Morning Everyone…

You’ll have to excuse me as I’m still a little ‘groggy’ from the late night last night!

Da Bears 3-0!

I’m in good company with Clara, KC & Steeler Fan! The Ladies ROCK!

Did you really have to bring up Agent Orange first thing in the morning there Ron? ;0))))

Talk about a ‘buzz kill’… lol Bohner and the rest of the clowns couldn't find their 'moral compass' with both hands AND a flashlight!

Good Morning Feisty: Da Bears win. Larry O starts his new new program. A perfect evening.

HEY! No killing the Buzz!

Go Bears.

Ron- you mean kicking, screaming, throwing tantrums and yelling "HELL NO" isn't offering solutions?

Anyway- don't forget getting rid of Unemployment for all those folks that had their jobs sent overseas.

Goed morning Fiesty

I left you an email

You're excused. I'm the same way I had to do a lot of DVR-ing, Lawrence O'Donell, NBC's The Event and the Bears. I feel asleep trying to watch the tapes.

Da Bears 3-0! GoBear

I was a wild night.

drive-by: You are right. but if I listed all the ways the Republicans obstruct, no sane person would believe it.

No doubt about it. How can they hope to solve anything when fulfilling everything in the "Pledge to America" would require killing the ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT except Defense, Social Security, Medicare, and paying down the national debt?

Are these spending cuts that he DOES, in fact have in mind? Or is this just you speculating from the viewpoint of an angry leftist?

"No need for public schools and universities"??? Really? You really believe this?

I forgot. You're one of those people who, when others call for spending cuts and lower taxes, you put words in their mouths and start claiming that they want to abandon the police and fire departments. Whatever. Stop whining.

How about cutting the billions of dollars in entitlements for a start?

How about cutting the billions of dollars in entitlements for a start?

Careful. You'll ange the Tea Partiers who just love to rag on government spending while collecting the very entitlements that you now want to cut.

Ron,

Great points! Here is another example of what Republicans consider “fair play”.

Speaking on the Senate floor Sen. Jeff Sessions falsely claimed that right-wing obstructionism of President Obama’s judicial nominees is justified because Democrats were more even more aggressive during the Bush Administration.

But at this same time in their Presidency Bush 43 and 4 other Presidents all had substantially more judges confirmed.

Carter = 60, Reagan = 79, Bush Sr. = 58, Clinton = 84, Bush Jr. = 68 and Obama = 41.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/24/sessions-no-confirmations/

Ron,

Excellent post today. This sums up the republican "Pledge to America" that in my opiion is their "Roadmap to the destruction of the Middle Class".

Yesterday the Republicans block the BP Committee from getting Subpoena Power. How are they supposed ti investigate BP without Subpoena Power?? Oh I forgot, the Republicans, do not want the American People to know what hand they played in these deaths. They do not want the American people to know how much money the Republicans were paid by Big-Oil and Gas to squelch the investigation.

Another reason I will not vote Republican, Greed and Fraud costing employees their lives so a few can have more power and wealth.

Fellow Travelers:

Boy are things getting crazy. Now, we've introduced the education issue to the national debate. Is it important? Yes. Only a complete fool can deny a decline in our educational standards. However, education is supposed to be a local issue, and while a national presence may be desirable, there are far too many other issues that require attention. Hell, the Senate can barely handle one issue a year.

There are some truly interesting posts in First Read, but some times it seems some very important facts are ignored.

How about this one. Regardless of which party controls the government, when it comes time to formulate a budget, the first item is going to be a $400,000,000,000 expenditure - that's four-hundred-billion dollars. That's the interest on the national debt, which has been accumulating for a half-century. Both Democrats and Republicans don't want to touch this. Really, we can't just pretend it's not there. Bush did that with two foreign escapades, and the debt didn't magically go away.

How about this one. If we let the tax cuts expire, it's going to cost the treasury "X" amount of dollars. Democrats and Republicans both have their figures. The truth is, it costs the treasury not one thin dime. That money never belonged to the government. It belonged to the people being taxed.

That said, the real question is how do we pay for running the government? Well, the Republican Pledge is just plain and simple poppycock. Sure they talk about cutting spending, but not one Republican has the guts to delineate a single cut. Their contention that not taxing the rich means more jobs is so vacuous as to be laughable.

Democrats are no better. The gutless wonders in the Senate refuse to take up debate on the tax cuts. Look! We have to balance the budget at some point and start paying our bills. Think about Willie Sutton, the legendary bank robber. When asked why he robbed banks, he answered, "That's where the money is." Well, hello folks. Where's the money to balance the budget? The very wealthy people have it. It's not like they're starving. No one can produce a statistic that shows they have been forced to live under bridges. To the contrary. They continue to get richer. This ain't class warfare. This is about balancing the budget.

One more thing. Why is it some very terrific posts are being collapsed? This is just plain petty and rude. As an example, I'm going to cite a poster named "Pragmatic to a fault". More often than not, I disagree with this person. However, on occasion I get a new perspective from this him. I'm not going to collapse this guy.

As far as the Tea baggers, well, they just collapse anything they don't like, particularly if it includes their name. Fact is they're the ones who adorn their accoutrements with tea bags. They're the ones who bombarded their representatives with tea bags. Their PR machine unfortunately is no better than their ideas on governance, but it is most improper to blame others for their own stupidity. Hey guys, you picked the name, live with it, and by the way, you haven't registered as a party, so don't go there.

Boehner is not supporting privitizing SS and MC, and in fact neither are the majority of Republicans. Obama lied about this, and you're perpetuating the lie. A handful of Republicans have as part of their plans, most notably Paul Ryan, an OPTION to privitize a small PORTION of SS if a person WANTS to and a plan to convert MC to a voucher program.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/sep/02/democratic-exaggerations-about-privatizing-social-/

Can you actually PROVE any of your other claims, Ron? Because I would be curious to see where Boehner actually advocated for the extremes you suggest. And remember, advocating for reforming something /= ending it.

You know, Ron, you are starting to sound as hysterical as Pat. You might want to watch it.

Every single government agency should be cut by 20%. Period. And, yes, that includes Defense. I guess that you don't know how many civilian employees there are in Defense-trust me, there are many. My uncle is one-he's a FILE CLERK. Makes six figures at a job that no longer exists in the private sector. Has a pretty good pension coming to him in a few years, as well.

The waste in government agencies is appalling, and growing. By issuing an order to cut 20%, the managers of those agencies will have to cull their ranks-and eliminate some job titles forever. The SSA is a good example-they went to electronic transfers years ago, but all the people necessary to cut checks are still employed.

I'd like to see a big reduction in the salaries offered, as well. We are in an untenable position when a government job pays twice what the private sector pays.

Ah, well, Obama is off to Madison, and I understand that they are having a problem similar to the problem they had in Ohio at his last rally-they can't get enough people to fill the area, so they are scrambling for a smaller venue. Does anyone tell him about these problems, or is he still under the misapprehension that there are throngs waiting to throw themselves at his feet?

I also understand that Rahm is leaving sooner than expected-so, is he being forced out as the fall guy, or is he jumping ship before it crashes on the rocks of public opinion?

Curiouser and curiouser. . .

I would love to say to packers fans in cheese land!!

thank you.

18 pentalties. thank you.

Pragmatic: Look at the GOP voting record of NO, NO, NO. Forgot, and drive by reminded me; NO to unemployment insurance. And NO to small business tax deductions. I could go on, but no need. I rest my case.

Demint's opposition to Congresses subpoena of BP executives just shows you how demented Demint is.

Actually, Pragmatictoafault, Boehner advocated some incremental changes to SS, whiuch would have an impact on keeping it solvent. One of the things he advocated was increasing the retirement age for workers under 40-from 67 to 70. One of the posters on this board stated, categorically, that younger workers would turn to selling drugs if the SS retirement age was raised by three years.

So, given the level of discourse on solutions to Social Security insolvency, it is not hard to understand why many would hold their fire until after the elections.

Dr. No: You once said you were a teacher. I am withdrawing from your class. STTS

“And, yes, that includes Defense”

However the “Pledge” calls for an increase in defense.

Ron,

Good morning. I was watching the BBS channel yesterday and this privatizing of Social Security and Medicare is very much in play with the republicans/tea party. Fact Check is correct in that most republicans are not coming forth and saying they support that agenda, but when asked point blank they do not say definitely NO they do not support that agenda. They skirt around it in rhetoric that all ideas are on the table. Sounds like they are in support to me.

Just more of the same old deceit from the right.

I don't follow sports. I watched Dancing with the Stars last night. (Don't judge me, the show is worth watching for the costumes alone.) All I can say is, I hope the world is kind to little Piper as she grows up. It wouldn't surprise me if she became a novelist. She sure has plenty of material to work with.

Great post, Ron.

As usual republicans want to preserve military and defense spending while cutting education and everything else. I realize that more money in education does not equate to quality education but less certainly is not the answer. For a generation, America has been losing ground in education. That is about the time Ronald Reagan became President along with "starving the beast" philosophy of republicans.

I had to laugh at Boehner saying he was trying to make people see the problem before he could talk about a solution---not that I believed he would have a solution but come on---as is evidenced by the talk here at FR, we may not agree on the steps to be taken, but the American people are well aware that there are serious issues facing us and that we need to do something. That is what this election is all about.

And to the liberals out there--I think the President and Vice President are correct---you haven't gotten everything you've wanted but that is in part due to the economy taking such a toll on everything. Do you seriously think things will be better with the Republicans controlling the House or Senate and in better position for 2012? Why don't you instead turn the conventional wisdom on its heat and turn out to vote in the mid-terms?

By the way, before the season began I meant to post that after 3 weeks the Chiefs, Bears and Steelers would each be 3-0 but I forgot!

Ron:

On Fox News Sunday John Boehner was saying that “we can’t begin to talk about potential solutions yet.”

Kind of like Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam, isn't it? Nixon's secret was he didn't have a plan, and that's Boehner's secret, too. The Republicans have a plan to seize power, but they've got no idea what they'll do with the power once they get it. But I'm sure they'll figure out a way to use it for the benefit of their corporate masters. Maybe defund the EPA or the Food and Drug Administration, or one of those other government agencies that tend to put a damper on unrestrained predatory capitalism.

Farley - just what do you think the neocons consider public education, medicare, and social security to be? They consider them to be entitlements and since they don't need them they are only too happy to do away with them, or do like our last repugnant governor in Tennessee, spend the program into oblivion trying to eliminate it that way.

Anyone who thinks raising the retirment age is a good thing is absolutely crazy. The best time in American economics, the 60's, everyone retired with full benefits at 62, lots of job openings for young people and low unemployment. Makes a great case to lower the retirement age instead of raising it.

For Obama's first full year, the Democrats controlled EVERYTHING - the Presidency, the House, and a filibuster proof 60 seats in the Senate, and huge public support.

And they squandered it, wasting time on things opposed by the public, and largely ignoring the one thing everybody agreed was needed - JOBS.

Now Obama and Biden are "Whining" about lack of support.

Well DUH. They've shown themselves to be totally incompetent, and THAT is what's REALLY 'irresponsible'.

Incidentally, the last time the Democrats had such an advantage, including 62 seats in the Senate, was under Jimmy Carter, who REALLY managed to screw thins up, with combined unemployment and inflation rates of 22% (Misery Index).

So, Ron, you don't actually have proof of any of the things you claim Boehner supports in your original post? Are you lying, or just exaggerating?

no joe -

I'm aware of the changes that most people, including Boehner, recognize will be necessary to keep SS solvent including raising the retirement age. Those changes are a far cry from dismantling it entirely, or privatizing it entirely - which is what Ron falsely claimed in his OP.

Ron Indiana: Pragmatic: Look at the GOP voting record of NO, NO, NO. Forgot, and drive by reminded me; NO to unemployment insurance. And NO to small business tax deductions. I could go on, but no need. I rest my case.

You have no case, you just have what appears to be delusional rants. Ron, where in the world do come up with this tripe? Unemployment insurance? Who said no to that? Businesses paid it before, they pay it now, and they will continue to pay for it. Or are you talking about Obama and the Democrats making unemployment benefits an entitlement, which Obama is doing by him continually writing checks he can't cover?

And "No to small business tax deductions"? Obama just signed yet another bill he can't pay for that "gives" small businesses a tax break, and at the same time Obama vilifies small businesses and threatens to raise their taxes $70 billion a year by letting the Bush tax cuts expire for them. Then you Libs wonder why Obama is regarded as anti-business and an anti-capitalist, mostly because he is.

No Jo,

Here we go again making blanket statements about government workers. People being over paid for the work they actually put in happens every day in the public and private sector. To act like private companies have some moral high ground is crazy. I will say this again before we start trying to cut the pay and benifits of all government workers (who are in most cases hard working tax paying Americans) we should look to the private companies that hold government contracts. That is where millions and billions are going out the door every day.

JoAnna:

On September 23, 2010 the House voted and passed the small business tax deduction bill. 187 Republicans voted against the bill. It is the Democrats who supported the small businesses in this country, and yes President Obama did sign the bill into law. You and your Republicans can take no credit for helping small businesses. I'm not sure if you are factless or feckless.

Tom Reston-the fact of the matter is that businesses have a built-in reason not to keep an unproductive employee-a profit motive. The government has none.

Tell you a story: some time ago, a large, well-known business found that its profits were down, and they were losing business to competitors. There were some on the management team who believed that they had gotten all the market share that they could, and that they had to be satisfied with a smaller profit, as some had been eaten by their competitors. There were others who called that hogwash.

At a management meeting, the VP for Marketing cited the problems getting new products through research as a contributing factor. The president of the company agreed to an experiment: they drafted a proposal for a product they ALREADY MADE, and sent it to R and D.

It took six months for R and D to come back with the response that the 'proposed' product could not be made.

Shortly thereafter, IBM began a series of cuts to their bureaucracy.

You think anything like that happens in government?

Let me ask you, do you think that any of the people in MMS lost their jobs for rubberstamping permits when safety data was missing from the proposals? I don't. I think that the only thing that HAS been done is to change the name of the agency.

That's one example of government efficiency.

Ron-Indiana,

JoAnna and other republicans are both factless and feckless. They are also full of spin (and something else I'd rather not say). Letting the bush tax cuts expire will not hurt small businesses, as the small business I know have owners who do not make over 250,000 per year. The big businesses can afford to pay just like their mega rich owners can.

Tom, Reston - good to hear you today, I never understand how folks can demonize government workers. These folks get up everymorning and go to work like everyone else and I know my daughter works for the state of Tennessee in a good position - one that we would not want to be vacant due to public safety and she makes under 30,000 per year - and she has been at her job for almost 8 years!Funny thing, most of the republicans I know work for the very government they want to cut jobs. Typical repugnants, willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces.

If we take the Republicans at their word that they’ll actually cut every dollar they say they will in the Pledge, the plan doesn’t come anywhere close to eliminating the deficit. As Michael Ettlinger and Michael Linden calculated:

“The “Pledge to America” budget would mean $11.1 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years. By 2020, the federal budget deficit would be 6.3 percent of gross domestic product, the federal debt would exceed 93 percent of GDP, and interest payments on the debt would be more than $1 trillion a year. The budget deficit would be about $200 billion larger in 2020 under the “Pledge to America” plan than it would be under President Barack Obama’s budget, and over the next 10 years deficits would be $1.5 trillion higher than under the president’s budget”.

Ok, where’s the Beef???

As reported on ThinkProgress:

“With the Pledge, McCarthy and the rest of the House Republicans make it seem like eliminating the deficit with cuts to discretionary spending is both possible and simple. But discretionary spending this year will be about $1.4 trillion. So almost all of it would have to be cut — including discretionary defense spending — to eliminate the deficit”.

“The non-defense discretionary side of the budget — which includes all federal education funding, FEMA, the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the National Park System, federal highway funding, food safety inspection, and the Secret Service — comes to about $530 billion, nowhere near enough to eliminate the deficit. And as The Wonk Room explains, if the Pledge were actually enacted, Republicans would be starting from an even deeper fiscal hole, as deficits over the next ten years would be $1.5 trillion higher than they would be under President Obama’s budget”.

More misinformation and outright lies to the American People. Come on people, wake up, the Billionaires that are running the Republican/Tea Party are selling this country out to the highest bidder and the Middle Class is going to loose big time.

Republicans trying to take control of the government is like a dog chasing a car. Once they catch it, they don't know what to do with it so they just urinate on it.

We can go one for one on examples No Jo. My only issue is that you seem to make large overreaching assumptions about every government agencies and government workers. Some of the people you are saying need to be fired and have wages cut are great folks who work hard every day for things that benefit all of us. I don't work in the government and I certainly don't think it is the first or even second place we should look for solutions, but I do know working for the government is not welfare like you try to make it out to be.

Example: how many illegal immigrants hold government positions? Would you like to wager it is far less than private business? How bad would our unemployment numbers be if like government agencies every company had to make certain it's employees were legal? How bad would the economy be if those same private companies were made to pay each of its employees a living wage?

Some private companies look like they are more efficient than it's government counter parts but the question are they taking a legal path to get there. The point is both have issues and whole sale slash can burn tactics aren't going to fix anything.

JoAnnaSmith

Obama just signed yet another bill he can't pay for that "gives" small businesses a tax break, and at the same time Obama vilifies small businesses and threatens to raise their taxes $70 billion a year by letting the Bush tax cuts expire for them.

JoannaSmith is regurgitating the Boehner's lie that letting the tax break for incomes over $250K will affect small businesses. As reported on Olbermann's show (which JoAnnaSmith probably never watches because it's got too many of those annoying facts), most of the income for those "small businesses" comes from multi-billion dollar corporations who don't need the budget-busting extension of the Bush tax cuts.

The businesses that do need a tax break are the REAL small businesses that the Republicans care absolutely nothing about -- the businesses for which the Democrats successfully got a tax break past the Republican obstructionists who want to keep the unemployment numbers high for their own political benefit.

Houston:

The businesses that do need a tax break are the REAL small businesses that the Republicans care absolutely nothing about -- the businesses for which the Democrats successfully got a tax break past the Republican obstructionists who want to keep the unemployment numbers high for their own political benefit.

You'd think the Lefties would figure out the con job Obama and the Democrats are pulling, but yet they don't. So now there are small businesses and there are REAL small businesses. I guess I don't watch enough (or any for that matter) Olbermann/Maddow, who seem the be the Delusional Duo that possess such "information".

And Houston, high unemployment numbers help no one. Also, how exactly is throwing another $42 billion on the ol'debt pile going to create any jobs when throwing $800 billion on it last year didn't? The answer is it won't. It's just another round of window dressing by the Democrats who keep tell us they "Have to do something".

All this nonsense ends in November. Well, except for the lame duck session Democrats pushing through even more pork laden bills. What do you figure Houston, another $100 billion? $200 billion sent to REAL small businesses by the lame ducks? Union owned for sure.

Ron Indiana

JoAnna:

On September 23, 2010 the House voted and passed the small business tax deduction bill. 187 Republicans voted against the bill. It is the Democrats who supported the small businesses in this country, and yes President Obama did sign the bill into law. You and your Republicans can take no credit for helping small businesses. I'm not sure if you are factless or feckless.

This is exactly why the Democrats will take a blood path in November. There is no better illustration then this post by Ron. Ron, no one but the Leftwing kool-aide drinkers believe you, you or Obama and the Democrats. Americans are tired of the promises made by Obama/Democrats and never kept. They are tired of being told that if you don't spend billions of borrowed money on something that you "don't care". And what credit are you taking exactly? That your party has added $3.5 trillion is debt to the country in 20 months? You know what Congresses first act in the lame duck session will be? To raise the debt ceiling which is currently at $14 trillion. You take that credit Ron, we want you to take it. Quite the "achievement" you have there Ron. Trillions spent, trillions of borrowed money, and no jobs and no GDP growth. Thanks for nothing Ron.

JoAnna aka Selfish Redhead:

I think the word you were looking for was bath, not path. Your post clarified my question. You are both factless and feckless.

STTS

Tom mentioned upthread that public workers are "hard working tax paying Americans". Tax paying? They're paid by taxes. The fact that a gov't worker gets a gross pay of let's say $40,000 a year (which comes from taxes) and then "pays" income taxes is funny. The reality is that this worker is paid $30,000 net a year from taxes.

Tom also mentioned that "People being over paid for the work they actually put in happens every day in the public and private sector. To act like private companies have some moral high ground is crazy." Tom, the private companies can pay whatever they like to their employees. It only impacts the company's bottom line. The waste in the public sector is the problem because, once again, those workers are paid by taxes.

US Navy -

I debunked the $11 trillion lie in a post yesterday, lets see if I can find it......ahhh, yes. Here it is.

That lie comes from a Center for American Progress article.

The CAP number INCLUDES the projected $7-8 TRILLION in increased deficits that will already occur based on Obama's budgets, and adds the the costs for extending the Bush tax cuts - which we've ALREADY DETERMINED is nearly identical to something Obama wants to do as well. This link will take you to the CBO analysis for Obama's budgets through 2020. These budgets assume the Bush tax cuts expire, because the CBO bases it's projections on the current laws and as of 1/1/11, tax rates revert.

NO MATTER WHO DOES IT, if the Bush tax cuts do not expire, the deficit will balloon by about $11 trillion by 2020.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/tables.pdf

Once again, you trying to claim the REPUBLICANS plan will increase the debt/deficit by a huge and drastic number - while trying to pretend and obfuscate the truth which is that the debt/deficit will increase by virtually the SAME amount under Obama's current budgets - is a lie.

PTAF, you continue to ignore the fact that the budget deficit will be greater under Republican proposals than under Democratic proposals while Conservatives claim they'll actually REDUCE the deficit. Democrats have acknowledged that once our fledgling economic recovery is on stable ground we'll need to pay down the deficit. Conservatives claim that reducing income provides more money with which to pay the bills.

So who's lying?

Lynchmob,

You make very good points. It is true government workers get paid by taxes but that doesn't mean they aren't working for there pay checks. If you look across the security industry alone, private security pays alot better than government security and law enforcement positions. The reason folks go government is because they either have a sense of patriotism or they know a private company can let them go if they get injured.

Instead of being upset with what government employees have we should raise our expectation of what corporations provide there employees. There is a difference between golden parachute and making sure the employees that keep your company running are taken care of.

So true Tom Reston. Once upon a time government workers had outstanding benefits because their salaries were lower. Wages have been stagnant for so long http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/gdp-per-capita.html and in some cases even attacked so viciously http://www.broowaha.com/articles/2769/californias-new-minimum-wage-under-federal-poverty-level that we've reached the sorry state where government wages are sometimes higher than private wages.

It isn't that government workers are greedy nearly as much as it's the greedy CEOs. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38935053/ns/business-us_business/

JoAnnaSmith

You'd think the Lefties would figure out the con job Obama and the Democrats are pulling, but yet they don't. So now there are small businesses and there are REAL small businesses. I guess I don't watch enough (or any for that matter) Olbermann/Maddow, who seem the be the Delusional Duo that possess such "information".

You can't just put "information" in quotes and pretend it's no longer valid information. Here's the NBC/MSNBC article that lists the huge corporations that the Boehner claims are "small businesses," which CAN be put in quotes because huge corporations like Price Waterhouse Coopers with $26 billion in annual revenues is not a small business by anyone's standards except maybe the King of Saudi Arabia.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39317328/ns/politics/

The source of Olbermann's figures was the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. There are 4 Republicans on that committee, and if the numbers were wrong, they'd be howling. But they're keeping their mouths shut because Olbermann doesn't put out bogus stuff like the idiots on Fox have been caught doing repeatedly. If you're accusing MSNBC, NBC, and the Joint Committee on Taxation of disseminating false information, then YOU prove it. I'll be asking you for that proof, too.

And Houston, high unemployment numbers help no one. Also, how exactly is throwing another $42 billion on the ol'debt pile going to create any jobs when throwing $800 billion on it last year didn't? The answer is it won't.

The answer is that the stimulus DID help, according to economists INCLUDING Mark Zandi, who was John McCain's economic adviser during the 2008 campaign. You want people to take your word over experts on the economy. How many people do you think are stupid enough to do that, JoAnnaSmith?

All this nonsense ends in November. Well, except for the lame duck session Democrats pushing through even more pork laden bills.

The Republican's "pledge" failed to mention anything about ending "pork" (aka ear marks) because they're going to be the ones pigging out at the barbecue. If the Republicans take over the House as appears likely, the REAL nonsense begins in January.

Hilarious that Conservatives have actually been reduced to arguing AGAINST tax cuts. It's true--there's no "there" there. Nothing behind the arguments whatsoever.

John, how can you possibly claim with a straight face that that empty piece of ideological puffery called the "Pledge" will do anything beyond extend tax cuts, since there are vitually no numbers at all in the thing? We all know what the tax cuts entail - but without specifics how the bloody hell can you actually assign valuation to the "Pledge"?

Did you and do you hold Obama and the Democrats to this much scrutiny two years ago and now when they were blowing smoke up everyone's collective arses, or is reality something you only demand from people who you want to - with every fiber of your being - disagree with?

CU Farley

I agree with Joe Biden. You all need to "stop whining" that Obama isn't acting far enough to the left as you would like. He's plenty far-left, alright? And he's not likely to move any further to the left considering what it has done to his poll numbers. It's also not likely that you people will stop whining.

How about you righties stop being so whinny whinny?

Beverly,

Then they would have nothing to write about.

And if you guys get any farther right, you'll off the edge of the earth

"I cannot help saying Plaque rather than Pledge ; that’s what it is.,"

That's kind of like me. I can't stop saying "Osama" when I mean to say "Obama". Not that he's a muslim or anything. But then again, to quote a poster from yesterday regarding Grayson's Webster commercial: "if the shoe fits, wear it".

CU Farley

That's kind of like me. I can't stop saying "Osama" when I mean to say "Obama". Not that he's a muslim or anything. But then again, to quote a poster from yesterday regarding Grayson's Webster commercial: "if the shoe fits, wear it".

Since that's the case why not stick to "just the facts"? It it more like a Plaque than solutions since the "Boner admitted it was not intended to lay out solutions to problems. That is GOPocalyptic. You've seen the way the economy tanked under Bush.

Better luck next time.

Isn't curious that CU and other Faux News devotees used to insist that the correct pronunciation of UBL was Usama, Usama bin Laden, U.B.L........remember?

Then Barack Obama came on the national political stage, and low and behold, Fox changed their minds and started conflating the two "by accident".

Isn't it a curious thing that CU and other Faux News devotees used to insist that the correct pronunciation of UBL was Usama, Usama bin Laden, U.B.L........remember?

Then Barack Obama came on the national political stage, and low and behold, Fox changed their minds and started conflating the two "by accident". "Right" thinking Americans I guess.

So typical of Boner and the Repugs. All talk and whining and no answers. Absolutely nothing new in this "Pledge". Just like their Budget, remember? Eight pages of nothing written with a crayon. No answers to our problems, never are, never will be.

Lesson learned. Never let the facts get in the way of a good Conservative narrative.

Jon Stewart did some great commentary yesterday on the feigned outrage surrounding Stephen Colbert's appearance on Capitol Hill on Friday. It's must-watch.

Interesting...all the big things the Republicans have obstructed but the little things that they let go...and then they have the nerve to complain about how Congress is wasting time?

More misrepresentations.

The Republican "Pledge" promotes maintaining the tax cuts for EVERYONE. A growing majority of Democrats in Congress want to do the same thing. I completely agree that the "Pledge" is too short on details, but in the case of the tax cuts the details are already pretty clear - and the ONLY difference between what Obama wants to do and what the "Pledge" includes is the $700 billion in tax cuts for the "wealthy".

Obama wants to extend the tax cuts for the middle class - at least $3.1 TRILLION of that $4 trillion you're claiming is going to be all the Republicans fault based on the "Pledge".

How is Obama going to pay for those cut extension? ......? He has no better idea how to pay for them than the Republicans do, and he's in charge and in fact if spending was cut to 2008 levels - which were already bloated and excessive, that would at least partially fund the tax cuts.

Obama's budgets already call for increased deficits through 2020 of about $8.5 trillion. If the Bush tax cuts are extended for everyone, that would add about $3.8 trillion. Just for the middle class adds $3.1 trillion alone.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/tables.pdf

Stop fibbing, the truth is bad enough.

Pragmatic,

Why add another 700 billion to the debt when evidence indicates that the wealthy will save the most of the money where the middle class will spend most of it.

Pragmatic. Not a lie, not fibbing. I support extending the tax cuts for 98% of America for at least one more year, or two until the economy has recovered. I do not think adding $700 billion for 2% richest to the debt makes any sense. That $700 billion would be better spent creating jobs through infrastructure spending--putting jobs and dollars in the middle class where they are likely to spend it not put it in the bank.

None of which gets around the Conservative Republican hypocrisy of claiming that their plan will result in lower deficits when in fact it will result in larger deficits.

Conservatives have PROMISED to clear the deficit while producing a plan that makes them worse. We should let them off that PROMISE because they claim they aren't ready to tell us how that'll happen?

Sure sounds like an empty promise, that makes for a double helping of hypocrisy. Or perhaps a side dish of outright lying.

Dennis-you are being manipulated.

"Savings" to an economist, means something different than what the average person understands it to mean-which Moody's knows, full well.

The average person thinks of savings as a bank account where they put their money, or even, perhaps, a 401k plan, which cannot be touched for a long period of time.

Economists break this down into three components: M1, passbook savings, and checkable accounts, which are the same as cash in your pocket for the purposes of determining the money supply; M2, long term CD's, (for which there is a penalty for early withdrawal, thus increasing resistance to withdrawing before the term), and as well as some stock market investments; and M3, which would be 401K plans, IRA plans, and most stock market and bond investments, because there are significant penalties for early withdrawals of those funds.

"The Rich" put their savings into M2 and M3 type accounts-primarily in investments. Investing in businesses increases economic activity, therefore spurring the economy.

This is not some new phenomena, by the way, but a well known one. Actually, to spur an economy, the best tax cuts go to the lowest incomes, as they tend to spend above their incomes, and the highest, as they tend to invest in businesses. It is the middle class that primarily use extra money as 'savings'-paying down debt and putting extra monies in M1 or M2 accounts, thereby negating the stimulative effect of tax cuts.

No politician in his or her right mind would state this, so we get 'across the board' tax cuts instead.

No, Jody, you're lying when you claim the "Pledge" will add $4 trillion to the deficit.

It's a lie of omission - because you fail to acknowledge that Obama wants to add $3.1 trillion to the deficit in the SAME EXACT WAY.

I'm with the blue dogs in this that raising taxes on anyone now is a bad idea, and in fact contradicts Keynesian economic policy that this administration is apparently trying to follow.

John - LET THEM OFF? They're not in power, the "Pledge" is not legislation, nor is it even policy beyond an ideology that millions of this people want to return to - less intrusive government that spends within its means. Vote for whoever you want, I couldn't possibly care less but stop lying to yourselves trying to justify voting for the current regime based on lies and unrealistic expectations that you hypocritically apply to one side and not the other. People had big government fatigue under Bush, and Obama and the Democrats misinterpreted their election as a mandate for MORE big government. Obviously, they were wrong.

Obama can't pay for the Bush tax cuts either, but you have no problem with that.

Hypocrisy is killling this country. Bush spent like an idiot, and you people justify Obama spending like an idiot by pointing out that Bush spent like an idiot. Do you hear yourselves?

Hypocrisy is killling this country. Bush spent like an idiot, and you people justify Obama spending like an idiot by pointing out that Bush spent like an idiot. Do you hear yourselves?

Pragmatic - hyperbole does no one any good when the spending, in this case, is DIFFERENT.

You state that President Bush spent like an idiot? I am loathe to disagree with you. However, to try and 'make up the difference' for those tax cuts that he passed in 2001, President Bush tried to use the oldest trick in the book - war (my opinion). War stimulates economies, does it not? I mean, we have argued that WWII brought the US economy out of the great depression.

My take is that President Bush figured that those shortfalls fromthe tax cuts - probably predicted by the CBO - would be offset by the increase in production brought on by the war; so we got involved in Afghanistan. People would fall for it because itwas a 'just' cause.

The war in Iraq was premeditated (again my opinion), and 9/11 gave President Bush the avenue to invade. He probably figured that this would be OK as well, as they could USE THE OIL REVENUES to help shore up the budget. Also, it was a war, so what other instrument is BETTER than war to book production and the economy?

He couldn't lose on that bet, correct?

Let's fast forward to NOW. President Obama is using what was left in the Treasury after TARP and what Presdient Bush squandered to INVEST in America. US. You and me. Middle Class America. Shoring up the neglected infrastructure in AMERICA is what is needed, and it will cost BILLIONS. Keeping the economy from crashing - providing some cash flow - is what the billions that are being spent on now.

So, Pragmatic, let's recap:

President Bush spent like an idiot (your words) by foolishly starting 2 wars, outsourcing American jobs overseas, and neglecting American infrastructure. Who benefits from this?

President Obama is spending like an idiot (your words) on Unemployment, stimulation of our economy, and investing BILLION into our badly neglected infrastructure. Who benefits from this?

So, which idiot (Pragmatic's words) would YOU choose?

One thing that seems to be missing from this discussion is that the tax cuts to the middle class will find there way back into the economy as where the tax cuts to the richest 2% find there way back into the pockets of Wall Street and the richest 2%. They will not create any jobs we already know that. In fact, the 2% that the republicans are using in their analysis as being Small Businesses are fortune actually Fortune 100 Companies, Hedge Fund Companies, Big Businesses like Bechtel, the Koch Enterprises and the Chicago Tribune, etc. The tax cuts to the richest 2% according to the COB and CBPP have the least amount of bang for your buck. On the other hand, tax cuts for the middle class will allow those people to purchase goods like food, clothing, school supplies, etc and have a much bigger bang for the buck.

While it does have a price tag of 3.1 Trillion Dollars, much of this will come back into the economy. The 700 Billion for the richest 2 % (plus 130 Billion to service the debt) will not.

no jo, nice try with the supply side talking points but you always and continuously neglect the role that demand plays. Without demand, there is no reason for supply. Period. There is NO spinning that. It is a truism of every economic theory, even supply side.

I actually believe that supply side policies are appropriate under certain circumstances but they are not the right policy under our current conditions. Is this my opinion or is it shared by supply side any economist? Well, as it turns out, Bruce Bartlett, a Reagan and Bush 1 era conservative economist.

Mathew:

I agree. Supply Side economics is not the answer here. trying to make it fit the current economic conditions is a false at best.

Navy.. Every day you come here and claim that there is going to be some kind of Tax Cut..

There are no Tax cuts for anyone, Its either a Tax Increase or Taxes stay the same.. .. Either people pay More. or the pay the same.. So tell me.. if you are making the same amount how will you have extra Money to get back in the game?

Again. I understand that you want 2 percent of the Population to pay for the Overspending of the Democrats and the 1.3 Trillion dollar deficts they have created, I understand that you Think that its ok that Obama has used the Stimulus Spending Bill to only help out less then 7 Precent of the Population .. IE the Unions.. always he same Spew.. its still the same lie

Steve, no one has to call you an idiot, you come on here and prove it yourself every day.

STTS

I agree Matthew--not sure if there is ever a right time for supply side economics, but this isn't it. How does it create jobs if a wealthy person has more after-tax money which he or she puts in the bank or invests in the stock market?

A question for all of you righties out there. Because of the income cap on what is paid into SS, I end up paying the full percentage as a portion of my wages while those making over the cap pay a smaller percentage of their income. It's kind of like people making a whole lot more than I am actually paying less of a percentage of their income in income taxes. Why do you want to reward these people with more tax breaks? They obviously did not create any jobs when President Bush gave them huge breaks in 2001 and 2003(?). If you aren't making over the income cap for SS, why the heck would you support the Republicans? They have only made your life worse and your income has dropped when compared to the cost of living. Are you stupid?

Steeler Fan, supply side economics are right when inflation is high and taxes are too high (which they currently are not when compared to the debt). There are other factors that come into play such as money supply, trade balance, government debt levels, unemployment levels, freight loadings, etc. No jo likes to ignore a lot of those factors when she makes her arguments, though.

In the late 70s and early 80s, supply side economic policies were actually the right policies except Reagan took them too far for too long and misapplied them. Bush 1 started to use them but everyone remembers his 'no new taxes pledge' right?

Anyway, it's complicated and I am just a recent convert to the idea that supply side policies are correct under certain circumstances and still have much to learn. That being said, I do know that these times are not those circumstances that call for supply side policies but actually call for Keynesian policies. Let's just hope those are not taken too far for too long. While it hasn't happened yet and most economists think we need to go a bit further, someone will need to keep a sharp eye out to say, "Enough." That time has not yet arrived but it will and we must be willing to back off of the Keynesian policies when the time arrives.

Matthew

Please.. Answer These Questions

1) If the Tax cuts Expire will your Taxes go up?

2.) If Obama and the Democrats Extend the exsistig Tax Code for all except the 2 percent you want them too.. Who is paying for the 1.3 Trillion dollars Overspending by the Democrats.. . and will you be paying Less Tax then you are right now? Or are you one of those 2 percent?

These are Simple Questions and should not be Difficult for you to answer.

When it turns into a circle jerk on these boards, you people rally around your class warfare and blame Bush crap, don't you? The top 1% of the workforce already pays 40% of the individual tax burden. The top quintile pays 86%, the bottom? -3%.

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/tax_liability_shares.pdf

You want your European style nanny state, but you what you DON'T seem to want is the same tax structure where EVERYBODY pays taxes - not just the wealthy. 47% of the workforce pays NO income tax in this country, while 1% pays 40%. When exactly will that be enough, while of you takers are completely dependent upon the government stealing someone elses money to give to you?

And all the lot of you do is repeat your tired old DNC talking points about Bush and his wars (approved with bi-partisan majorities in the Senate) and tax cuts he gave to the people of this country when there was a projected surplus. In the final analysis, it doesn't even matter what the money is spent on - it's pretty much all been wasted at this point.

As usual, you fail to actually address the specific points in my post and instead choose to engage in a bunch of name calling while patting each other on the back for your groupthink.

You're only fooling yourselves.

Just to make this clear. In the Presidents plan everyone gets the extended lower rate on the first $250,000 they make in one years time. How in all that holy is this a bad thing at all? If your "small business" makes $300,000 a year then you only pay an increased rate on $50,000. How is that not a good thing.

I know it is our money but here in America we pay income taxes. If you don't like income taxes feel free to go else where and seek employment. If the cost of me living in this country is paying taxes sign me up twice.

And for those that say businesses and the wealthy will leave our shores if we don't give them tax breaks to stay, I say let them go. We have as a country is the leverage of being one of if not the largest consumer of all major goods produced on the planet. We have the power to dictate the terms of this agreement. Stop buying "made in china" and see how fast stores sell "made in America". What corporations hope we all forget is that the customer is always right.

PTAF, they pay more because they OWN more and MAKE more. By a number of measures the wealthy are actually UNDERtaxed, and it shows in their ability to consolidate more and more wealth in the upper reaches of society. http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=12682 Don't take my word for it, and don't accuse me of using blatantly Liberal evidence when even the Wall Street Journal says so. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116849172911973577.html Just to emphasize how imbalanced our tax system has become consider that an earner of median income will see a tax increase of $100/yr if the existing credits expire, while millionaires will see an average increase of $50,000! http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-10/biggest-earners-lose-cost-of-new-bmw-after-bush-tax-cuts-expire-next-year.html

So who's fooling whom?

Since you asked nicely, Steve, I will answer your questions.

1) Yes, they will.

2) This question can not be answered as you have stated a false premise (logic isn't really your strong suit, is it). The Democrats and President Obama did not create the $1.3 trillion dollar deficit. And no, I am not a part of the top 2%.

Now some questions for you:

1) Do you make over $150,000/year?

2) What is your effective tax rate?

I would use the same snark you used about these not being too hard to answer but I know you won't answer them.

Matthew,

The democrats and Obama passed the budget that gave us a 1.3 Trillion dollar Defict, You and your friends on here Claim that the Republicans are the party of voting No.. Now if they voted No on anything . Who is Responsible for the 1.3 Trillion dollar defict Clearly you can't say that this Defict was Carried over from last year.. Because that debt was already added to the National Debt. So this is New Debt. Created by the Democrats ..

You will say that it is from unfunded wars, but hey. the Democrats could have Defunded them and brought our troops home,

How much i make is none of your business. but lets just say i am comfortable, I have no problem paying my share of taxes but to say that only 2 percent of the populations Tax rate should go up to pay for the Over spending of the Democrats is Laughable, If you truely were a Fair minded person you would say. Let the Tax cuts expire for everyone Let every person in this country Bear the burden that the Democrats have Foisted upon us.

And Continuing to Give people more money back then they paid in is just plain Stupid. there are some incomes that should be exempt. but you should never get monies from the govt you didnt pay in

Matthew-if your question is :does supply create demand, or does demand create supply-the answer is yes.

Twenty years ago, there was no demand for ipods. There is now. Ditto iphones, blueray players-a whole boatload of gadgets, gizmos, and inventions. Supply created demand not just for these, but for 'next generation' gadgets, gizmos, and inventions.

Demand creates supply on its own terms. When there is a shortage of a commodity, the price goes up. That increased price incentivizes creating more of the item in shortage.

I would give you an in depth explanation, but it would take too long and require graphing that I'm not sure you could understand, particularly since you seem fuzzy on who is responsible for this fiscal year's deficit. Let me tell you-the president and the congress are-and they would be Obama and the Democrats. Sounds like a cheesy wedding band.

I'm just getting such a kick out of Conservatives arguing against tax cuts because they're a Democratic proposal that I have to point it out again. Funny stuff that.

John.

There is no Tax cuts.. Zero . Nada Niltch.. Taxes either Go up.. or they stay the same.. The democrats have not Proposed anything. they have not put any Bill foward that would Extend the Bush Tax cuts

They have done Nothing. Keep trying to say that democrats are proposing a Tax cut, there is not a person on these boards that believes that anyone is going to get a Tax cut.. 99.99 percent of the people on these boards know . Taxes are going to Go up. or if the Democrats propose any bill it would be for them to stay the same. . Thats it.

no jo and Steve, both of you are too stupid to even engage with anymore.

Just a quick example: Steve, is it your contention that the 400 billion dollar interest payment on the current debt (which doubled under Bush 43, by the way) is something the Democrats and Obama administration could 'just not pay'?

no jo, the idea that supply creates demand is ludicrous, at best. Your example does not hold water, either. The demand was not specifically for an iPod, the demand was for a personal, portable mp3 device and the iPod filled that demand. Holy smoke, do you even read or understand what you write?

You need to give back your economics degree, no jo, because you definitely did not understand what you were taught. As to who is fuzzy on who created the deficit? I'll trust the CBO because you are definitely not the person to trust. You have shown over and over just how truly stupid you are, no jo.

It's getting to the point where Conservatives have to work REALLY hard to keep the narrative going that Democrats are responsible for the national debt. And no wonder because the facts just dont support it. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html Of course the come back is always that though Barack Obama is responsible for HIS debt, Republican Presidents aren't because the Democrats in Congress ARE. Of course that doesn't work either, because for decades when Democrats were the dominant political party the debt stayed low by current standards. http://www.hanlonsrazor.org/2006/11/30/chart-national-debt-over-time/ Things didn't get out of whack until Republicans began dominating the White House by claiming to be "fiscally conservative."

In this as in all things modern Conservatives aren't Conservative in the classical sense. They're reactionary.

Yawn.

There you have it folks, Steve is proven wrong with actual data and concedes.

Thank you, John.

That wouldn't be those be the same people Retired, who are stomping their widdle feet and demanding truth & accountibility even though we supposed to take 'their' word for something now would it? ;0)))

Interesting times indeed... lol

Feisty,

yep, it would be them. The same people that claim the Tax Cuts create jobs even though we have been doing that Agenda for over 9 years now and it still has not worked. Same people that want fiscal responsibility but proposed an agenda that creates record deficits. They claim they are in support of Tax Cuts for Small Business and then vote no. They say they are for the middle class and then deny unemployment benefit extension that actually puts money into the economy ($ 1.65 for every $1.00 spent). They want jobs but promise to filibuster the infrastructure repair bill that will create 35,000 jobs for each 1 Billion spent. Yep, the same people.

Where are those 23 million created by CLINTON today? Those were all DOT.COM jobs. They lasted a few years and then POOF, we started into a recession.

I swear you guys repeat every damn thing Olbermann or Maddow says.......I attempted to glance at those shows the other night and I see why I don't watch.

Actually, ITM, those DOT.COM jobs have been outsourced to India. The outsourcing started around 2001-2002, and if you look at indy Redneck's post, you see that legislation was passed around 2004. Then Secretary of State Colin Powell travelled to India to make assurances that outsourcing will continue.

Thought so Retired...

Just checking... cause the closer we get to the election the deeper the BS from the right wingers...

I agree. Makes you wonder why if the republicans are so sure of a landside victory in the Senate and House why are they trying so hard to get us to validate old debunked talking points and false agruements?? Kinda makes you wonder.

Pietro:

Actually, ITM, those DOT.COM jobs have been outsourced to India.

One of the most popular suggestions made on the Republicans' web page they set up to "listen" to America was to ban tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs. Of course, that didn't make it into Boehner's Pledge. Like everything else about the modern Republican party their claim that they were listening to America was a complete fraud. Their pledge is just a repetition of all the stale talking points they've been using for more than a decade. Jon Stewart illustrated that most powerfully when he ran video clips of Republicans saying the exact same things in 1994 that they're saying now are their "fresh new ideas."

Great post, IR. Seems to me that the Republicans are willing to do deficit spending when it suits their agenda--such as bailing out Wall Street---but not when it could help the middle class, which they seem determined to eliminate. Why else would they oppose extensions of unemployment benefits (which are spent immediately) and small business tax breaks (which will be utilized to save or create jobs) yet be in favor of tax breaks for the wealthiest, who studies show will save the money? I can't figure out why they are determined to eliminate the middle class but it sure seems like that is their goal.

Well said, IR.

Republicans will no doubt filibuster the legislation that rewards corporations for keeping jobs in the USA and eliminates tax breaks for those who ship them overseas. More proof that too many corporations are short-sighted. If they can make an extra nickel building something overseas, they will but they fail to recognize that by making an extra nickel, they reduce the number of Americans who can buy what they make.

It looks like the Obama Administration is reversing the policy of giving tax breaks to companies that send jobs overseas. It is about time!!

March 31—President George W. Bush continues to support billions in new tax breaks for U.S. corporations’ overseas operations.
Bush is supporting the $37 billion in tax breaks for U.S. firms’ offshore operations as part of Senate legislation

Indy Redneck - great post.

I highlighted the above passage so that our Conservative friends can see that THIS part of the Bush Agenda was to offshore jobs. I wanted to also highlight to all others that THIS is the reason why the unemployment numbers are still high.

It looks like President Bush did something that actually WORKED. Imagine that.

In a recent interview with the The Cincinnati Enquirer, Bush Treasury Secretary John Snow praised the exporting of U.S. jobs as beneficial for the U.S. economy and gave a slap in the face to U.S. workers: “You can outsource a lot of activities and get them done just as well at a lower cost,” he said.

I guess this above passage is an example of 'Compassionate Conservatism'. So how has his policy been 'beneficial' to the US Economy?

This is what we have been dealnig with over the past 6 years. This is the policy that is supposed to 'Make America Strong'.

And we want to go BACK to this? Why? What planet would you have to be living on to see that THIS is the cornerstone of our deficit(s) and unemployment?

Put us back on the RIGHT track. Conservatives have had their chance, and you can see from the above post that their 'solution' did not work. At all.

November 2nd.

Pietro, Columbus,Ohio: I highlighted the above passage so that our Conservative friends can see that THIS part of the Bush Agenda was to offshore jobs

And Obama, by loading up more entitlement programs to be paid for by businesses, is making American businesses even less competitive on the world market, which will cause, . . . . . . . more off shoring of jobs.

November 2nd.

Can't get here fast enough.

Liberals, you just can't understand the concept that try as you might, you can't legislate that jobs stay in the country. You can try all you want, but it won't work. It is a global economy, so as a country either you choose to be competitive, or you choose to be an isolationist. The only way to succeed is with the former, but it appears you're picking the latte, which is bad news for the workers of the country.

You still don't get it, do you, Pietro?

"All this bill will do is guarantee that large multi-national companies will move their headquarters overseas. Period.

There is no serfdom in this country, so there is no way to force companies to be headquartered in the U.S. Therefore, companies like Proctor and Gamble will simply headquarter in a country with a better tax code.

That will REDUCE the amount of corporate taxes collected by the U.S., Pietro. It is a concept Obama seems incabable of grasping, but the average person does not have the same problem.

"That will REDUCE the amount of corporate taxes collected by the U.S., Pietro. It is a concept Obama seems incabable of grasping, but the average person does not have the same problem."

Large corporations don't pay income tax thanks to the good Republicans Joe, let them leave maybe a more patriotic taxpaying organization will take their place, someone that will put Americans to work.

You still don't get it, do you, Pietro?

"All this bill will do is guarantee that large multi-national companies will move their headquarters overseas. Period.

Well, No Joe, I gota newsflash for you - many 'multi-national' companies ALREADY have their headquarters overseas.

That's the point.

What this new legislation will do is make America ATTRACTIVE for investment - if they so choose to invest in the US. We have the workers, and will have the infrastructure (now) to handle the investment.

If you want examples of those 'multi-national' companies that are here in the US - look in Tennessee at the Nissan plant there. Look in Alabama for the BMW and the Toyota plants there.

Those are 'multi-national' companies that have INVESTED IN AMERICA. As a part of their investment in America, there are taxes that need to be paid, which, by the way, these companies book as an EXPENSE.

It seems that having companies INVEST in America is a concept that you are inacable of understanding, No Joe.

I think I have just proven that.

“You can outsource a lot of activities and get them done just as well at a lower cost”

Which does a great job of enriching corporate executives by expanding corporate profit but ignores a huge issue. These overseas factory workers aren't making enough money to become consumers. They're still living in shacks and lucky to have a phone, let alone the other things that make for a middle class society. Meanwhile legions of formerly middle class Americans no longer have sufficient income to buy much beyond the essentials for living. Their ability to cause the economy to grow through increased demand is gone. Gone.

So what's good for the individual companies turns out to be bad for the economy, the nation, and ultimately the companies themselves, ironically enough.

We can make them come here. We are the market. Stop buying from them and they will do what they have to, to keep us as a consumer base. Free market and capitalism only works if both sides are free.

Pietro-you have proven nothing at all.

Take the example of P&G, headquartered in Michigan. They pay the top corporate tax rate ;as a U.S. corporation, they pay taxes on profits earned, not just in this country, but all over the world.

At the moment, the profits that they make on divisions in other countries,which are taxed by those countries, are taxed by the U.S. ex foreign tax-in other words, their profit is reduced by the amount of tax they pay to the foreign country; in addition, if P&G wants to expand a plant in, say, FRance, that expense is taken off pre-tax. That is what Obama is talking about when he talks about "sheltering profits overseas".

Obama and his henchmen seem to think that they can force companies to pay extra taxes on the jobs that they have overseas, but they are WRONG.

All P&G needs to do is incorporate in some other, more tax friendly country. Thus, they would close their headquarters in the U.S., costing, not just those jobs, but the jobs of a lot of businesses who sell things to those highly compensated people. They would now only owe the U.S. government corporate taxes on the profits earned in THIS country, and not on the profits earned by divisions overseas-since it would no longer be a U.S> corporation.

The government would get LESS revenue, not more.

It is all very simple in the minds of people like yourself, but the fact remains that if you want more business in this country, having the highest tax rate in the world is not a good incentive-nor is using the taxcode to punish businesses a good idea.

Actually, No Joe, I have proven EVERYTHING that needs to be proven.

They pay the top corporate tax rate ;as a U.S. corporation, they pay taxes on profits earned, not just in this country, but all over the world.

So let's talk about P&G.

If P&G was at all CONCERNED at all about what taxes they pay, they would have moved already. Isn't that your argument? Since P&G ALREADY PAYS the TOP CORPORATE TAX RATE - per your post - then what tax policy are you talking about that will be MORE than the TOP CORPORATE TAX RATE?

The mere fact that P&G has not gone anywhere - and they ALREADY pay the TOP corporate tax rate - tells me that taxes are NOT an egregious issue for that multi-national company.

Period.

The argument that you are making, No Joe, is silly. There are many factors involved in making a decision like moving a company headquarters, and taxes may be a factor in that decision, but not the overriding factor as you suggest in your argument.

A simplistic argument such as yours is expected when you are looking at a complex situation through partisan glasses. In your case, No Joe, those glasses are dark. You cannot see any different because you do not choose to.

So, until you can PROVE that a MULTI-NATIONAL company is making business decisions based on tax policy, your argument is DEBUNKED.

Again.

um, Pietro? I picked P & G for a reason, dear heart.

They have already sent a letter to Obama, which was reprinted in the Washington Post and the New York Times, (at their expense), threatening to re-incorporate in Switzerland if Obama went ahead with his punitive tax plan.

It must be really lovely in your world, where the unicorns jump over the rainbows. Here in the real world, Obama has taken a bad situation, and made it hell on earth.

They have already sent a letter to Obama, which was reprinted in the Washington Post and the New York Times, (at their expense), threatening to re-incorporate in Switzerland if Obama went ahead with his punitive tax plan.

No Joe, you never cease to amaze me. Of course you didn't provide a link or anything to substantiate your claims. You never do. But you go on and on, blathering like you are an expert in something.

Don't worry, No Joe, I looked it up. No thanks to you.

This letter, which is AUTHENTIC, was sent by Lou Pritchett, a RETIRED VP of Proctor and Gamble as an 'open letter'.

A RETIRED VP.

So, when were you going to mention that, No Joe?

From SNOPES.COM:

Circulating via forwarded email, an open letter to President Obama by former Procter & Gamble executive Lou Pritchett enumerates the ways the newly-elected commander-in-chief scares him.

Description: Forwarded email
Circulating since: May 2009
Status: Authentic

This letter has been circulating since MAY 2009. It is September 2010 NOW. You stated in your post that 'THEY' have sent a letter to President Obama when the TRUTH of the matter is that HE - this Lou Pritchett fellow - sent the letter to President Obama as a PRIVATE CITIZEN.

So when were you going to say something about this, No Joe?

Lou Pritchett can say whatever he wants as a Private Citizen. There is NO PLACE that I have been able to find where the REAL CEO of Proctor and Gamble has made ANY OFFICIAL claim to move the company to Switzerland.

Care to answer THAT, No Joe?

You really need to lay off the rabidly Republican websites. Not to mention that this letter looks like it was written by a 5th-grader, not by a FORMER VP of Proctor and Gamble. Then again, VPs in those days didn't write their own letter, did they?

My argument still stands. If the CURRENT, REAL CEO of Proctor and Gamble comes forth and threatens to leave the US because of President Obama, then that is something that can be discussed.

Until then, your argument REMAINS DEBUNKED.

Still.

You really are a piece of work, No Joe. You bloviate like you know what you are talking about and you DO NOT. Why you would use this letter as 'proof' that President Obama is hurting this country is sophmoric, ridiculous, disingenuous, dishonest, and downright misleading.

You have the unmitigated nerve to come on here using this 'open letter' as FACT - from a RETIRED VP no less. You have the gall to sit there and post this garbage as 'gospel' - from someone who has NO OFFICIAL DEALINGS with Proctor and Gamble. You are definitely insulting MY intelligence and the intelligence of the people on this blog when you post your 'opinions', and you NEVER provide any links to back up any of your claims. They are opinions because you never back them up with any links.

Ever.

Now we know why.

No more, No Joe. You have unveiled yourself as the sorry fraud that you are. Unless you provide links or some proof of what you claim, you have no more audience here.

Good Day.

Bev: Thanks for your comment. You are doing a great job yourself getting the word out for the world to see. Keep posting as I really enjoy reading your comments.

Beverly in Chicago

Do you really think facts make a difference with conspiratist?

Salt Grass

Beverly in Chicago

Do you really think facts make a difference with conspiratist?

Can a blind man play a fiddle?

Only if the blind man wants to learn.

Enjoyed your comment, Beverly.

Boehner last Thursday was touting how wonderful the Pledge was; Sunday, he was calling it an outline; Americans aren't ready for solutions. A week or two ago, Mitch McConnell was saying democrats were playing politics with the Bush tax cuts and there should be NO vote until after the election. Boehner is now calling it a tax hike and wants a vote before the election claiming democrats are playing politics by not doing so. Which is it GOPers?

The reason why illegal immigration won't be stopped is the Dem's think they will get the growing Hispanic vote by not addressing the problem and the Repub's just can't help salavating all over themselves about the slave wages illegals will work for, no benefits, and the fact that the illegals drive down American citizens wages, so don't kid yourself about either party doing the right thing on this issue, it ain't going to happen, the people will have to deal with it on their own.

Ali,

The “DREAM Act” isn’t amnesty for illegal aliens it is a pathway to citizenship.

Three out of every four Americans are in favor of a pathway to citizenship.

Dennis,

How true. 75% of the American people supported the "Dream Act" as a method of reaching citizenship. It has nothing to do with imigration. Spin baby Spin.

Same old same old.

Dennis,Columbus,Ohio: Three out of every four Americans are in favor of a pathway to citizenship

There already is a pathway to citizenship:

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis

Dennis,Columbus,Ohio: The “DREAM Act” isn’t amnesty for illegal aliens it is a pathway to citizenship.

The DREAM Act is a method for illegals to cut in line in front of the people that are legally here and are going through the legal process to become citizens.

I agree with JoAnnaSmith1 on this one, call it what you want it's wrong, we are supposed to be a nation of laws, it undermines all laws when you selectively ignore the ones you don't agree with. I am not on board with the statement that 75% of the country is behind this latest amnesty-lite bill either, although 75% of the population does think we should seal our borders, guess it just depends on which poll you want to wave around.

Ali-457818

Somehow, I suspect that Democrats really didn't want the immigration amendment to the Defense Bill to pass and were counting on Republicans to hold fast.

Of course, Harry Reid is up for re-election in Nevada, which has the HIGHEST unemployment rate in the country at over 14%. I wonder if Hispanic citizens in that state will make the connection between illegal immigration and the fact that many of them are out of work?

Of course, you'd might want to consider, apart from 2/3 of the country pre-empting the Constitution, the the reason your premise is of little value.

This may be news to you but Mitch McConell couldn't admit onThis Week to Christiane Amanpour that Sharron Angle is a viable candidate. Or that the Private Prison Industry plays a role in Shaping Arizona's Anti-Immigration Law. Don't forget the unlawful voter suppression in Arizona. Arizona tops the list of greatest concern for voting rights and democracy advocates.

Voters were more supportive of paths to citizenship for illegal immigrant who serve in the military: 78 percent said children brought to the U.S. illegally who serve in the military should get a chance to become citizens. See the Rasmussen poll link below ->>

http://washingtonindependent.com/98160/rasmussen-voters-support-idea-of-dream-act

The children had no choice about coming to the US. Their parents brought them; this is the only home most of them know. If they are willing to servce in the military, it seems they deserve something in return--citizenship. They are willing to fight and die for this country, the least this country can do is grant them citizenship. To me, this is a no brainer. Why punish children because their parents came here illegally?

The whole illegals in the military is a disingenuous argument, the reason some people agree with this as an option to amnesty is so their sons and daughters won't have to get killed protecting some corporate interest in the mid east, like I said earlier if the people want this problem solved they will have to take care of it themselves the government ain't, I will agree that the children have no control over their illegal alien parents and are not at fault here, but it is time we took care of American children first and foremost, the United States should not take care of illegals at the expense of American citizens which is precisely what this bill would do, these children will be given preferential treatment their entire life, they will be given a college education at the taxpayers expense, medical care at the taxpayers expense, everything at the taxpayers expense and some American citizens child will have to do without because of it, it ain't right and this country can't afford it anymore, if some of you think it is imperative that these illegal alien children should be taken care of adopt one or band together and spend your own money taking care of them but don't expect the country to pick up the tab when we have American citizens with their children living on the street.

Wait one minute. W. I agree with you on most things but I can't sit by when you make a statement like this.

"The whole illegals in the military is a disingenuous argument, the reason some people agree with this as an option to amnesty is so their sons and daughters won't have to get killed protecting some corporate interest in the mid east"

Selfless service should always be a path to citizenship. There is no greater show of courage and patriotism than to lay down your life for America. We have young people in this country that have no idea how fortunate they are to have been born in America. I am still of the belief that patriotism can only be achieved when a person fully understands what cost is being and has been paid by our service members. I am not a fan of the recent wars but, there are individuals out there who want to do our citizens great harm and the only reason they dont is the knowledge of who they have to face if they try. I would say for young men of fighting age five years in the military and a permanent inactive reserve status should be the prefered pathway to citizenship. What better way to prove you want to be a contributing member of our country.

Sorry if I went off topic a few lines there, it's the Devil Dog in me.

So in all honesty...

You seriously want a woman who built up an entertainment business primarily through the massive proliferation of anabolic steroids to become a United States senator?

Because honestly, I couldn't see myself voting for the Sham-Wow guy to become a congressman, no matter whether he was a Democrat or not.

Michael:

Give it up. The low information voter has already made up his/her mind and nothing can persuade them to look at the truth.

The fact that over 1/3 of registered Republicans think President Obama is either a Muslim or a non-citizen tells me everything I need to know about their mindset... It is useless and we are heading over the cliff again.

True enough Sheila, but there's also a significant voter population who will listen to reasonable arguments from either side. If Conservatives tell us that Barack Obama is, deep down in his soul a Kenyan tribal warrior and Liberals say nothing then the perception becomes tribal warrior by default. If we point out that's a lie and blatantly racist the truth has a chance.

The problem, Amy, seems to be that the unemployed Americans largely reject the kind of work done by those in this country illegally. It seems that many believe that they have the right to reject honest work because it is not in their field, below their education level, or does not pay what their last job paid.

In addition, there are states, notably North and South Dakota, which have labor shortages at the moment;that is, their level of unemployment is below 5%. In other times, workers would have sought jobs in those areas. The incentive to do so is lacking, primarily due to the fact that these unemployed workers can collect unemployment funds for almost two years.

Periods of economic downturns normally create shifts in the labor force. Some go to school and get new skills, as they discover that their skills are no longer marketable. (some highly skilled jobs from the past, such as keypunch operators, are no longer extant.) Workers with marketable skills find that they must relocate, as the jobs are in different areas of the country. Some take the opportunity to create new businesses-there is a moving company headquartered near my home that started 20 years ago when two teachers were RIFed from their jobs. They started with one truck, and now have a fleet that operates in three states.

Some of that is going on in this economy, but definately not as much as in prior downturns. The government's intervention is contributing to this, and is the reason that this downturn has lasted so much longer than others.

That is why Obama is getting blamed. When the stock market crashed in 1987, Reagan did nothing-despite a housing market collapse that followed. It was natural-there was a housing bubble, and it burst. The market recovered, on its own, a few years later. When the dot-com bubble burst, Clinton did nothing. There was a dip in housing prices after that, too, but the market recovered.

Obama should have followed the example of those two presidents, and done nothing. Instead, he implemented programs that have solved nothing, added to the debt, and prolonged the period of economic uncertainty.

He owns it, and no amount of finger pointing to 'the other guy' is convincing the electorate that he is not responsible.

The problem, Amy, seems to be that the unemployed Americans largely reject the kind of work done by those in this country illegally. It seems that many believe that they have the right to reject honest work because it is not in their field, below their education level, or does not pay what their last job paid.

I really like it when No Joe makes statements like this.

The fact of the matter is that there is a certain LEVEL of pay that people MUST attain/maintain to be able to pay their bills and put food on the table. So No Joe will COMPREHEND what I am saying, when a person takes a job making $2 an hour picking strawberries, but needs $7.50 and hour to be able to live, why WOULD they take the job? Why would they want to? They would be LOSING MONEY EVERY MONTH. THey would be working hard every day and be in a BIGGER hole than if they were not working.

What's the rule? When you are in a hole, STOP DIGGING.

It's too bad people like No Joe doesn't THINK. about that. (the phrasing of this sentence was intentional).

I don't agree with you or Amy. The American worker wants the roofing, bricklayer, tree trimmer, dry wall installer and such jobs. They just can't compete against someone who does not have to pay taxes or Social Security out of their checks and still enjoys the perks.

Our local utility company outsourced the tree trimming jobs to a company that hires illegals. They came through our neighborhood and butchered untold numbers of trees. My neighbor called the police and they came and told him there was nothing they could do. When he asked about their being illegal they said they were not permitted to ask.

One of the reasons this angered me was that several people I know used these jobs as Summer employment when they were in college. Another sourch of annoyance is 65000 H1B Visas as our college grads stand with a diploma and college loans and no job.

In addition, there are states, notably North and South Dakota, which have labor shortages at the moment;that is, their level of unemployment is below 5%. In other times, workers would have sought jobs in those areas. The incentive to do so is lacking, primarily due to the fact that these unemployed workers can collect unemployment funds for almost two years.

North Dakota has a total population size of 646,000. South Dakota has a total population size of just over 800,000. Are you seriously suggesting that it is a rational solution for 14.9 million people, (without even factoring in the families of these 14.9 million people), to move to two states that have the current infrastructure in place to support a population 1/10th the size?

Here's a news flash:

North and South Dakota have 5% unemployment rates based on the population sizes they currently have. If you multiply the population size of the entire region by a factor of 10, then then unemployment rate will suddenly balloon to about 90% and it will cause an economic apocalypse to destroy both states.

maggie-965735

Actually, Maggie, illegal immigrants do have taxes taken out of their paycheck (unless they are paid under the table). They have taxes taken out they will never see in social security benefits.

I don't agree with you or Amy. The American worker wants the roofing, bricklayer, tree trimmer, dry wall installer and such jobs. They just can't compete against someone who does not have to pay taxes or Social Security out of their checks and still enjoys the perks.

Maggie, I think you are missing my point and you are conflating two issues which are VERY important. I would agree with you that the American worker wants good jobs, but the point is that if the jobs are not paying enough for them to live on, why bother?

On the other hand, I TOTALLY agree with your assertion that employers/companies are trying to push the cost of labour down, which affects the amount people are paid.

Your experience in your post illustrates both of our points. There is a commercial out now where a person is calling the support line and some 'Russian' dude answers the phone as 'Peggy'. Many companies have OUTSOURCED as many jobs as they can to maximise their profits.

What I am seeing is that a lot of these companies that ahve outsourced jobs are bringing them back in house. I have a lot of dealings with IBM, and a good portion of their 'service' is outsourced to India. A few companies that I have done work for in the past - and was let go from because of outsourcing - are now hiring again. Here.

The bottom line - there was short-term profit at the cost of long-term productivity. If I was to crunch the numbers, I would say that outsourcing was probably not the best idea for MANY companies (for some it works). Now those same companies will end up spending a lot of money to 'train' new employees, probably negating the short-term profits of outsourcing in the first place.

Pietro

Maybe I missed the point but I still fail to see how you compete if someone is willing to undercut you and live primarily on welfare. Many guys such as roofers worked sun up to sun down maybe only 9 months a year in this area and spend that money over a twelve month period. They have homes and family that they can't just move on with the seasonal work. I find it odd that the IRS (if these companies are truly reporting their income) does not question that you make tons of profit with a crew of only two or three people on the books.

Amy

Please go to the nearest Western Union in your area on a Friday night and note the number of checks versus cash that are sent out. If you think a majority of these folks are paying taxes I believe you are mistaken.

maggie-965735

Illegal immigrants are paying taxes to Uncle Sam, experts agree. Just how much they pay is hard to determine because the federal government doesn't fully tally it. But the latest figures available indicate it will amount to billions of dollars in federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes this year. One rough estimate puts the amount of Social Security taxes alone at around $9 billion per year.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-04-10-immigrantstaxes_N.htm

Maybe I missed the point but I still fail to see how you compete if someone is willing to undercut you and live primarily on welfare. Many guys such as roofers worked sun up to sun down maybe only 9 months a year in this area and spend that money over a twelve month period. They have homes and family that they can't just move on with the seasonal work. I find it odd that the IRS (if these companies are truly reporting their income) does not question that you make tons of profit with a crew of only two or three people on the books.

Maggie, maybe I missed the point of your post and I apologise.

Let's putit this way - I see that we are talking about two seperate but interrelated things.

Item 1 - my point was that if your cost of living was MORE thanwhat you would get from a job that was available, then why would you take it, as you wuold be puttng yourself in more and more debt because you would not make enough to survive.

Item 2 - I agreed with you that employers are willing to drive the cost of employees down ifthey could so that it would look better on the company's bottom line. I also agreed that this is not a good thing for the American worker if there are those that are willingto accept less.

The fact of the matter that those who accept less CAN accept less is because their cost of living is a lot less than the American worker. That is a valid concern for all of us. the fact of the matter is that roof worker needs a certain amount of money to be able to feed, clothe and house his family, and what is going on now is that the wages have not kept up with the costs.

I suspect that you are brining this up because those 'replacement' workers may be illegal or on welfare. That is a valid concern. The IRS is only concerned when that company does not pay its taxes. If the company manages to pay their taxes with a huge profit, then the IRS doesn't care.

However, the post that I was responding to was one that said that we should take ANY job that is available because it is available. I do not agree that a person should be working for work's sake; I think that most people want to work and want to get something out of working other than being tired.

Sorry. I agree with your last post and want to thank you for talking to me and not calling me stupid (even if the thought did cross your mind). My main point was that the illegals are making it hard for the average guy to earn a wage that he can live on. Some keep saying that they are only taking the jobs that they won't do but that is just not true.

Maggie - I need to let you know that I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER thought you were stupid. That thought did NOT cross my mind - ever. Since we are just talking here, when I read your rebuttal post, I figured that I did not explain myself well enough. Sometimes that happens, and as a part of being on here, I try and learn as much as I can about the subject(s) I post about. If I make a mistake, I admit it and learn from it. I also try and post my thoughts as clearly and as concisely as I can.

You point(s) in your post are valid. When we have employers that are as proud of America and Americans as they are of profits we will always have the problem of wages being undercut, unfortunately.

Please continue to post and express your thoughts. At least know that I will read them.

The window-dressing isn't good either.

Take cover.

-shrugs-

That is essentially what people like NoJo want, Pat. They really believe that there should be no government at all, so making government service as unattractive a potential career path as it could possibly be is just another method of starving the beast.

Here's a bit of math for you. In 2008, a case manager in my position had a caseload of approximately 1200 cases, which works out to about 100 cases per month. By 2010, my caseload, just by virtue of the sheer volume of new applicants and new people on the rolls has risen to 2000. That works out to 167 cases per month or a growth of 67% in my responsibilities in the space of 2 years. If you reduce the workforce of DSS by 20%, those cases will have to be distributed among the existing case managers. At the very least, that is a growth of another 33 cases per month or the doubling of my 2008 caseload to 2400 per year.

I have no gotten a raise in 2 years and in addition to everything else, NoJo expects my salary of 31k to be reduced to 24,800 for doing essentially double the amount of work that I used to do.

No one would stay. No one.

Many of that 20% in staff cuts would be teachers, fire and police officers, city and state workers who plow the snow off the streets and highways, who fill pot holes and pick up our garbage adding to the unemployment numbers and shrinking the middle class even further. Short-sighted stupidity in the name of small government. The Republican Tea Party never met a public worker they liked except for one small detail--everyday they are beneficiaries of those services provided.

You are not alone Michael...

Absorb 30% additional job responsibilities - no raise for 2 years (while bonus's are being paid to a few) 26% increase in health insurance premiums and you're suppose to smile and grab your ankles while being 'thankful' for the 'j o b '!

Hell... according to NJNB's post above - she wouldn't 'blink' before firing her own family member...

If I remember correctly...waaay back when... there was a middle class you could actually 'get ahead' year to year...

Part of this is also to drive privatization of jobs that were in the government. One of the current minor scandals in Iowa government is jobs that have been outsourced or handled with temps that cost more than the employees that were replaced. This happens so routinely it's hard for me to believe business Conservatives don't see it coming. Doesn't matter, just push the lie, there are profits to be made.

Not sure if it the situation is similar, John, but the temps that are hired at DSS technically 'make' more than the case managers that are hired by the agency. However, this is a trick of accounting because in reality, the raw, gross salary is the same for both positions. It's just that the temps are not enrolled in the pension plan and have no benefits, meaning that their take-home checks are typically a couple of hundred dollars more per pay period than the regular case managers' checks are.

Good question Michael, but not in this case. These temps and privatized workers cost the state budget more than the permanent workers they replace.

I imagine that they would have to save the state money over time though. Just by eliminating the state's matching contribution for Iowa's state pension plan and the amount the state would be contributing toward the health plans and other benefits, (mostly because temps do not receive any vacation time or paid holidays or anything of that nature), there would have to be pretty considerable savings over time, depending on how many temps there were and how many full time employees they replaced.

Of course I am thinking of it purely in terms of how NC implemented the FNS funding from the Stimulus last year. NC basically just hired temps from temp agencies like Corestaff, meaning that those temps were basically contracted out and all of their benefits were controlled by the temp agency. DSS more or less, like any private company, just paid a fee for them and then once the position ended, the job ended.

Gail, what is even MORE ironic is that Gov. Brewer entered a debate - unprepared - so that she could get the $1.2 MILLION of GOVERNMENT MONEY for her campaign.

Ironic?

You BETCHA!!

There is a female republican candidate taking some heat in my part of Iowa because she decided she didn't need health insurance so dropped her coverage. Her defense in a letter to the editor the other night was that it was only temporary because she will receive health care when elected on Nov 2 and she looks forward to having those benefits. She wants to repeal the HCR legislation denying coverage to other Americans but can't wait until she has access to Federal benefits. Hypocrisy of the most arrogant kind.

Users and takers - that's what they are. And they give other people grief about receiving unemployment benefits, etc.

Who are the TRUE welfare "queens?"

Hallelujah!!!

They need to go home today since they will only stick around to vote NO on any legislation that is introduced. We pay those lawmakers (used loosley) to do absolutely nothing but vote NO!

Are we stupid or what?

Oh, brother. Talk about a rant. Ronald Reagan reborn; Reagan preached against big Government while increasing the size of it and while starving it through tax cuts; that era continued with Bush 41 and Bush 43. Private business is the answer, no, it is part of the answer; the other part is government to protect the people from the greed and corruption of the private. Does it ever occur to GOPers that "consequences for decisions one makes with their jobs, education, =life" is not always controllable? Ever occur to them than children in poor areas of cities have the odds stacked against them from the beginning for many reasons and for reasons beyond their control? Ever occur to GOPers that those people sometimes make decisions because they must, not because they want to. Typical republican comment--blame the victims, makes it sound as if it is the fault of all poor, uneducated people that they are poor and uneducated. No, it is not always their fault.

CHOICES, we all make them!!! America offers the OPPORTUNITY to become something from nothing, not a guaranteee! Lots of people were born in poverty, and "found" their way out! Entitling citizens, just makes for a country full of apathy!

Granted, Obama inherited a mess - Time moves on!

It is Obama's Bailout, Obama's Entitlements, Obama's economic policies that are shaping the future! Obama's Healthcare!

Government is not a cure all! Growing government, entitling people, raising taxes, is not the answers.

Unemployment, no end in sight, new industries, none, new jobs created, none, false campaign promises, lots.

Obama had a chance, and, he failed!

Government is not a cure all! Growing government, entitling people, raising taxes, is not the answers.

Unemployment, no end in sight, new industries, none, new jobs created, none, false campaign promises, lots.

Obama had a chance, and, he failed!

MtMike, you are entitled to your opinion, and that is fine, but please answer one quesiton for me.

Obama had a chance, and, he failed!

You state emphatically that President Obama hada chance and he FAILED; that's past tense, implying that the President has FINISHED his term and we are evaluating his performance.

The last I looked, President Obama is still President, so how can the President have FAILED if his term is not over yet?

Did you make a mistake or are you just spewing the latest 'talking points' that were e-mailed to you this morning?

I am really trying to understand why, MtMike, a person like yourself would make such an error when posting for all to see. Since President Obama is still President, then your statement is one of two things:

1. An error, which would mean that the whole post is erroneous, and that you were mistaken;

2. You were NOT mistaken, and were attempting to insult the intelligence of the readers on this blog with half-truths and innuendoes that are not even true.

So, MtMike, which is it?

We ALL want to know.

Obama is a Idealist, not a Realist. Maybe Obama should try balancing a budget, like most Americans do for their personal household expenses!

A leader has to offer people an alternative, not GIVE/TRAIN/CONDITION citizens to "government entitlements", creating dependency and apathy!

Obama is a "Lameduck" FAILURE who has led America down the WRONG PATH - this election will be a summary of that opinion!

Obama is a "Lameduck" FAILURE who has led America down the WRONG PATH - this election will be a summary of that opinion!

So, MtMike, I see that you wish to continue to spew untruths. How can a sitting President be 'Lameduck'?

OK, it is clear - you have decided to continue to insult our intelligence. That's fine, that is your right. You CANNOT - CANNOT - categorise a sitting President - whose term is not over - as 'Lame Duck'.

Period.

Since you obviously didn't know that - or didn't care to much about that before you posted - you have no ear here. It is obvious that you just got your e-mail of talking points and are incapable of defending or debating those points.

It must be nice being oblivious...

You obviously have no clue how out of touch Obama is with the voting public.

"Lameduck" is a "political term" and simply means as a sitting President an end to Obamas agenda and direction he has led this country. "Lameduck" is used all the time.

Obama will get nothing done towards his ideals and agenda. Obama has no intention of working with public opinion, but is stuck in his "fantasy world" and ideals.

My comments are not "untruths", but facts! My position WILL BE backed by the voting public. 5 weeks will tell. Watch what a ass-kicking the Democrats get in the next election.

"Government is not a cure all! Growing government, entitling people, raising taxes, is not the answers.

Unemployment, no end in sight, new industries, none, new jobs created, none, false campaign promises, lots.

Obama had a chance, and, he failed!"

Results speak, Obama has none!

I

MtMike, "lame duck" is the period between the election and inauguration of the incoming elected official.

As for what people think of President Obama, they approve of him at almost exactly the same level as they approved of Presidents Clinton and Reagan at this point in their presidencies. http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

Not True!!! Lame Duck is when a President has a Congress who will not work with him! A President is President until he leaves office!

MtMike-is-an-ignorant

Try reading for comprehension. There is a time frame in every president's term when his replacement has been chosen, in November, and he remains in office until January. This timeframe is referred to as his "lame duck" period. Some people try to erroneously use the term to apply when a president loses his majority in one or both houses of congress. It is a misnomer usage of the term.

The same applies to congresspeople and a lame-duck-congress. Ignore this all you want, it is what makes you ignorant.

No reason to continue this: Here is a excerpt of the definition of "Lame Duck" from "WIKI":

"A lame duck is an elected official who is approaching the end of his or her tenure"

"Lame duck officials tend to have less political power, as other elected officials are less inclined to cooperate with them."

Obama and the Dem's have failed America and are on their way out! The November 2nd election will tell! The last 2 years of the Obama administration/era will be without a Democratic MAJORITY in Congress, creating a Lame Duck President (who is on his way out of office) who will not be able to fulfill his personal socialist agenda (growing government, raising taxes, the redistribution of wealth) on the American People!

stts

MtMike: Try again reading for comprehension. Your post confirms what I wrote, not what you wrote.

An elected official is near the end of his tenure, when his replacement has been selected, but has yet to take over the office.

By your way of thinking, every elected official is a lame duck from day one because they are nearing the end of their tenure by getting farther away from its beginning.

The composition of Congress does not make a president or presidency "Lame Duck". The transitional phase of Congressional elections can and does create a Lame duck majority and lame duck congresspeople.

Obama will be more influential in 2011 than you will likely be able to understand, mid-term election results not withstanding.

Bush was LAME; but he wasn't a LameDuck until after Obama won the election.

Obama is at the end of his term!!!!

One and Done!

Obame is a ineffective leader, not willing to listen or work with the miniorty, which is now becoming the majority = Obama done!, a "lame duck" government official!

Here is another quote from "wiki" regarding "Lame Duck": "A president elected to a second term is sometimes seen as being a lame duck from early in the second term" - just apply that to Obama and ONE TERM AND DONE! Obama may not even get his own parties nomination in 2 years (20 months and the campaign for President will be in full swing - not long)

Obama is one and done! And is on his "last legs" (2 years) with his socialist agenda!

AGAIN your wiki citation confirms that I am correct and you are wrong about lameduck status. If you can't keep the facts straight here in the present, what business do you have predicting the future?

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Go play where your stupidity is mistaken for wisdom.

Paul and John - you both put forth a valiant effort - with definitions, mind you - but some people INSIST on being stupid.

And these are the people who are voting? Is it any wonder that we have parts of our electorate voting for the people who made the mess in the first place?

The United States is going to need all the help it can get.

Oy.

Or perhaps the translation is"Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.".