emperor has no clothes.

Your spin is no less than the spin by the right. Get over yourself.

FeO2Dreams. Great post.

U.S. Navy

If fact, you are the one who is playing games. You use the name to gain credibility with veterans. You preach a socialist agenda and try to make others think you are just like everyone else. You use class envy as a hammer to convince the mindless to go along with you. I am a Navy veteran from the Vietnam era, but I don't trumpet it as you do.

That's right, Navy. The fact that you use the term "veteran" which you duly earned somehow means your a bad person or at least not as good as "Steve" who is apparently is a "real man" because he chooses not to put any descriptive titles in his name.

Steve, or better yet, Stevewhodoesn'tuseveternaninhisname, what's in a name? In the world of debate it's much more impressive to have back-able arguments. Navy is pretty good at doing that. Why don't you take a clue from him and do the same and maybe you can garner the respect on this board that Navy has.

Wether you want to put "veteran" or "vanilla" in your title is completely irrelevant if you're full of bs all of the time.

Jody,

We are on the same page. I posted above pretty much the same about the lie Boehner is trying to pass about the small business in the top 2% group. I exposed this before and yesterday Keith O had a great piece on exactly who those small businesses are. Many have revenues in the Billions of dollars. By using those companies is how he came up with that 50% in business revenue (income) comes from less than 3% (of the top 2%).

Lies lies and more lies. Now it is exposed and available for all to see on MSNBC, Keith O last night. It is the first segment and everybody should view it.

Tac Cuts for the richest 2% is just that, the millionaires and billionaires. No shame,

US Navy, I noticed that. I thought it was worth repeating! Keith's show was excellent. There is no small business like a GOP small business!

Jody -

I wasn't going to post today, but your outstanding post and insight changed that. You are always so right on and I look forward to your posts. Keep them coming.

Thanks,

Tom

Interesting how the the rhetoric is all about the neighborhood hardware store and the family farm but the reality is all about Bechtel and the Koch brothers. If Conservative ideas really had any merit they'd stand on their own. Republicans would proudly tell the full truth about them instead of distortions and outright lies. Anything that won't stand the light of day deserves to be disinfected, and the Conservative Movement just doesn't want us to realize that it's all about the wealthy elites.

You're right John, the republican legislators think we're stupid.

Again Navy.. There are No tax cuts.. Not sure why you continue to spew those Lies

Right Steve. Isn't someone going to hold Republicans for scheduling this tax hike years ago in order to hide their exploding budget deficits?

Republicans haven't Controlled Congress for almost 4 years.. it is the Democrats that are overspending. I understand that you will try and blame everyone but who is responsible but Please, your arguement is Tried and the Majortiy of the american People have seen thru it..

Steve;

I would suggest that you are the one being less than honest. The republicans passed the tax cuts under reconcilation and attached the 10 year experation date. If President Obama does nothing then yes everybody gets a tax increase thank you republicans. This is on the republicans. What President Obama wants to do, is keep those tax rates from GW Bush where they are for 98% of the people and and raise the taxes to the Clinton Era (where we had 20 Million jobs created, a budget surplus and a good economy) on the 2% that received more than 50% of the benefits under the Bush tax cuts. If there is any tax increase it is the fault of the republicans regardless of the spin.

So why don't the Democrats write tax law that defines small business as X, and agree not to over tax those business that are creating the most jobs?

Did anyone ever see that CarMax commercial where they have the balloon and they say "Squeeze one end on financing and the price goes up. Squeeze the price end and the financing goes up"

What Democrats don't/ or don't want to get is that if your boss or anyone in the company making $200,000 or more gets a pay cut by increasing taxation, then there is less money for the average worker there.

It is no different than if a key component starts costing more. They can either pass the cost on to the consumer, or if the consumer won't pay more (perhaps because of competition with an international company), then they can cut wages, outsource jobs, or have layoffs.

At the end of the day, the Gov't will have more, and the people will have less.

cdahl

Because then the republicants will be caught with a definition problem. Clinton did targeted tax cuts for small business. I think if a business proves it has created jobs and used money as you have to grow the economy, everyone would agree that you should get a tax cut. In fact I think it should be done now. The problem is that no one on the right wants to do that. They want to get the $ for campagin contirtbutions from the "Small businesses" as have been defined above.

So Ryan, what you're saying is that if the boss makes less money it comes out of the workers, but if the workers want more money we're out of luck because the market dictates our salaries.

How positively Aristocratic. At least now I understand that 98% of us are of lesser importance than those top 2%. Here I thought Conservatives favored a more egalitarian, democratic society but I guess that must be wrong.

denfran,

This is where I believe politics gets in the way of business. If the Democrats agree with my statement, then write a simple 1 page bill that defines it, and force the other party to oppose it. Make it transparent (an unfullfilled promise) and clean. Don't bury it in a bill for Widows and Orphans, or a bridge to nowhere and cry fowl that the Repbs don't support small business. Just a thought from an independent in the middle that votes both ways.

John, Des Moines. A very political view, and it isn't as complicated as that.

If you tax a businesses wages, S corps in particular the owner will raise his/her salary until the take home pay is the same as the year before. They will pass on the tax to the consumer in the form of higher priced goods. If they cannot it will come out of profits. Those profits are the same used to give raises or hire new people. As a business owner, my take home is under the 1%, but with the S corp filing it is in the 1%, therefore, my take home will raise 3.9% next year. Therefore, I will raise my salary 3.9% to compensate, keeping my take home net the exact same. This will come before any raises are considered. That simple.

Ryan in Texas:

"What Democrats don't/ or don't want to get is that if your boss or anyone in the company making $200,000 or more gets a pay cut by increasing taxation, then there is less money for the average worker there."

Well, no. There's NO correlation to reality there- in fact, many businesses get tax write-offs for what they pay employees- it's a "cost of doing business"- so a higher tax rate may actually result in the employment of more people. It looks like a national win-win from here; that employment generates more revenue for other businesses- who in turn hire more people- who generate revenue for yours. That's called a regenerative cycle- or positive feedback. How pathetic that those who will benefit most have to be yanked, kicking and screaming bitterly- into sustainability.

It would be justice to give you just what you wanted- until it got so bad you inspired a revolution against the rich in physical counterpoint to the bloodless but effective violence they've committed against the rest of us.

Fe02,

Right and wrong. The cost of hiring employees is substantial. Typically double what the financial compensation is (depending on income of course). And that is an expense against the income statement which reduces profits/taxation. However, adding an employee is a commitment that many businesses today reluctantly consider because the business environment is unstable. Good sales today don't equate to good sales tomorrow, etc. And the the other untalked about factor are bank covenants. Most banks have them in order to protect their investments. Typically, covenants include minimum profits putting small business in catch 22's. So, in a classroom you are correct, but in the outside world it doesn't always work that way. In fact, I remember a time when one of our covenants was to ask for bank approval to dividend out tax payments for income earned, but not taken home. And it was denied unless we signed a document that we very bank friendly.

Higher taxation is no more or less a business expense than electricity, rent or raw materials.

If your electric bill triples, you would have no problem understanding that there will be less money for employees.

It's really not that complicated.

Your assumtion that the owner would just accept less money, and not squeeze some other part of the costss is not going to fly in the real world.

Maybe you are just confused because it is not direct math. I'm not going to say that it is easy to conceptualize, but it works that way when you look at the big picture.

California Tom. Many thanks to you. It is nice to know that what a person writes is appreciated.

hey Navy,,

If taxes have to go up.. Which i dont think they should. Then everyone should share the burden. not just the people you want. I say if we are going to raise taxes on the top 3 percent by 4.5 percent. then we raise the Taxes of Every American 4.5 percent.. If you are indeed for fairness then you would clearly support this.. am i right?

But Steve, the top 20% recieved 52% of the benefits from the last tax increase. They've accumulated virtually all the new wealth created in the last 30 years. http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=12682

How much richer do the rich have to be before you consider it "fair"?

My guess is the answer will be the same as was John D Rockefeller's when, as richest man on Earth he was asked how much more money he needed. His answer? "Just a little bit more."

Pledge of Love. Excellent irony, Pat. I also had the furniture polish vision.

Furniture polish or knob polish - either way, someone is bent over. And I don't think it's the 'party faithful', just sayin'.

I heard something even funnier. What do you call a Democrat who believes in Limited Gov't?

...your mom?

Ex-Now THAT was funny!

You gotta hand it to the Democrats. They might not be the hardest workers, or the brightest, but they've got wicked 5 year old humor. Heck, you might even impress a first grader with that snappy comeback.

Oh, Ryan Ryan Ryan....<sigh>...

If you think the Democrats are not the brightest or hardest working go have a look at the most educated cities in the US and see how they vote. I hate to tell ya but the cities with the most college degrees vote Dem. I'm sorry, man. I know that's gonna be tough to work through for you...

@Ryan in Texas: Hey man, nobody'd replied yet and I didn't want to just leave you hanging all day. ;)

College Degrees? Do you have any idea how Liberal colleges are these days? Not exactly a mental stretch.

"Hey, I think like they taught me to."

Great Ryan, I have to give you credit for tenacious application of Conservative talking points. The "colleges are just Liberal indoctrination camps" one is critical to Conservative efforts to destroy our educational system.

College Degrees? Do you have any idea how Liberal colleges are these days? Not exactly a mental stretch.

"Hey, I think like they taught me to."

What's the matter, man? Couldn't afford the tuition at Sam Houston?

No, no, wait, wait...Texas Lutheran rejected you, right? Or maybe Texas Southern wouldn't even acknowledge your application? :p

Dear Exodite Dragon and cdahl: thank you for the time invested in critiques of my posts.

To the former, I freely admit to spinning the facts to a degree approaching satire regarding Texas. California, where I live, is no better- and as someone who has been a union steward, I understand your attitude towards union dues. Many dislike them. Many also refer to those refuse to pay dues, but who willingly take advantage of the higher wages, better health care, and representation at contract time as "free riders" because the rest of us support the organization which makes those benefits possible- but they still profit from the union they claim to disparage.

Re intelligence in Texas- the list of the top 15 states for patents per capita in 2009, per Forbes, goes:

Vermont, Idaho, Washington, California, Massachusetts, Oregon, Minnesota, Connecticut, Delaware, New Hampshire, Colorado, New Jersey, Michigan, Wisconsin, and New York.

Also , Texas shows a more substantial increase in GDP over the period measured in this study- and interestingly, median income is not rising at a similar rate- just productivity. Those at the top are robbing you. Fix it.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0655.pdf

In support of the concept of cheaper Texas labor: Median income in California in 2007:$59,948

In Texas in 2007:$47,548

2007 was the latest data available that I trusted- from the same site.

Re Mexican immigrants, legal and otherwise:

http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/characteristics.html

That one's a mixed bag, and the statistics could be interpreted either way.

Yes, I've been to Texas. It's big. It's hot. It's flat. There's great seafood, and better BBQ, though I confess to preferring St. Louis style, especially when it comes to pulled pork. I was delighted by some of the things I discovered, such as the River Walk in San Antonio. I was making fair money for what I was doing, but then I went to Denver to follow a job. The observatory in the park downtown was where I saw my first good laser light show. There were also three girls for every two guys during that particular era. I had fun. Then, I spent two years in Britain, six in Florida, and snippets here and there in other parts of the world and all over this country. The balance of my time was spent in California. I'll probably die here. Enjoy Texas- I did, but I like it better here.

Re the super-collider: I can't begin to say how much I wish we'd built that, and not doing so was the beginning of the end for American technical supremacy.

Re Nafta: one of them Bush fellers authored that trash, and just because Clinton was stupid enough to sign it as part of a quid-pro-quo for balancing the budget does not mean you have license to hang that albatross around his neck.

Re China: Nixon opened that can of worms. As I recall, he wasn't a Democrat either. I don't have enough time tonight to address the rest of it- regardless, it was meant to annoy someone far ruder than you were in delivering your well considered and aptly written opinions.

Finally, I really did get over myself quite some time ago- but I'm not inclined to apologize because I try to post expressively. It's not an effort to humble anyone- it's an effort to live up to my own standards. Meet your own, and be happy. I am.

To the latter: I do get it. It's easy to spout off about hiring creating positive feedback. When it's your money and your dreams on the line, along with your ability to care for your family? That's another matter entirely.

I have, in other posts, also made statements about an ongoing collapse I feel is inevitable if we don't find some way to prevent mega-corps from siphoning wealth out of small, localized economies and never returning it- only to move on to the next township or county- once they've destroyed their current host.

Until the game changes, being ever so conservative of wealth and ever so averse to risk is the name of the game. There is a reason, beyond speculation, that gold is still rising.

Thank you both for taking the time to reply, and for the courtesy of both responses.

That's what I wonder. Where are the new ideas promised by the Republican Tea Party. Same old, same old. Failed policies that put this country in the ditch, reverse for backward. This is Reaganomics in a nutshell with the same social issue thrown in to stir the base into a frenzy.

NDD;

Right on. I could not say it better. The hypocrisy of the republican/tea party appears to have no bounds. They say one thing out of one face and something else out of the other. They talk a great game but their deeds do not support the rhetoric. In fact it is usually just he opposite. They claim they want tax cuts for Small Business but veto the bill. They say they support the 9/11 first responders but deny them much needed medical care. The say they are for the middle class and vote gainst extending unemployment, and the list goes on.

Easy choice America. Do you want Carter or Reagan?

Do you want the policies of 80 years ago, or a change in the direction of ever growing ever borrowing Gov't?

Is it big enough yet? And why won't any Democrat ever say how much Gov't is too much?

Well said, Pat. Welcome to WalMart--the destroyer of small town, down town, mom and pop real small businesses.

How many employees at WalMart, or countless other corporate chains get paid so little that they end up on public assistance to make ends meet? I'm just disgusted that a portion of my tax dollars goes to subsidize the low wages of these companies use the subidies to destroy other businesses.

Wow, it's a running theme with you guys.

Gov't takes less of of our money = Bad.

Store takes less of our money = Bad.

Gov't takes more of your money = Good.

Store takes more of your money = Good.

You really just don't like anyone keeping more of their money in their own pockets do you?

In reality there's two choices within our present reality;

Store takes less of our money but money comes out of your pocket to subsidize employees working at poverty wages.

Store takes less of our money but employees have no access to a support system so poverty and hunger skyrocket.

Either of these look very promising in terms of creating a nation with a strong future?

The thing is, the game only works your way when the Gov't provides benefits that exceed the amount you can take in at minimum wage. We actually create a bunch of jobs that Americans are unwilling to do. All we have to do is set benefits at a level so you don't come out better sitting at home.

It would actually fix the budget, and end illegal immigration.

As for "hunger", we are the only country in the history of man who's "poor" face obesity as their #1 health problem.

You want to see poor? I've spent time in rural Mexico. MEAT WAS A TREAT. I've spent time in the house of the packhorse guide. (And he was better off than his helpers) I'm going to tell you now, there is no poverty in the US. Not compared to that. But his wife was a great cook with what she had. They had joy and sorrow just like the rich Americans (who we call poverty stricken). They were able to make it without any outside help. We didn't have TV, but still had fun.

Now the Gov't gives cellphones with 200 minutes a month FREE to "poor" people in America.

Ryan, I'm not even talking about people sitting at home. I'm talking about WORKING PEOPLE who get government assistance. That's reality. How do you feel about subsidizing employees so the Walton famly can be that much wealthier?

You want me to reach into my pocket and subsidize someone who just doesn't earn enough to be happy?

Please. Get a better job. They pay more. NONE of the better workers who I worked with at Walmart stayed there. But someone has to do that job.

Sure we could pay everyone $100,000 a year to work at Walmart, for about a week.

Then the really hardworking people of China would cut off our loans.

Look at what the higher minimum wage has done. Jobs are down. Some people are just not worth $7 bucks an hour.

Yeah, I know, you don't want to hear reality. It ain't exactly pleasant these days. But where exactly was it written that life would be easy?

Didn't say they needed to be paid $100,000 -- but enough to keep them out of my pocket in order to eat and keep roofs over their heads would be nice.

Reductio ad Absurdum is part and parcel of Conservative "debate" though, so I'm not surprised it came to this.

Ryan.

The number of times you say a thing has no bearing on its truthfulness.

Make new, original points once in a while, and we'll know you're actually thinking for yourself instead of playing parrot to Beck or Rush.

I have a premise: taxing the richest creates strong economies. Now, you make a rebuttal, and I'll make my counterpoint tomorrow. That's the way it's supposed to work- and, we don't even have to sling mud or call names. TRY it. It's fun, and you might learn something. I might learn something too- and, that's the reason we do this- to arrive at a conclusion based on logic while exploring other viewpoints.

Funny how two years ago Republican Conservatives were all about the "Unitary Executive", a concept that the President is so powerful only HE gets to decide which laws to enforce and which to ignore.

Now we're introducing a "REINS Act" to make sure that Conservative legislators get to supervise duties granted to the President by the Constitution.

The only agenda here is for Conservatives to run the country on behalf of their wealthy benefactors.

You do get that Conservatives are nearly half the country, right?

It's not like we are all just rich people. We work regular jobs.

But all assets in this country amount to about $250,000 per person and all debts and liabilities amount to about $350,000 per person. You can try to redistribute it all you want, but Gov't is too large by the definition everyone agrees to, how much they take in.

I get it that you want to raise taxes on all of us (directly or indirectly) so you can grow Gov't even more.

But it isn't big enough for you now?

The Family that owns Walmart own on the close order of $95 Billion.

The lower 40% of the populace owns $90 Billion.

What is wrong with this picture when 120 Million people own LESS than a Single Family does? And, on top of that, that Family's employees have to get Govt assistance to survive, as their Wages will not cover all of their expenses, even working nearly full time??

First of all, I guess I'm just not the jealous type. Second, I worked at Walmart. It was a long time ago, but they didn't pay great back then either. However, all the good workers found work elsewhere. Yet there were many workers who were being GIFTED much of their pay because they didn't want to work. They were worth far less than what they were paid. And always it was attitude. We had a mentally challenged guy who just pushed a big broom around. But I'll be darned if the floors were not clean. He had the right attitude, and I can tell you it was painful to see him busting his butt as he pushed past able bodied workers who were doing nothing!

The problem now is that Gov't won't tell people - you are able bodied - you get no assistance.

Now you may not want to hear this, but we are competing with people in the world who are outworking us.

Gov't handouts make it less likely that we will ever be able to compete again.

You try almost any Republican. They will give you a hand up, not a hand out. If you take the opportunity you are given, there is almost no limit here.

Haven't you ever wondered how immigrants can come here with nothing and work their way to affluence?

So tell me how they can do that?

Because everyone in the world knows this IS THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITY. Somehow we just forgot....

John Stewart went one better; he showed segments from the announcement of the original "Contract on America" and from the announcement of the "New" policy... and, those segments were verbatim. There was even a word for word recital by a younger Boehner and the current one. Look- we've been down this road, and it's a dead end for most of us. It does have a pot of gold at the end of it- but, only for the rich. Ask anyone living in the rust belt. Madness is defined as doing the same thing and expecting different results.

But this is no madness- the method yields results which are both anticipated and intentional: the rich get richer, and the rest of us get poorer- at a vastly accelerated rate. This negative loop is not sustainable, and makes no sense when you've already bottomed the economy out. When you have all the money, and you try to take more, it's "Game Over" time: social destabilization occurs. Let me put that bluntly: the peasants rise up and kill you and your entire family, root, branch and leaf.

Some people get it- just as there were elements of the French nobility who escaped the guillotine. Those who own WalMart have already planned for chaos- they have a largish compound with concertina-wire fences, a small private army, a private medical facility, generators, a small airstrip, and a great number of supplies. Small is relative- no doubt they have other unpleasant surprises which are not immediately apparent. It's a castle- a facility designed to survive a siege. It's still going to fall. The smartest are out of the country altogether, and they'll make it.

My question wouldn't be: "How can you plan to do the same thing and expect different results?". They don't. My question to most politicians of the Right (and most on the Left, for that matter) would be: "How can you be so short term smart and so long term suicidal?" I would guess that greed is the only explanation possible- perhaps the temptation is simply too great. I only wish rats had their habits- you could put bait out and it wouldn't even need to be poisonous- make that bait sufficiently tasty and copious, and they'd all eat themselves to death by sunrise.

Oh, so true Feisty, well said. First Read did a great job summing up some facts.

A few minutes on Google could do wonders for the FOX viewers.

Democrats never did like PLEDGES.

They are not real big on ALLEGIANCE either.

Oh, and the FLAG, don't get the liberals started on it, before you know it they will be telling you there is no GOD.

And LIBERTY, well not if it means the freedom to decide what to do with your own hard earned money.

But JUSTICE is OK if it means Social Justice, where those who work pay for those who don't - to sit at home in front of the TV or Computer and have mommy Gov't bring them their food.

You watch a lot of Glenn Beck, don't you Ryan? You aware that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Christian Socialist? So, when YOU say the Pledge, you are reciting something a Socialist wanted you to say? Sort of ironically amusing, don't you think? I guess it works out okay for the Republicans to say it though, it was also written as advertising for a magazine called the Youth Companion. The Pepsi jingle of its day. Maybe the effort to make money overcomes the curse of the Christian Socialist writing it to begin with.

And "My Country tis of thee" is a copied melody from "God Save the Queen".

So what? Liberals are good at writing music/ poetry. They are more controlled by emotion than logic.

Doesn't mean you want them running the country though.

In fact, kinda puts alot of what they think in perspective, doesn't it.

So paint me a pretty picture for my wall, make me a jingle or a tune. In short, stick to what you know.

But business is an economic reality, it ain't got nothin to do with emotion.

But business is an economic reality, it ain't got nothin to do with emotion.

The final sentiment of that statement alone throws into question your ability to run a successful enterprise.

Good luck running a business on emotion. So you would pay based on need, not on ability?

I run a business. Profitability has improved by 36% this year. Keep spreading that Conservative canard about Liberal minds not being capable of thinking like a businessman, along with the lazy and stupid corollaries. My bosses see me differently.

Oh, no.... facts. This will only result in a huge outpouring of lies in an effort to obscure your post.

Drive By,

Thank you for the kind words. It is dirty politics as usual. Figures do not lie but liars figure and this is exactly what Boehner did. Now he is exposed along with his buddies.I am with you and hope people are starting to take notice.

I enjoy your posts everyday, keep them coming.

Get a room.

And there it is. I asked Ryan early to provide some sources for what he says is true about Democrats. He did not respond Why? He can't. He spends his time frothing at the mouth about a group of Americans who are as entitled to their beliefs as he is to his, as rudimentary as his are. To make it worse, we get an attack that a 12 year old might make when he is unable to support his point. God help us all if people like Ryan ever get into power.

Look, I don't advocate policies that cost you one dime. The policies you advocate all cost me money that I sweated to earn. You are like a thief to me. You do not have my consent to take my property and give it to someone else.

Now understand, you can freely donate YOUR money to help the less afluent. You can even send in extra to the Gov't that you so dearly want to grow.

But when you take what I have, you can't really expect plesantries.

Eventually it was obvious that Ryan would come to the REAL appeal of Conservatism. FYIGM.

Of course very few Conservatives realize that the entire time the top 1% is aggressively hoarding everything they can get their mitts on.

Hi, JoAnn WV. The truth is out there, thanks to Keith Olbermann, for those who choose truth over the Republican Tea Party fiction.

Excellent links- thanks for taking the time to share them.

Amy,

I agree. You summed up a point I tried to make 2 weeks ago. The Democratic Party needs to "man up" and stand up to the Republicans; they need to stick together. The Democratic Party is in need of a "Kum-bah-yah" moment.

Well said, AMY.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why the Liberal MSM keeps tooting the horns of the Zombies!

But i can ROFLMAO, when another Zombie Spills the beans inside thier heads.

It's the best Comedy!

Amy,

I agree. Nice post, simple and straight forward.

I agree as long as the republicans do not keep trying to re-write it.

Disable Vet - If you think that Republicans would not rather the letter of the Constituion be followed vs. the Democrats wanting it to be a "living" document, then you either have NO CREDIBILITY, ARE JUST HIDING WHAT YOU KNOW TO BE TRUE, or ARE EXTREEMELY IGNORANT.

There are no Originalist Democrats. NONE.

Heck, the part about "all powers not being specifically enumerated to the Federal Gov't are left to the STATES and the CITZENS" - is enough to block about 2/3 of what the Federal Gov't does on a daily basis.

Please, get your arguments straight. Remember, your side is the one who thinks "A woman's has a right to an abortion" is in the Constituion. Well, the way ya'll imagine it would be if you were to actually read it.

Heck, the part about "all powers not being specifically enumerated to the Federal Gov't are left to the STATES and the CITZENS" - is enough to block about 2/3 of what the Federal Gov't does on a daily basis.

Ryan, the time for that noise was circa 1850~70. Be realistic - you can't repeal every piece of legislation you don't agree with since the beginning of Reconstruction without severely disrupting the operation of the federal and state governments.

Uh, they didn't change the US Constitution.

The 10th Amendment still reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It was not changed by amendment.

I know what you are going to say : "So the unelected, un checked and balanced Supreme Court is willfully violating their oath to uphold the US Constitution?"

Wow, sounds like treason when you say it that way.

But hey, Gov't's usurp power as a course of their nature. And they do have the big guns after all. So really, serf, you are going to agree with the King, right?

So you completely missed my point and then descended into condescending rhetoric as though it's enough to prop up your argument.

Cute. Real cute.

All well and good Ryan, but Originalism is nothing but an excuse to do whatever Conservatives want to do. Legal theories and tactics change from one case to another with no consistency whatsoever. It's simply a way for Conservatives to say "because we said so." http://blog.pfaw.org/content/souter%E2%80%99s-case-against-originalism

Durer,

Minor, but important, correction for you: The 'New World order' and the Illuminati are both Heavily right-wing groups and heavily support the Repubs. Bush I was originally pushing the New World Order himself!

Don, I agree with you. But you stand a much better chance of getting marijuana legalized with a liberal government than with a bunch of right-wing nuts like the Tea Party. So get out and vote and get your friends out, too.

Don, I understand your position but urge you to not be a single issue voter in that way. Everything in the world of politics is about what you can get at any given time. Progress comes over time and to get that you have to vote for people who think as you do on the broad range of issues. If those are the sorts who are in office it will move toward your way of thinking over time.

Love the show "Weeds"!

That is fine - so by not voting, so not adding to a solution you are than letting others decide all of the other issues for you. Works for me as there are few things more simple that a single issue voter or one that votes on the promises of what will be by those not in power instead of any than may act like adults when they are. The majority of people that actually show up to vote get exactly what they deserve - no effort put into educating themselves nothing will ever change. Garbage in, garbage out, garbage for ever more.

Don M. - The TEA PARTY firmly believes in state's rights as it is written in the US Constitution. The Democrats are violently oppossed to states rights.

I believe that if a state wants to try something like Gov't healthcare, it is their right. But if it doesn't work, the other states can learn from their mistake. State's rights are the best possible firewall to bad governence. You can always go to a state where the laws more closely represent your beliefs.

And even better, it allows 50 experiments in Government to happen.

Example. Massachusetts has Gov't healthcare. It is turning out to be an expensive failure. Instead of forcing all states down that path, we could learn from what worked and what didn't.

So I could imagine California, and a few other states decriminalizing. Since they would get a bump in revenue, and have to pay out less for incarceration, I could imagine it working, but we don't know what the outcome will be.

Unfortunately, with the Democrats, you would have to change the law for the entire country, because the one thing they fear most is a state using limited Gov't and getting ahead of the other States with big Gov't.

We've tried it down here, but Washington will not let us limit the size of Gov't. We are able to keep it to a minimum they allow though. I should mention that Texas created more new jobs than the other 49 states COMBINED in 2009.

Yes Tom, let us be thankful the democrats in congress saved us from 30 years of defecits. Oh wait, the dems, who controlled congress for 0ver 20 of those years also controlled the purse strings, didn't they?

Which republicans have "let the cat out of the bag"Tom?

During those thirty years Bill Clinton created more jobs than three republican presidents combined Bush, Bush jr. and Reagan.

This is the same old pablum that nearly destroyed the country's economy and financial system less than 2 years ago---- tax cuts for the wealthy.

Please explain to me the relationship between of tax cuts for the wealthy and the destruction of the country's economy and financial system. I was under impression that the financial system crisis was caused by lousy risk management at AIG, regulators watching porn instead of doing their jobs and a housing/mortgage market that had a bubble.

Hey Alan, fairer to say it's a combination of both?

Not really because there is no connection.

You can make the argument that taxes should be raised for the top 2%, if for nothing else but to pay for the two wars, but conflate the two issues is simply incorrect.

Also, on the S-corp argument. The majority of S-corps are simply sole proprietor set ups that give the owner limited liability. I wound up one of these a couple of years ago. I was doing part-time consulting and the client would not deal with a sole proprietor entity due to insurance reasons. The reason I wound it up was that in NJ there is a minimum of $500 a year tax, even if you have no income and even though I was the only employee I had to buy workers comp insurance for myself so that the state had no liability. It doesn't seem to occur to the state that you are unlikely to sue yourself for workers comp. These are the little paperwork items that making owning a "real" small business a pain.

Fair enough, Alan. I see your point.

Funny you should mention the flap with your consulting business - I was brought in to aid a family-owned refurbisher that'd previously employed the services of a rather unsavory local CPA. The gentleman in question was universally more concerned about acquiring his bi-weekly fee than offering actual support and had failed to adequately explain the costs incurred by moving to incorporate.

The decision was ultimately made to disolve the corporation and return to a sole proprietorship. Fortunately, Texas doesn't levy fees merely for keeping a small business in operation. I'm sorry to see New Jersey does.

Wow, one tax class instructed by Keith and all these new found tax pros. The knee-jerk reaction to code words such as "big, white, profit, rich, etc.," should be material for Psych 101.

If a pass through organization passes through profit that is going to get taxed at a higher rate and you adhere to policy that businesses need certainty to plan regarding hiring, healthcare, etc., in the same sense you need to know your budget at home, then does is matter if the new word for "blue" is "red" if nothing has changed.

Do most of you have a clue the risk involved in starting a new business and when will you stop loathing the people that employ you? I suggest you become informed in light of the fact in this business killing atmosphere, unstable markets and printable free money, self employment may be whats left.

This is what we can look forward to with the GOP in control; a complete wipe out of healthcare reform.

TP: Starting today, insurance companies can no longer discriminate against children with pre-existing conditions, drop coverage because of a simple mistake on an application, institute lifetime caps, limit choice of doctors, charge more for emergency services obtained out of network, or levy deductibles, co-payments or co-insurance for certain preventive benefits. Children will also be able to stay on their parents’ plans until their 26th birthday and everyone will have the right to appeal insurer decisions to an independent third party.

Ironically, today Republicans are also unveiling a new ‘Pledge To America,’ an agenda which promises to “repeal” all of these benefits — as well as the entire health care law — and replace it with “reforms that lower costs for families and small businesses, increase access to affordable, high-­‐quality care and strengthen the doctor-­‐patient relationship.”

The document provides almost no specifics about what the party would do to control health care spending, improve quality, or pay for its reforms. And at least 7 of the GOP’s ideas on health care are already included in the health care law.

___________

Today is a big day for our health care reform, given to us by President Obama and the Democrats. The GOP gave us death panels only.