No one can TELL the TRUTH like you can IR...

I'm curious to see how those 'certain' someones SPIN the crowd numbers last night myself... or better yet the drop of 6% points by likely Republican voters...

The sun rose in the East this morning... so you KNOW it's only a matter of time... lol

Terrific post, I.R.

Yes, I'm very tired of being called on this site and by legislative candidates lazy, incompetent and just plain a no good bum in addition to being unpatriotic. Tired of hearing republicans call the unemployed stray animals not to be fed.

I am tired of watching big business ship jobs overseas to make an extra buck; tired of having big oil and big coal dictate legislation. Tired of Wall Street making billions while being unwilling to loan money to Main Street. Tired of $13 an hour janitors being laid off at Chase while their upper management makes huge salaries. But most of all, I am tired of republican senators who stop legislation to help the American people and the real "small" businesses just because they can.

IR;

Great post today. We Americans are being sold down the river by the Billionaires that run the Republican Party. I could not believe the absolute BS that the US Chamber of Commerce is spouting. By making Big Business pay Americans first (keeping jobs here in US) they do not create jobs nor does it add any economic value and worst, it hurts businesses. Yeh, it hurts the big multi-nationals that want cheap labor so they can sell their products to us.

Ron was right when he wrote we are becoming a Banana Republic. The wsj/nbc report now shows the economic divide is growing to a new record. Soon 1% of the richest people will own the US and the rest of us will be sitting on the side lines with our hands out.

This is why I am not voting republican.

IR: You, Jody and Navy hit home runs this morning. Very, very well done. I too am tird of republicans senators who stop legislation that would help working people. I'm beginning to wonder, Why would anyone vote for a republican?

Morning Ladies and Gentlemen thank you. Just like Red said the sun did come up this morning in the East( watched it personally) so I wonder how long it's going to take some of our own "Nabobs of Negativity" to get on here and tell us all about how it must all be the product of one 'ism plot or the other. Always forward folks

Jody, are you tired of being called a "whiner" by the Vice President?

I'm thinking maybe the wrist/hand will suddenly 'flare up' today... ;0))) lmao!

CU

Sometimes the truth has to be told. Some of us on the left are really whiners!! We have become complacient and just expected the President to do all the work. We forgot that we also have a part to plaly. They are trying to get us to open our eyes, to understand that maybe we can't have everything we want. That we need to be patient and take small steps rather than great leaps.

We (Dems) have got to do our part. So let's stop with the negative talk and get going! FIRED UP AND READY TO GO

Wow, great post to start the day and you really struck a nerve with the comments about the middle class -- considered the engine of the economy for the better part of 100 years -- are suddenly worthless and expendable. Yesterday someone actually tried to make a case that the middle class doesn't deserve tax breaks because the rich are so much more valuable to the economy. How have we gotten so twisted in our thinking that the money changers are actually more important than those who actually do work? Why are we willing to accept being designated as peons, pawns in the games played by "important people"? Have we so little respect for our fellow man? Have we so little respect for OURSELVES?

Fantastic post, IR! I, for one, can't wait until the middle class in this country gets fed up and shouts "Enough!" from every front porch, back porch and side window in America--Enough! to overwork and underpay because our jobs are outsourced overseas, Enough! to attempts to privatize and eliminate the social safety net our parents and grandparents had the forthought to hand down to us (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the VA), Enough! to the hatred fomented and broadcast through the medium of Fox News and its ilk.

There are a lot of folks on this board that read and don't post--to you I say VOTE--Vote for the candidates that have your back, that don't tell you to bootstrap it up when you've lost your job through no fault of your own, when you've lost your health insurance, your house, your quality of life.

Vote for candidates that want to make sure the top 2 per cent in this country pay their fair share of taxes, that companies manufacture things in this country instead of overseas.

For heaven's sake, let's get this country on the right track. Vote for those candidates that Don't dabble in Witchcraft, Don't sell fear and DO have hearts made of human flesh instead of stone!

News article came out yesterday that was barely mentioned by most in the media- the income gap between the rich and poor is at the highest level ever recorded. So the rich are getting richer and the poor are basically staying the same. What this basically means is that while the US economy has grown over the past 40 years, the majorty of that 'growth' has ended up in the hands of the very few at the top of the wage scale. I was surprised not to see the Dems jump all over this in relation to the battle of tax cuts being waged on Capital Hill.

The top 7% of wage earners in this country now hold 50% of the money.

sonokursh2

I'm also fired up and ready to go!

I just hope people will think very hard about the pro's and con's before they vote.

I loved seeing President Obama at the rally last night--sure looked like a lot of people there to me. I guarantee you, if he came to Pittsburgh there would be plenty of people to come to see him.

I am also tired of some people not giving respect to my decision to support the President and his policies. I did a lot of research and studying on the man and his positions and made my decision carefully. I am not blindly worshipping him and do not rubber stamp everything he does or says. I can understand that those on the right don't agree with me--that is their right to do. But please respect that I have made an informed choice as my conscience dictates and respect it. There are a lot of folks on the right who I don't agree with but I would never say anything about those who choose to support them.

IR, you nailed it this morning. This constant barrage of negativity cannot last. It is unproductive, wearying and it will implode on itself eventually.

To add to your thoughts on jobs being shipped offshore...I heard it mentioned last night that there are tax loopholes that allow companies a break for bringing in the new employees from overseas to be trained by those workers whose jobs they are going to take! Is that not adding insult to injury?

Is this really the kind of government policy that conservatives want? How can anyone rationalize that such a policy is good for Americans?

One more quick thought that my husband brought up last night...what if the Tea Partiers had been in power back in the 1930's? Could they have conquered Hitler and the Japanese empire? Could the Tea Party philosophy have brought the United States out of the Great Depression? If there had been a Tea Party in power, would we have ANY civil rights today? Would they have built the Blue Star Highway system that all Americans share?

I want to encourage all Democrats out there to help get out the vote in the city in which you live. You can make phone calls and knock on doors, write letters to the editor of your hometown newspaper - whatever it takes to get people to the polls. Don't give in to the negativity and apathy! If we don't do anything to change it, we have no right to complain if we lose on November 2nd.

Voters want rid of the lying, manipulative, unethical, and immoral democrats! That's what.

This poll touches on an aspect ofa general change in American relationships with, and loyalty to, political parties. One of the reasons that so many voters cannot quite put their fingers on what they want is that they do not trust or believe what the different paries are offering - and especially from the right wing, that's becoming a danger.

Although typically considered Tea Party slogans, the angry statements "I want my country back!" and "Listen to the people!" rose in shrill volume almost as soon as the Democratic Administration and Congress took office in 2009 - and since then it has become clear that these are declarations of anger about very broad changes in America itself, not wrought by the Obama Administration or Congress, and expressions of fear and uncertainty because regardless of the Republican party's recent promises, the ways of a past quarter-century cannot be resurrected.

At the same time, the term "the people" shows up repeatedly - and to some extent, this reflects also a very broad and persistent loss of citizen attachment to political parties and fixed ideologies. It represents something of a dissolution of a national community that has held authority in America literally from the founding of the Republic, and exposes the nation to a drifting sense of direction that might well be snatched up by one imposing leader who could play on public disaffection to weld a one-party state in the future.

All of us, it seems, are observing a general shift away from from party-driven political action to a more independent, individualistic approach. This is a movement predicted in Prof. Michael Schudson's 1998 volume, The Good Citizen: A history of American civic life.

Prof. Schudson's book is organized around the historic role of the news media in American partisan politics. Most Americans are either not old enough to remember, or were not exposed much to, the typical relationship of newspapers to either the Republican or Democratic parties (or, at times, to the Progressive, Prohibition, et al, parties). From post-Colonial times forward, newspapers had been proud to declare their affiliations. There is a very important directory of newspapers, their editorial directions, and their personnel, called the Editor & Publisher directory, that still identifies those papers that continue to ally themselves with a party - it was and is a vital tool for public relations programs and political campaign consulting.

For example, in the late 1880's, the California city of Redlands (southeast of San Bernardino) was locked in a campaign battle over local laws making the city "wet" or "dry." At the time the only newspaper in the area was the Citrus, a "wet" paper. Secretly, one of the city's founders and a very influential leader, James S. Edwards (first successful commercial navel orange rancher), put up the money to establish the "dry" newspaper, the Redlands Daily Facts. The "drys" won the election, and later Edwards was the Presidential candidate of the Prohibition Party.

According to Schudson, in the late 1980's and early '90's, that kind of close connection between "the people" and the media in terms of party affiliation was breaking down. He forecast current events, somewhat. He did not quite forecast the waning influence of newspapers in particular in American civic life, for the Internet and the variety of television channel choices was only then starting to alter the news and information evnironment. However, if anyone were to interview him at the Claremont Colleges now, he'd probably say that MSNBC and Fox News have consolidated the kind of influence all those thousands of newspapers of the past exercised in scattered communities nationwide.

"The people," as several times before in American political life, are dissatisfied with the always-messy business of politics in a representative democracy. Some - mainly Tea Party types - seem to want a more direct democratic process similar to a New England Town Meeting. Reading their constant calls for political representatives to "listen to the people," What the speakers mean is that the only valid opinions are from those strongly distressed by how the current Administration has acted on topics such as health care reform, immigration reform and enforcement, or measures to deal with economic crisis.

In their distress and outrage, those of the right (whether affiliated with any movement or independent) forget that the elected officials ARE listening to "the people." But they are listening to many, many more voices than just those who demand their own way, a fact denied by the right wing - this is almost a form of religious discourse in which various sides seem to feel that their "truth" is the ONLY proper view of the world.

"Take back our country" is another of those kinds of slogans - it means "we don't agree, and don't want those 'others' making decisions we don't like." In this matter there is an additional factor - the election of President Obama and a Democratic majority meant that the kind of public and economic policy set beginning with Reagan and followed even during the Clinton Administration, a well-worn and familiar view of how the American polity was to be governed, was ended.

The recent GOP "Pledge to America" is indeed a promise to return to old, failed ways, because they were familiar ways that some people believe represented a proper form of American political ideology. As a realistic matter, the Republican "Pledge" is generally impossible to enact now; the old ideology will never quite come back. Where will a NEW "conservative" ideology come from? That is far more difficult to establish than turning back the clock. And just who will articulate it?

"Take out country back" may have had at least two other, uglier foundations, as well - racism, and fear of ethnic dilution of the American population. The racism, focused on President Obama, certainly exists, the feelings are openly expressed at a bar, in local conversations, in posts all across the Web. The ethnic issue may, however, be much more significant.

Just around the same time the Obama Administration was taking form, reports informed Americans that in a very short time, Caucasians will become a minority population, with various Hispanic ethnic groups as an aggregate equalling or surpassing the "Anglo-Saxon, white European" percentage of people in the country. Although some growth in the percentage of African-Americans was forecast, by far the greater share was forecast to be Hispanic.

Those kinds of forecasts absolutely struck fear into the White population. The response very much appears to be identical to events that accompanied the Civil Rights movement in the latter 1960's and '70's: As "fair housing" required sellers and landlords to admit Black customers to formerly all-white neighborhoods, as schools were forced to open their doors to students regardless of race or ethnicity, as public places (stores, restaurants, hotels, railway stations, bus stations, etc.) became open to all commerce on an equal basis, too many White Americans revolted.

"White flight" from public schools or integrated suburban neighborhoods exemplified that attitude. Riots and violent confrontations greeted school buses carrying children of one race from distant neighborhoods where students of a different race or ethnicity had formerly studied only among "their own kind." The American Independent Party for a time gathered strong following as an organized form of resistance, even after George Wallace was shot. To this day, surviving efforts to re-balance centuries of oppression of Black Americans inspire hatred and resntment among many of the same folk who now spoutn, "I want my country back!"

"Take our country back" is a present-day analogue of an angry response in the past to Civil Right advances, to the "English only!" cry echoing through the decades, to the 1840's viciousness of the native American Party (and the "Know Nothings) towards arriving Irish, to the early 1900's street battles attacking immigrant Jews, Hungarians, Russians and Italians. The self-centered resentment of the people who can't accept an evolving character of national society has to be acknowledged and addressed.

Political parties - apart from truly fringe groups based on the politics of racism - cannot and have not confronted many of these deep underlying issues. Immigration "reform" for many would only be acceptable if it included the kinds of mass deportations that happened in the 1930's and 1950's, or analogues of the infamous California anti-alien statutes specifically targeting Chinese and other Asians (Asians were forbidden land ownership, among other things). That is what some mean today when the demand rings out, "Listen to the people!" The speakers want that kind of repression.

Just as when Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in 1933, there is a Populist mob howling at the gates, willing even to tear the government down entirely to get their way. To some extent, Sarah Palin is today's equivalent of Huey Long of that bygone time. They have both danced to the rhythm of "Listen to the people!" And that chant is not, as Prof. Schudson imagined it would become, a form of an organic drift away from established political parties (something that is also taking place), but rather a howl in the darkenss, voicing fear, distress, and the demand that either everyone sees immediate resolution of problems greater than even the Government of the United Sttates, or an immediate return to the familiar ways of a past regardless of its record of abysmal failure.

"The people" indeed matter, but it is absolutely important to remember that so often, "the people" do not always agree amongst themselves. If the political parties cannot offer any coherent amalgamation of the wishes of "the people," then where will it come from? A dictator?

Being an independent (redneck) do you believe the government should have the right to tell any business (Large or small) they can't outsource? If you started your own company and grow this company to a nice size, you shouldn't have the right to outsource work? Do you complain about insourcing of jobs? I would find it hard to believe you would be against that.

I agree our congress needs to make insentives for keeping work here, but to whine and complain about outsourcing is not the right approach. The government shouldn't have any say on any company doing that. Name a company that is in the business to lose money!

IR; Corporate outsourcing has cost jobs and hurt the US GNP but the biggest lose has been small and medium companies moving their manufacturing offshore. For the most part the responsibility for this lays at the feet of American consumers.

Americans don't buy the best product or the Made in America product they buy the cheapest product almost every time. Even if it is only $1 cheaper they choose the product that is made in China, or some other country, over one made domestically.

These businesses have no choice but to go for the cheapest sources to make their products they have to survive and that means they have to make a profit. One can be high and mighty and say I'm going to make the best product on the market and I am going to make it here in the US. But at the end of the day that product will still be sitting on the shelf while cheaper competitors products go home with American customers. Those same customers will complain about the crap quality of what they bought but they will still buy whatever is cheapest. They will say stupid things like "If these things can be made cheap there is no reason for them to cost more from American companies." Also the RD world has made such huge upgrades in their ability that one can now make products of high quality in places like China, India or other countries once tagged as "crap by nature". Look at Japan. When I was young "Made in Japan" meant cheap junk. Now it is prestigious.

One of the biggest reasons for the higher cost of American goods, like it or not, is unions. The fact is that you can't pay union scale wages and stay in business. Another is rising minimum wages which make it impractical to train anyone. Minimum wages were never meant to support a family they were meant for businesses to have an entry pay scale that offset the cost of low production and give the untrained an entry into the work force. You can't pay someone full wages, let alone union scale, to sweep the floors.

The bottom line is that America is a capitalist country and has done very well as such but in a free country there is no way to contain work other than to make it competitive with outsourcing.

One can agree or disagree with what I say but I ran a business in the US for 25 years and have the experience to back it.

As to the topic of what I want to see change in government? I would like to see an end to the rampant corruption that comes from a government that goes to the highest bidder. I don't expect that to ever happen. I can guarantee it will never happen with either a Democrat OR a Republican.

A lot of back patting here from the left but very little in the form of answers. It is why the country is losing faith in Obama. No answers, more costs.

And IR and Jody, I'm a little tired of you stating that you are tired of being called lazy, etc without showing where it was posted. I call this "bringing in an argument from the outside because you can't fight the ones in the actual posts." I diluted your position when trying to make a case for your side. And as an independent that voted for Obama I'm trying to see what you and the rest of the left actually has to offer as solutions to convince me not to vote Republican this year for the first time since 2000.

Nice to finally see my position argued by the polls in MSNBC, which is:

1. What is he (Obama) doing to support long term employment and economic growth?
2. How is lettin the tax cuts expire for small business going to assist in creating jobs?
3. And why won't the Democrats carve out small business profits left in the business from the tax increase? It would destroy the Republican's argument that allowing the Bush Taxes on the upper 2% would hurt the economy.

I'll answer. #1. Nothing. #2. It won't. #3, I really have not idea. Job growth is job growth and small business is responsible for all of it.

And I'll give you my answer, which if you opened your mind and considered it will have the effect on the CEO's salaries and decisions that you actually want, as posted in 1.70.

The answer is tariffs. Make it so expensive to to bring goods in that the CEO is forced to keep labor/job here because is the cost effective decision.

I get a little tired of all the blame going around without any throwing out a suggestion. And as an owner of a small business with over 100 employees, in the manufacturing world, competing against China, India and Mexico every day I believe that the answer is that simple.

The day Clinton signed NAFTA and we started exporting our wealth was the day that our economy started to slow. And that was preceded by the day Bush Sr. crafted the idea.

Borsia II: You have a point about Americans not purchasing American-made products. Here's just one website of American-made products to check out before you make a purchase:

www.americansworking.com

You heard the former business owner, folks. A lot of it is up to us and the choices we make every day.

Am I choosing a foreign-made product because of lower price and convenience? Or am I going to support my fellow American workers and buy American products?

James and Borsia-II

Do you think it is fair that corporations that do ship the jobs overseas get tax breaks for doing so? In my opinion, if a corporation ships their jobs over seas, then any tax breaks they received should be immediately stopped.

I have tried to buy American, regardless of what store I shop in. But I am having a very difficult time finding products that are made in America any more. I believe that we should buy American, just try to find a product that is. If this country does not make anything any more, who is going to make our defense products? Are we going to outsource our national defense to China?

I think for government changes, we need to get the money and special interests out of politics. OR if our politcians are going to be bought, I want to know who bought them. I want them wearing a patchh on their suit that says exactly who bought that politician so that I can vote accordingly.

Thank you for the link Gail. I've book marked it.

And although I agree that the consumer is important, some have no choice. Here we annually purchase 50,000 20A GFCI receptacles. 100% of them are made in China. The US doesn't produce them anymore. The answer, Tariff the product making it less expensive to make them here, resulting in more jobs and economic growth.

Clinton signed NAFTA, Bush Sr. started it. Now I ask, who is going to end it?

I blame the American voters for this country's mess, next time people do your research before you jump into voting. Obama may have a nice personality but as a leader or President he stinks like Carter. Obama does not have the business smarts to run this country. America needs small government , conservative values, less pork spending, and incentives to keep jobs here at home instead of overseas for cheap labor and the biggest of them all is kick out all the corruption going on in Washington. Secure our borders and enforce laws that were passed by these crooked politicians including illegal immigration laws. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. American voters need to use their brains more. Now I know why these elected officials think we're stupid and talk to us like we are morons because they (VOTERS) are gullable to believe in this so called "CHANGE' Obama promised. Well I say to you American voters you got "SHORT CHANGED". Whose the fool now? You Obama fans keep dreaming or living in that OBAMALAND OF YOURS.

I am a proud Independent who would never vote for a anarchist or socialist like OBAMA.! I DID MY RESEARCH.

The only person who could disagree wtih I.R.'s post is a naive, white collar, inheretor, spoilt brat. Notice that his comment isn't about a particular party overall - just about what what the parties have been doing lately.

And the only reason I have to bother thinking about how I'm going to vote this November, is because the spending addicted Dimocrats are being matched in their cluelessness by the blind party of no and the teabaggers. Its easy to be independent these days when the decent ideologies of each party are matched with the dumbest execution of those ideologies known to modern man.

So, good job, radicals of each party, for being full of fail. I now am once again, waiting for something of substance to be stated so I can make an informed decision. Of course, I'm not holding my breath between the people who can't separate religion from state, and those who can't separate individual rights from big government.

The faster people become gun-toting athiests in this country, the better.

You should definetly vote against your senator next time he comes up for reelection.

cdahl and sonokursh: There are so many obstacles to overcome with outsourcing and you have pointed out a few more! It just goes to show how complicated the outsourcing problem is - and it's just one problem we face in America.

The outsourcing issue is one good example of why we can't fall for sloganeering and right-wrong, black-white thinking to take over the political process. The thorny issues we face cannot be solved by simplistic thinking.

Trust in what you know to be true - and instead of turning on each other, turn against those who would divide us!

Great message. I am currently on the list of people whose job is being sent overseas, at the same time that I am being asked to contribute money to a PAC that is fighting this bill to eliminate the tax break. Closing the tax loophole will make the decision less cost effective for buisness and may save someone elses job. We need to hold the Republican feet to the fire for this one.

@ Gail,

I often say that I don't care whom someone votes for as long as they know why they voted for that person. I have set of beliefs that have allowed me to vote for Bush Sr, Bush Jr, Kerry, Gore, Obama, Klobachar (Sen from MN whom I love!!). Just don't vote for someone because Rush or Oberman told you to.

So Gail, Watch yourself. That kind of intelligent, independent verbage will get you into trouble. In fact, I just intercepted communications that the Republicans are coming for you in 4 black SUV's, and trying to beat the Democrats whom are, at this moment in 2 Blackhawk Helicopters heading your way.....

I guess statistically, I should be a Republican't, but I just can't bring myself to do it.

I don't hate successful people. I consider myself to be successful. But that doesn't make me so selfish that I can't see the value in paying taxes and helping those less successful. I don't want to live in a country with huge disparities in wealth and income. Consider this:

From 1980 to 2005, more than 80 percent of total increase in Americans' income went to the top 1 percent. Economic growth was more sluggish in the aughts, but the decade saw productivity increase by about 20 percent. Yet virtually none of the increase translated into wage growth at middle and lower incomes.

All my life I've heard Latin America described as a failed society (or collection of failed societies) because of its grotesque maldistribution of wealth. Peasants in rags beg for food outside the high walls of opulent villas, and so on. But according to the Central Intelligence Agency , income distribution in the United States is more unequal than in Guyana, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and roughly on par with Uruguay, Argentina, and Ecuador. Income inequality is actually declining in Latin America even as it continues to increase in the United States. Economically speaking, the richest nation on earth is starting to resemble a banana republic. The main difference is that the United States is big enough to maintain geographic distance between the villa-dweller and the beggar.

Message to the GOP/Teabaggers: Don't assume that because I see value in helping others that I want what you have. Since I've chosen to live in a country that espouses values of looking out for the underpriveleged, because that's what makes a nation great, I will vote to see that selfish people like yourself are forced to give their fair share, by taxation, if necessary.

Demorat National Cult victims here defending there abusers and Repubelickan National Cult victims here defending there abusers. Isn't that a paradoxical psychological phenomenon/ mental illness called Stockholm Syndrome?

James-2110694 - Your view generally reflects that of a segment that believes the government has no place whatsoever in regulating or dictating to business, nor in taking any actions that might ifluence a company's choices about where to operate any of its functions. However, both in realistic terms and in historical terms, you can't have it all your way, I'm afraid.

It is utterly false that when the nation was established, government was understood to be completely hands-off in the economy and business operations. In fact, one of the most compelling reasons for the writing of the Constitution was that under the Articles of Confederation (America's very first post-Revolutionary government and model of the Confederacy's basic law) was that the individual states were meddling with business and the economy with a hodge-podge of competing regulations that the Founding Fathers decided to put under a single nationwide structure, not to eliminate.

America then went through several internal conflicts, including the Whiskey Rebellion and the events leading to the War of 1812, that asserted Federal authority over business and trade. Those events all were conducted under the leaderhip of Presidents who were among the Founders.

In the meantime, until a relatively short time ago (by historical standards), the U.S. mainly relied upon import and export duties to fund itself. This included rather strict regulation of imports and of exports at times, for both protectionist reasons as well as matters of national policy.

Government from the earliest times took an active part in business direction and development. The reason Fulton's steamship design flourished and launched a completely new form of transportation was that he won a monopoly for using steam propulsion on the Hudson River and within New York harbor. Later the temporary dominance of American shipping in the transatlantic trade with England was boosted by subsidy contracts with steamship lines (largely terminated after the Collins Line's disastrous loss of the Arctic).

Although during the 1870's - 1900 period the Republican administrations took mainly a "hands off" approach to business, the country still adopted a uniform system of weights and measures, a uniform system of time, undertook vital currency reforms that upset the banks and stock brokers, prosecuted major cases of fraud and deception by very large names in business, subsidized development of desired activities such as railroads and manufacturing plants, and more. Immediately after that time, Theodore Roosevelt took on leadership of the "trust busters" and endorsed major new regulations of business from food and drug saftey to workplace safety.

Many who today want to somehow return to the "good old days" of completely laissez-faire business policies are not aware there never were such good old days, and that their complaints about insupportable government interference invoke a principle that has never been otherwise adopted in the United States.

Outsourcing now is a function of many things - leading among them, policies that first arose during the Reagan Administration encouraging very short-term profits off stock values rather than long-term return on investment. Soon other tax policies came along giving companies a significant advantage if they moved their corporate headquarters out of the country, or displaced jobs to cheaper international sources of supply. This all sprang from the idea that large investors and corporate exceutives could benefit in great amounts by creating "shareholder value" from disposing of business assets, breaking up companies to eliminate any operating units that were't producing returns at some high target level, firing employees and either contracting out their work, hiring cheaper younger people, or best of all, engaging "temporary permanent" workers who would never see a cent of benefits. This is the very foundation of the exodus of American manfucaturing and other jobs.

This, also, is government intervention in business, and represents the opposite of what is in the national interest. At least President Obama is the first President since 1980 to take steps to encourage development of new American manufacturing capability.

John A, FANTASTIC post at 1.17. Scholarly, balanced, well-written. Thank you VERY MUCH for sharing.

Independent Redneck - You are right on every point! Americans need to wake up to the fact that both the dems and the repubs have been bought by the corporations that are only focused on making profit. As long as we keep fighting against each other, we'll never get any change. We need to fight for the corporations to start being penalized for outsourcing all the jobs. They'll keep outsourcing as long as it's profitable.

And don't get me started on wages! Wages in this country have not kept pace with the cost of living and the CEO take home millions while the average working person struggles to get by.

James-2110694

Being an independent (redneck) do you believe the government should have the right to tell any business (Large or small) they can't outsource? If you started your own company and grow this company to a nice size, you shouldn't have the right to outsource work? Do you complain about insourcing of jobs? I would find it hard to believe you would be against that.

James

Never said that a person didn’t have the right to do whatever he wants with his company. Got one myself but it’s a little hard to outsource a herd of Black Angus and Herefords. The problem I have is with the Relocation Tax Credits as passed in 2004. Take her any where you want to but don’t expect me to subsidize your move with my tax dollars. Then don’t expect me to subsidize your training of folks to operate your machinery without leaving parts of themselves in it. And finally expect to pay your fair share for the use of my roads and infrastructure that you’re going to use when you bring it back here to sell. Cause that’s exactly what we are doing now.

Also the legislation as written did contain incentives for insourceing but seeing as how it’s been blocked then I guess that avenue is closed too

NAFTA was signed into law under Bill Clinton, started by George Bush. It was passed by a majority Republican Congress and Senate. Democrats will claim it was the Republicans who put NAFTA into effect. Fine, I'll go along with that. I, as a Republican, can do that.

Democrats have been in control of Congress and Senate for the last 4 years. When are the Democrats going to take responsibility for what is going on now? Afterall, they are the ones in control.

Rightvswrong - 'Voters want rid of the lying, manipulative, unethical, and immoral democrats! That's what'

You prefer lying, manipulative, unethical and immoral republicans? Oh wait, Repubs say that they want to send jobs overseas and tell us they want non-stop wars and increasing deficits ( but only when they are in charge)...so maybe no so much on the lying anymore.

At the risk of injecting some facts into the discussion, I would point out that the top 1% of earners in this country pay more than 40% of all income tas. The top 5% (income greater than $160,000) pays more than 60%. The top 10% ($116,000) pays more than 70% of all income taxes. With all of the blathering about paying a "fair share", I wonder what you would consider to be a fair share?

The bottom 50% of AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) pays slightly more than 2% of taxes. When half of the income earners in this country don't pay income tax it becomes very tempting to demand more benefits and to expect others to pay for them. That is the situation we face in America.

When I read that the answer to our economic problems is to institute higher tariffs I wonder if those who support that viewpoint have ever read any economic history. Beggar thy neighbor has never worked because, oddly enough, those nations then institute countervailing tariffs on the goods that we export. Tariffs have never and will never work.

Everybody can simply state that outsourcing has hurt the US economy, but nobody wants to talk about why companies are outsourcing. People all assume it is to drive up profits - which is true, everything about running and working in a business is to make money. But we're still only scratching on the surface.

Unless you have your head burried in the sand, people know that products made "not here" (ie. China, India, Mexico) tend to be cheaper - and American consumers tend to buy the cheaper item - then it is not hard to see that companies that made similar products were losing to competition. In high school text books back in the 90s, it showed the disproportionate ratio of imports and exports with the US and other countries, and called the trend "unsustainable". Outsourcing was an idea dreamt up by businesses and the GOP, and approved by the Democrats to put a bandaid on the problem - otherwise we were looking at losing these businesses entirely (think GM, Chrysler).

So... we can blame businesses for existing to make money... or we can blame ourselves for failing to pay the extra money it would have taken to support our fellow Americans, but that doesn't solve the problem. Punish businesses further if you'd like to... but any business that competes in the global market will be more apt to close up shop here in the United States than be punished by the anti-business mentality crafted by the media and progressives.

Can't Keep.

If you bothered to read the posts you would find that I am pro regulation to big business in the form of Tariffs, making it too expensive for them to outsource. If you burden a business with regulation here, it makes it cheaper to avoid the burden or, outsource. And I continue to answer your question, in fact I'll save this one so all I have to do is paste it next time.

How has Obama hurt you?

By enacting the health care legislation our company received an 18% increase in premiums, or $216,000 for the upcoming year. How much of that we will pass on is being internally debated.

How will the tax increase effect you?

(Call it what you want, but if taxes raise or go up I'll call it an increase, certainly not a decrease).

As an S corp, we left most of the money in the business and used it to hire employees, give raises and invest in equipment. Granted, for the benefit of future profits. Specifically, based on 2009 Net income it will reduce our earnings by $288,600. This money will not be available in 2011 to hire more people, bonuses or capital expenditures.

I agree with most of what you have said, but I am waiting for you to answer, how is Obama going to pay for it, or hold costs/spending down. I challenge you to review each and every one of my posts, most of which bash the left and right because neither has any clue as to how to balance the cost of a program with the revenue intake to support it.

In regards to trolling, you are correct I have been. As a business owner, S Corp over 100 employees in manufacturing I have decided that from now until the election I can best fill a role of giving my point of view. And call out people that throw out garbage without back up. Including most of yours. I have noticed during my "trolling" that you very inconveniently never answer my questions. Such as:

1. How is Obama going to ensure that health care costs be held down to a reasonable level such as the rate of inflation?
2. How is adding costs to businesses in the form of health care, Cap and Trade and increasing taxes on the wealthy going to promote US economic job growth?
3. Why won't the Democrats give an exception for Small Business S corp earnings that are left in the company used for job growth. And considering that Keith Obermann stated that the Republican argument only applies to 3% of all small businesses, then shouldn't the exception be a home run?

I honestly, eagerly await your specific reply.

It's time for people to start thinking for themselves rather than follow their parents party "just because that's what they've always been", and for those that have made an intellectual choice to re-evaluate through the lens of Liberty when voting for our "representatives":

lib·er·ty

noun \ˈli-bər-tē\

1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.

Ron Paul

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Thomas Jefferson

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Abraham Lincoln

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

John F. Kennedy

Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people.

John Adams

Liberty has never come from Government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it.

Woodrow Wilson

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

Alexis de Tocqueville

Give me liberty or give me death.

Patrick Henry

When I was in the Military I swore an oath that most politicians swear some variant of:

Here's the oath I swore: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Here is the purpose of the Constitution which I swore to defend:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We the people must put people in office that are wise enough to secure the blessings of liberty and that has nothing to do with voting your party, and everthing to do with researching the candidates positions on issues through the lens of Liberty.

@ Micky,

When I read that the answer to our economic problems is to institute higher tariffs I wonder if those who support that viewpoint have ever read any economic history. Beggar thy neighbor has never worked because, oddly enough, those nations then institute countervailing tariffs on the goods that we export. Tariffs have never and will never work.

That was true up until the point that we stopped manufacturing goods in this country. Once all manufacturing leaves this country then there is nothing left to retaliate against. At that point all you will have left is a tariff to sustain economic viability.

Tariffs didn't work in the past because we were a net exporter, and it would have hurt our manufacturing base, and economic condition of the time. And only in the last 20 years has economic Free Trade started to impact is economically. We are not losing jobs to Canada or Germany, it is the lower costs countries. I just got back from Guadalajara, Mexico, and ironically they are complaining that China is taking the jobs that NAFTA created, which took our jobs. China continues to dump low cost goods into this country, and US manufacturers continue to outsource jobs to manufacture those low cost goods.

When you lay off 1000 people in the US, you hire 1000 people in China manufacture andsupport the same US customer base, simply so that that original company can earn higher profits, allowing 10 people in that company to make more money, I find it appalling and poor economic strategy by Washington. And Washington supports the policy of outsourcing via Free Trade.

Nav John sorry to hear that you've been bitten by the outshorcing bug. Here's hoping that you've got another port lined up for the storm. You and John A sure do present your selves well and I do appreciate you'll taking a few minutes to stop by and share a thought or two. Hope you'll come on by and chat more often now you hear.

Now I see that somebody has collapsed old Rightvwrong up there. You'll need to cut that mess out. I come here to talk with everybody and I don't see where he called any body any names that we shouldn't be able to stand amoungst ourselves. Might not like what he has to say but he's got just as much right as I do to say it and I want to hear it even if you don't.

cdahl - a very interesting point about tariffs. I'd never thought about it that way.

What about the possible (probable) trade retaliations we'd face from other nations in the event that we do raise tariffs?

An interesting article about tariffs v. China: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/27/the-makings-of-a-trade-war-with-china.html

I'm guessing the answer to Corporacy maybe in part global unionization, not government taxes and intervention.

In this the workers for that particular industry have clout with the management of that industry to get a fair share of the profits of that company (as a return for their labor). This isn’t a redistribution of wealth, but rather a fair distribution of profits that is confined within a particular company or industry. I can agree that Management of a Mega Corp shouldn't be in the position of given themselves billions of dollars of "bonuses" while arbitrarily cutting jobs and lowering wages to boost their numbers.

But no matter how you slice this you lose me when you want a centralized government dictating how my earnings (completely unrelated to the mega corp above), should be redistributed via taxation to its workers because they don’t get their fair share (i.e. are more poor than I).

You people take the cake! Who signed NAFTA? Bill Clinton did! It was the work of the evil demoncraps! The same demoncraps that shot down everything that President Bush tried to get passed after he had to save the country from the incompetence of Wild Willie and his Wondering Winkie in the Oral Orifice getting nob when he should have been watching what was going on! Why don't you say anything about Clinton signing the bills DE-REGULATING the banks and the insurance industry? These are all issues that came back to bite us in the collective asses! Granted President Bush brought us into 2 wars that haven't been paid for, but, these should have been fought years ago when we had Sadam Huessein in our sights when papa Bush was in office and you demoncraps pulled back on the attack!

All that obama has done since taking over the White House after his wife said that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country for giving her hubby the go ahead to be the demoncrap's choice is to take more rights away from us! The stimulus - failure, Cash for clunkers - failure (just ask how many dealers got paid from the government) (if the people buying the cars didn't pay and the cars got repo'd the dealers not only didn't get paid but had to pay for the repo and the losses on the cars that were repo'd) Real goodly as our Arab friends would say! What about the obamacare that got passed in the middle of the night just like Daley closing Migs field in the middle of the night and in both cases the voting people were against it! But I could understand Daley's screw up because he did it when tensions were high right after 9/11 (for the safety of Chicago).

How could anyone vote for someone with the connections obama had with felons, and soon to be felons? As my mama always told me "you are only as good as the company you keep!"

For those of you that can't figure that out.......It means if you hang with criminals, you will be judged as one!

I don't understand why it is that you want few to work, and the working folks support the rest? Generations of people on the government cheese and no need to get a job as long as the government keeps paying me to do nothing but vote the way they want me to vote - I guess!

If socialized medicine is so great, why do all the people from non-democracy countries like Canada come flocking to the US for their medical needs? I'll save you the time and the need to take off your shoes to count to ten! It's because the best treatments in the world are right here in this country!

Manufacturing has been on the decline in the country for well over 20 years and we produce less and less each and every year! Then came NAFTA and we don't have anything being manufactured in this country that anyone outside this country wants!

I don't think that you folks up north are lazy and incompetent, you have just priced yourself out of a job. You allow your union heads, who don't seem to hurt during the bad economy to keep trying to bail you out. They don't really care about you, or you would all still be working. Business owners are in business to make money, not give it away. You all keep allowing the government to make your jobs for you, we will all be broke and looking like Cuba. Our laws protect the workers, unions don't need to be there anymore. Besides, there a plenty of lawyers that will take up your cause, especially if there is money to be made.

My question is, when the new Toyota, non-union plant opened a year or so ago, why did they get 10 times the amount of applications than a union plant did. Quit pricing yourselves out of jobs and you won't have to worry about them being shipped overseas. Keep allowing the government to control your lives and you will be puppets. But that is what the Liberals want to you be, voters to those who give handouts, not personally responsible citizens that can think for themselves.

First Thoughts: What change do voters want?

One hell of a time to be asking that question!

Does it really matter to this administration?

RightvsWrong : "Voters want rid of the lying, manipulative, unethical, and immoral democrats"

....I totally agree, we also want rid of lying, manipulative, unethical, and immoral GOPers, get the point? Perhaps you should change your name to RightisWrong.

BigBear 62 Grew up and worked South of the Mason-Dixon line all my life. Never been in a Union in my life. So you are just going to have to pardon me when I call B.S. on that old tired Union are responsible for all of societies ills routine. That tired old mess died with Reagan some folks just ain't caught up yet Simple fact of the matter is back in the prosperous times for the middle class unions represented about 25% of the working folks. They only represent 8% now so how can they be having such a terrible effect on the bottom line. Quit believing everything some Yahoo is telling you.

James #1.17; "I agree our congress needs to make insentives for keeping work here, but to whine and complain about outsourcing is not the right approach. The government shouldn't have any say on any company doing that. Name a company that is in the business to lose money!"

....When our government gives these outsourcing companies tax breaks for doing so, isn't that having a say in a company doing that? I think the tax incentives related to outsourcing are the major issue being brought up here. I agree we should not prohibit companies from outsourcing (as unpalatable as it might be), but why make it more attractive to them with tax policies that benefit them to the detriment of their domestic employees and the country overall. If the GOP is truly stonewalling an attempt to end these tax incentives, I would like to know why.

Borsiia: "Americans don't buy the best product or the Made in America product they buy the cheapest product almost every time. Even if it is only $1 cheaper they choose the product that is made in China, or some other country, over one made domestically"

...I would agree, but how much of that is due to the fact that the average (not wealthy) American is seeing his/her income shrinking (mine did, by 75% since 2001), and therefore is forced to become more cost conscious when shopping. Put more money in the Middle Class pockets, and things may change.

ANYTHING! And I mean ANYTHING would be better than the clusterphuck we have right now.

I have never been so embarrassed and appalled at the same time. Looking at the arrogant way in which this administration has ignored the American public, virtually doing the OPPOSITE of what the majority want, I feel like this was scripted long ago and they aren't budging an inch regardless of the obvious, long-term detrimental effects, to the very fundamentals that made us the greatest nation on earth.

I feel like I'm losing my country.

It's like a horrible RECURRING nightmare, only it's painfully real.

John #1.32,

....Thank you for a calm, rational discourse in the history of the American economic environment. Some people are very passionate about their feelings, and that is their right, but the angry diatribes and name calling accomplish nothing, with the possible exception convincing me never, ever to vote for the side they are supporting, and you know who you are!

There is enough blame to go around here folks! Pointing the finger at the "former administration" (please don't forget to include some of the sitting Dems in that blame) - blaming Fox news, blaming MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS. WE have problems and WE need to fix them.

I, for one, am sick of hearing political ads every day that basically say that so-and-so deserves my vote because this other so-and-so is (fill in the blank). How about one politician that treats their electorate with respect by telling them what they are proud of, what they've done for this country, or just speaking plainly to people about how they want to help. That doesn't happen. What does happen is negative campaigning, mud slinging and out-and-out lying to get into office.

I am tired of being treated like an idiot! Tired of the news (no matter what company), using small words and explaining things to me like I am a child. How about this....report the news. Just the facts, not editorializing, no spin, just the news.

I am tired of hearing about politicians that are elitists - both parties. Politicians that have been in office for decades, getting rich from kickbacks and lobbyists, running for re-elections after having not performed in their jobs. Someone could explain to me how guys like Harry Reid can be a millionaire after almost 30 years as a Senator with a salary of $193k? oh, investments, yeah, right...

I am tired of being looked down upon as some uneducated, misanthrope that needs to be told who to vote for. I am tired of being told "all is well" when I know that it is not. I am tired of working hard and still having to pay more to the IRS. I am tired of the general public being angry with capitalism. Since when is that a crime? I always thought that if you work hard, the reward is making your life good.

the problem is that most people in this country have been led to believe that "there ought to be a law" for everything. There shouldn't. This is a free country. but most people don't realize that freedom isn't free. Who do you think pays for the government entitlement programs - free cheese, food stamps, housing, school lunches, etc? The tax paying american public....not the 49% that got refunds in excess of what they actually paid.

Fix the tax code so we ALL pay our fair share. Fix the corrupt banking system so the banks don't control credit scores AND lending - talk about a conflict of interest. Fix this partisan system of legislation that includes pork in every bill and special interest.

There's a lot to be fixed and WE ALL need to work together to let OUR federal employees a.k.a. politicians know what WE want. What WE all want is for our country to prosper under a governmental system that works for us - for the common good. Not anecdotal examples of this one persons tragic situation here or there. Remember that your elected officials should work for us - not for lobbyist, special interests or unions.

@cantkeep

How can you come up with 18% when you can't even calculate it yet?

Don't have to, the insurance company conveniently put that in a letter after calculating it for us. And our rates have been increasing approx 10% annually. Yes it is a problem. Are the insurance companies blaming Obama to raise rates, of course. But answer this:

How can you take previously uninsurable (pre existing conditions), and those that don't have insurance, therefore unable to participate in preventitive medicine and actually support the statement that the rates for those that pay will go down? Will they go down, or will they be increased and passed to someone else?

How I run my company is my business and my choice, not yours. And being here 11 hours per day, not taking lunch allows me time between meetings and phone calls to reply on Newsvine for approx 1 hour during the day up until election time.

And just to be very clear. Our company is not suffering. In fact we went from 65 employees in 2008 to 112 the start of 2010. We currently have 105 and are not replacing those that have left. What I am stating is that as an S-corp, when you take my take home pay (paycheck) which is $175,000 (you still haven't met someone making $250,000) and add it to the pre-tax profits of 2009 (7.4M on 60M in revenue) I get put into the upper 1%. Because according to my IRS tax return you have to add my $175,000 and the 7.4M to get my persona earning of 7.575M. Meaning:

1. If you raise my taxes 3.9%, and the state is proposing 5% if the Dem wins the governorship, I will give myself a 8.9% raise. The first raise in 5 years, ever since we got under the thumb of the banks.
2. You will take 3.9% of 7.4M, or $288,600 out of our ability to hire, give bonuses and invest in equipment.
3. By keeping in the 7.4M in 2009, we did exactly what you and Obama wanted us to do. Invest in the economy. We hired people. We gave rasies. We bought inventory. We bought equipment. All four created jobs.
4. Why did we leave it in. Because during the depths of the recession, we not only increased sales nearly 40% over 2 years, but were able to get out of the banks, increase market share, eliminate debt, increase profits, and give our employees not only raises but security that we were not going to be a victim of the recession.
5. If what we did was so bad, then increase our taxes. If you disagree, then the Democrats should carve out exceptions for businesses like ours. And according to the Democrats, that should be no big deal because we represent only 2-3% of small business S-corps.
6. That way, if you really want to tax the rich 1%, tax me when I decide to take the money home. But stay away from the fuel of the economy for those of us that are creating the jobs.

What ought to really concern you is that I voted for Gore, Kerry and Obama. And now that I finally got a person in that I voted for I am disappointed in how little the Democrats understand about business, which ultimately drives the economy. I don't know whether or not I will re-vote for Obama. But if the election were held today, I would not. Because he hasn't shown me that he has the insite or ability to run a company, let alone the country.

Up thread a bit someone mentioned the rich paying most of the taxes again. To you and all other who think like you I say this. If you hold 80% of the wealth then you should be responsible for 80% of the taxes. It works both ways.

sybrbean,

Let me add one other very good Jefferson qoute: "Jefferson, March 4, 1801: Still one thing more, fellow-citizens — a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

A key section of that quote is "which shall restrain men from injuring one another", i.e., there is a need for some regulation of business for the protection of others. Jefferson neither liked nor trusted large banks for this reason, and if he were alive today, he would be no fan of Wall Street, and I wish he were still alive today, I would vote for him.

Tom Reston #1.62,

Amen to your response about the income/tax % discrepancies.

I believe it was Mickey who complained about the upper 1% of income earners paying 40% of the taxes. You have to be careful with numbers given to you, they can be almost an optical illusion, e.g. only 1% pays a whopping 40%. You need to understand what they really mean. A group of income earners is in the upper 1% because they have more income than the remaining 99%, but they pay only 40% of the taxes, while the remaining lower income people pay the other 60%. But if you have more income than 99% of the other people, shouldn't you also pay more taxes than the other 99%, instead of just 40%. So why is there a gap of 59%? See how much fun you can have playing games with numbers, as I admittedly just did. Be careful when people throw numbers at you, they can be contrived to distort reality very easily, think them through before accepting them.

I think that the wages of congressmen and the president should be based on the income of the citizens. Since congressmen have to provide themselves with a second home, they should have twice the average income of all American citizens. If the income of the wealthy skews the average too much, maybe it should be twice the medium income.

I think that the wages of the CEO and other high ups in a company should be related to the wages of all employees. It might vary some based on the size of the company. I can see a min. wage job for a limited training period but a person who puts in a 40 hour week should be able to maintain a home and pay for food, clothes (of the quality needed for work), and transportation. I would be willing to work for a lower wage if I had time to raise and can most of my food and make most of my own clothes than if I have to drive an hour or more to get to work and come home at 7:30 at night exhausted to a messy house and no supper waiting.

If the insurance companies (and the government for those who can't afford insurance) would pay for basic health care to prevent major problems from comming up, we would all save money on health care. That should include eye care and dental care. Lots of things could be prevented if cought early. Preventive health care should include education for all ages about the importance of a good night's sleep, a balanced diet, and regular exersize.

One thing that might make things from China more expensive would be for them to raise their standard of living. If everyone in the world expected to have good safe food, at least two new outfits to wear every year, health care, transportation, a home with indoor plumbing, a phone, electricity, a radio and maybe a TV and maybe a computer, things could be manufactured almost anywhere. Some things might be manufactured where the raw materials were and others where they were needed. Either way it would save on transportation costs.

One of the most important jobs of government is to provide an education for those who can't afford to go to privet school. Smaller class size would help. It would also help if parents showed more interest. Preschool would help for disadvantaged children. Some children need tutoring. Not every child learns in the same way. It would have helped me to have phonics. Maybe other children can learn to spell by memorizing. Teachers need to be trained to use a variety of methods. They need to be able to relate to each child as an individual with his or her own needs and strengths.

We do need to get rid of corruption in politics and get rid of the pork. There has always been some corruption. I have heard that it was the Democrats in NY at the time of Tammany Hall and Chicago until recently. The national scandals that I have heard of, it was the Republicans. We need to get rid of all of it.

I wonder how many of our problems today began with Nixon. Some people were so upset that he was forced to resign that they turned against all Democrats. Carter was a good man but not much of a politician. That set the stage for Regan. I was not old enough to really understand all that went on during the 60s and the 50s, but life was improving for so many people. It wasn't until the 80s that I heard of homeless people outside stories of the depression.

Well said Martha and you've highlighted one of the things that isn't working the way Conservative economics would have you believe. In theory the Chinese and other populations where jobs are moving to should become consumers, thus increasing the size of the economic pie and everyone benefits. In reality the wages paid to a child stitching sneaks in Malaysia are so depressed that they barely get away from scrounging for food in the garbage dumps. It's all being diverted to extra profit for those in the top few percent of the economic hierarchy.

you leftists are sooooo delusional. You are so f...d in Nov. you don't even realize!
Have fun, Commies!

Just to comment on a few comments earlier on this thread. I'm a heavy conservative. I support, you know... a smaller government role overall. All I want the government doing is the basic stuff:

National Defense, Education, Infrastructure Development and Maintenance, Politicaly represent me, Lay out trade and immigration policies, and to make and ENFORCE basic laws (no stealing, murder, rape, destroying stuff, extort, driving laws)

This other crap they're doing? Telling me I MUST have insurance, highly taxing commercial products cuz they're unhealthy, telling me what I should drive, what light bulbs to use, (hypocritical i swear, evironmentalists are against CO2 scrubbers. http://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/CO2_Scrubber) Healthcare? I don't want them to have anything to do with it. My own medical expenses are pretty damn high, but that's MY responsibility, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS.

To add to my 2nd paragraph, as far as trade and immigration policies go; I'm way against exportation of jobs, and whatever the hell we end up doing for immigration, we must ENFORCE IT!

K Chad

And what about the children? All the people whom have lost their job? Do they deserve to starve? And for the people who can't afford the rediculous cost of health care, do we force them to pay for the exuberant costs? THIS is the product of your economy.

As for your "evironmentalists are against CO2 scrubbers"... CO2 scrubbers don't solve the problem! You sit their with your CO2 scrubber on the side of your house and drive around in your hummer all day, thinking you broke even. Maybe you do, but it doesn't change the fact that we are burning fuel that is poison to the environment. A fuel that is also finite! Scrubbers don't solve anything.

I'm glad to see that atleast one of the repubs are against exportation of our jobs.

Ridiculous healthcare costs is the result of GOVERNMENT regulation, and exuberant lawsuits. It is NOT the result of a free market. Get real! Get rid of government involvement, and the healthcare will be affordable. Give the choice back to the people. The government has been involved long enough.

THIS is the product of a half assed hybridization of socialist and capitalist agendas. No more half-assed policies. If you liberal nuts want to live in a socialist society, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!

As for the scrubbers thing... if you truly believe that the world is going to end, shouldn't you be doing anything and everything to stop it? HONESTLY, your hippocracy is unbecoming! Environmentalists actually lobbied AGAINST this technology. AND, I do NOT drive a hummer. Sweeping generalizations do not belong here Aunrie.

I'm glad to see that atleast one of the repubs are against exportation of our jobs.

I think you'll find that most conservatives believe the exportation of jobs is bad (hence the 61% thing in the polls). It's the authoritarians in office that are making these decisions. Why do you think the tea party is so successful? It's because they have the support of the masses.

K Chad

Uh huh... Lawsuits indead. That is a product of free markets, greeding individuals whom feal that if they get a little cut, they deserve 1/4 million in compensation. Seriously, you think the cost of healthcare is all regulations fault? Without that regulation, the care would be subject to the corruptions of capitalizm. Everything would be cheap, techniques shady. If the hospitals didn't think the person could pay for the treatment, they'd just let them die! You want to live in THAT society? How about YOU go somewhere else!

And again, what about the children? Do they deserve death just cuz they were born? life, liberty and happyness.

Sweeping generalization do not belong here Aunrie

Says the person calling liberals 'nuts'.

As for scrubbers, again, it doesn't solve the problem! You can't just keep treating the symptoms and expect everything to be okay. You have to treat the source of the problem if you expect anything significant to happen. Same goes for the economy, and health care. Preventative medicine should be promoted more, coorperate and wallstreet greed should be eliminated. They got us into this mess, and you're counting on them to solve it? Rediculous!

Your ignorance goes beyond anything I've seen before.

I'm ignorant?

Lawsuits are a necessary tool. If you get your arm broken because of someone else, do you deserve to suffer because of it? And what do regulations matter if NO ONE CAN AFFORD THE CARE? In a pure capitalistic society, yes, everything would be cheap. You think that's bad? Seriously? If the techniques are bad, then you don't go to that doctor! Go to the one that started up across the street (cuz he probably started up to be competitive against the shady one.) When only the best survive in the industry, everyone wins. And AGAIN, payment won't be a major concern for hospitals when they have the option to treat emergency victims in a cheaper fashion. If they can shave 90% of the cost off of treatment while only sacrificing only a fraction of the effectiveness, then it's worth it! Laws can be put in place to protect hospitals, so long as they follow a strict protocol when it comes to reducing treatment methods (just in case someone dies from the lack of extra precautions).

As for the children, do you really think I'm THAT heartless? If I actually saw a child on the streets starving, I'd fricken help them! I'd give them some food, and try to support them to the best of my ability. Hell, I might even adopt if I'm in good enough economic shape! There are free market solutions to these problems Aunrie. Your precious government needs to but out and give our money back to us.

Talk about going to the root of the problem!?!? It's government spending and oversight that's the problem here! Not free market.

[coorperate and wallstreet greed] got us into this mess, and you're counting on them to solve it?

Do you REALLY think these people enjoy having THEIR money eroded away? They're loosing TONS of money in this economy too! If I had to count on anyone to help solve the economy, it WOULD be the people whom HAVE THE MONEY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. Unfortunately, with this new tax crap, soon no one will have the money to solve anything, the middle class will turn into the lower class, and the government will continue to be broke.

I would like to apologize. I'll try to keep personal attacks and sweeping generalizations to a minimum.

Ah, the Conservative fairy tale that everything is the result of too much regulation. If insurance were totally deregulated how much would it cost? What restrictions would the insurance companies put on their policies to get the costs to that level? How would an individual policy holder evaluate his coverage or seek redress if he felt he were cheated?

If I felt like I were cheated in a truly capitalistic society, then I would stop paying for insurance. Simple solution their.

Now lets talk about the new healthcare laws for a second. If I feel like I'm being cheated, can I stop paying? NO, cuz I'll get penalized for making a personal choice.

In a free market, companies make money by providing services that people want. In this society, companies make money by providing services that people think they need.

lol, oh really? How much conservative talk do you listen to K Chad?

Certainly more than you, but I don't listen to JUST conservative talk. I watched all the important speeches in the last elections, I kept asking questions to myself. In other words, I kept questioning what I believed in to make sure that I was voting in a way I could be proud of.

I could NEVER have voted for Obama, mainly cuz after EVERY SINGLE SPEECH, I always was left with the same question. "HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DO THAT?" He NEVER specified how he was going to 'solve' all of our societies issues. He just said he would do his best, and it would be hard, and "i'll reach across the isle", and "talk about the important issues".

The BIGGEST issue i had, was with his tax plan. It wasn't so much the fact that he was changing the taxes, but rather that i had absolutely no clue what he was going to do. HE didn't even know what he was going to pass! How the HELL can i plan my budget for the next few years if i don't even know what he's planning on doing? How can i vote for someone who wings it?

Psh, like i care about how you vote? This whole country is a joke. The people who need to be in control is the smartest of the smart. We don't need this political crap that goes on. Just put a group of the smartest in charge, and let them decide. Your "idea" of a good government is pathetic. It allows the idiots to run around thinking they can be millionaires. Reality check! Like, honestly dude! When's the last time you sat in a classroom? Most the people in these general education classes are morons. You want them voting on how this country should be ran?

Um... wow.

Hyper, you make K Chad seam rational.

Actually, K Chad, stay in this country. Hyper, please leave.

WTF? How is it rational to let broken idiots decide what to do about the economy? The only money i expect them to handle is at the cash register.

Um... wow.

Are you salivating at how right I am? I bet you can't believe how dumb you've been all your life. Glad i could be an enlightening figure in your life.

For once, i think we agree Aunrie.

Hyper

Are you kidding me? Get over yourself you fricken marxist.

Let me take you through this slowly.

In your capitalism. Its the smartest and strongest and best who thrive right? You above all people should understand the value of having the smartest run this country. And Aunrie (how the hell do you pronounce that?), these people of intelligence replacing those imbeciles in office is a good thing, especially for your little socialist experiment. We're talking organization on a national level. Unemployment of 0%, everyone gets food because we can finally keep track of it. Border control, and all jobs in the US restored to it's citizens. No more importing Chinese crap. The government can finally do what it's supposed to do without the idiot party system's lame duck, partisan crap. Just progress.

Your view of human excellence is on the verge of disillusion. Capitalism takes human nature (referred to by the left... and you as greed) and turns it into a force for progress. Your communist, fascist... totalitarianist society relies on the excellence of a very few people. We VOTE in order to even out the corruptions. So that the corruptions of the few do not out way the good of the many.

What good is the thumb sucking good of the many if they're all idiots? You have this bizarre, rosey view of humanity being good in large numbers. The only reason humanity has survived as long as it has is cuz it is so absurdly good at killing things.

You have this bizarre, rosey view of humanity being good in large numbers.

You truly scare me Hyperiox. There is something severely wrong with you if you have this type of distaste for humanity.

Wrong Hyper,

The reason we, humans, have survived so long is because we are extremely adaptive to change. Well, most of us.

K Chad

Continueing on with our ability to adapt to change. The times are changing. The world is changing. We, as a society NEED to adapt to a new environment. We need to take care of eachother.

Aunrie Z.

I trust private industry to adapt to change more than a bloated government. We have no argument in principle. We definitely need to take care of each other as a species... but we, as a country, need to get our act together, and restore the power to the people.

survival of the fittest

damn strait it's the survival of the fittest. First intelligent words I've heard in this thread.

Have fun with your Social Darwinism. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/evolit/s05/web1/mheeney.html

Go to any freshman Statistics class in college and they'll tell you that one of the first reasons that opinion polls are not scientific measures of anything is the fear by respondents that the person or people conducting the survey will pass judgements against them.

Given the way being a liberal and watching MSNBC have been demonized, is it any wonder the numbers are low?

The numbers are most likely higher than that but folks don't want to admit it.

Wrong. I watch MSNBC in the evening for facts and for information not provided on MSM news, I watch it because the evening lineup is a combination of journalistic research, historical perspective, views, and humor. It is impossible to categorize individuals into neat little compartments. I am a moderate liberal with some very liberal beliefs and some conservative beliefs.

dangerfield:

I'm embarrassed for you. You do realize that the folks who were polled were asked to rate themselves, right?

Only an idiot could consider Sarah Palin to be intelligent. Some of those idiots consider themselves to be "conservative". Get a grip. They're totalitarians and knuckle-draggers.

If this percentage of "conservatives" were accurate there would be no way to explain America's descent into perpetual debt. But you see, there is an explanation. A substantial percentage of those who call themselves "conservative" are NOT conservative; stupid perhaps, but assuredly not conservative.

Additionally, the assessment apparently makes no allowance for someone who might self-identify as fiscally conservative but socially liberal.

Every time I hear the assertion - typically from the right - that America is generally conservative, my gag reflex kicks in. We have now completed a half-century of the wildest government spending, at ALL levels, in America's history. Conservative? Really?

This quote of yours is simply too much: "So 8% consider themselves VERY LIBERAL and 8% watch MSNBC...That makes sense, as that is where the "news' is slanted towards that leaning." That may make sense to you dangerfield, but there isn't a Statistician worth his salt who would make such a ridiculous assertion.

Jody;

Touche' You make a great point. I also watch MSNBC from Keith, Rachael and now Larry to get facts from those that are still journalists. There is a problem when 40% or better do not even know who is Vice-President. Apathy is the Nation Killer and we are infected with it big time.

People just refused to believe the truth and rather take the easy way out by doing nothing, and then these will be the same people that will complain later.

Thank you for feeling embarrassed for ME.That is mighty generous of you...That you KNOW that "only an idiot could consider Sarah Palin intelligent" says as much about you and your attitudes as any poll.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but judging others' intelligence based on their opinion of someone you are biased against pegs you as the worst kind of self-anointed "authority" and makes your assessment here look pretty silly. I apologize, make that VERY silly...

That is what my post was about after all, ME, so critiquing ME over the POLL numbers I quoted FROM THE SAME POLL THAT IS THE GENESIS OF THIS THREAD makes good sense.

This quote of yours is simply too much: "So 8% (IN THE POLL) consider themselves VERY LIBERAL and 8% (IN THE POLL) watch MSNBC...That makes sense, as that is where the "news' is slanted towards that leaning." That may make sense to you dangerfield, but there isn't a Statistician worth his salt who would make such a ridiculous assertion.

So, be Woody Allen-Pull Marshall McLuhan (google him) from behind the movie poster and show me just how ridiculous my observation is...or just recede back into the 8%...

Wanna dispute the POLLSTERS modalities? I suggest calling them.

sts

Dangerfield, I have a challenge for you. Get your dictionary and look up the meaning of conservative and liberal. Then come back here and honestly tell us which definition is most closely aligned with yours.

Keith and Rachel DO NOT give the President a pass on everything. If you think so then you don't regularly watch either of them. They are both smart, erudite and extremely thorough in their research.

They have been so harsh on the President regarding certain issues that I’ve had to turn the channel. To paraphrase VP Biden “whiners on the left are bringing the Party down because they didn’t get everything they wanted in the first 20 months”.

While Keith and Rachel are not whiners they occassionally provide a forum for those who are from time to time. I don't fault them for that because it is their perogative and provides for some objectivity.

If all the journalists on cable would take a page out of their book we would all be better informed.

Mo-

Thanks for the advice, but I will define myself if that's okay with you;

I'm an adult, moderate, liberal democrat, which puts me in the 50 percentile of those in the poll and those in the country. Most here are in the 8% who see themselves as VERY LIBERAL and attack anyone who isn't in 100% agreement with them, alienating moderates and independents daily.

You cant' say the 8% liberal & 8% market share of MSNBC are the same people. Almost everyone I know who votes conservative watches both sides of the media to form their own opinion. It's like all of the accusations of "you must get all of your news from Fox" you see on newsvine on a story linked to msnbc. I just have to shake my head in shame of the evolution of human thought every time I see that.

Anyone who refuses to watch a media source simply because it tells a side of the story they don't agree with (and, therefore, must demonize on content of something they don't watch) is setting themselves up to be told what to think by journalists. If half of what you watch doesn't fall into the category of "I disagree" or "no opinion", you're watching biased media and being told what to think.

Dangerfield:

But while this probably makes the folks at MSNBC and some here happy, it is troubling that the administration is becoming more like the Bush white house in their insulation...

If you think the fact that an Obama spokeman complimented Maddow and Olbermann is equivalent to Dick Cheney's insane demand that all TVs in his presence be tuned to Fox, you have no sense of proportion. Besides, both Olbermann and Maddow are often critical of Obama. Maddow gave Ambassador Holbrook a VERY hard time last night about the drone attacks in Packistan, which Fox viewers probably don't know much about because it doesn't fit with their narrative of Obama being a secret Muslim.

You also seem to assume that the 8% who identify themselves as very liberal are the same 8% who get most of their news from MSNBC. That's a very bad assumption with no basis that I can see in the statistics reported in this poll. Many if not most of those who consider themselves "very liberal" may be getting most of their news from the "very liberal" bloggers who are bashing Obama and not from MSNBC. How do you know they are not?

Dangerfield:

Most here are in the 8% who see themselves as VERY LIBERAL

You're making another claim you cannot back up. I do not consider myself "very liberal," as just as other people don't who have responded to your baseless claim. I consider myself a moderate liberal and am perfectly OK with big companies making big profits as long as they're making some contribution to the country that justifies their profits. It's true that I don't like some of Obama's national security policies and I now think the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting. But those are not "very liberal" positions, since a lot more of the public think the same way. Even George Will is opposed to the war in Afghanistan, now.

I'm a Liberal I guess although I consider myself sort of Conservative. I watch Faux News for a good laugh and to see what brainwashing is being fed to the morons on a particular day. The rise of Faux News and the TeaParty is the main reason why I'm motivated to vote every election.

I guess statistically, I should be a Republican't, but I just can't bring myself to do it.

I don't hate successful people. I consider myself to be successful. But that doesn't make me so selfish that I can't see the value in paying taxes and helping those less successful. I don't want to live in a country with huge disparities in wealth and income. Consider this:

From 1980 to 2005, more than 80 percent of total increase in Americans' income went to the top 1 percent. Economic growth was more sluggish in the aughts, but the decade saw productivity increase by about 20 percent. Yet virtually none of the increase translated into wage growth at middle and lower incomes.

All my life I've heard Latin America described as a failed society (or collection of failed societies) because of its grotesque maldistribution of wealth. Peasants in rags beg for food outside the high walls of opulent villas, and so on. But according to the Central Intelligence Agency , income distribution in the United States is more unequal than in Guyana, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and roughly on par with Uruguay, Argentina, and Ecuador. Income inequality is actually declining in Latin America even as it continues to increase in the United States. Economically speaking, the richest nation on earth is starting to resemble a banana republic. The main difference is that the United States is big enough to maintain geographic distance between the villa-dweller and the beggar.

Don't assume that because I see value in helping others that I want what you have. Since I've chosen to live in a country that espouses values of looking out for the underpriveleged, because that's what makes a nation great, I will vote to see that selfish people like yourself are forced to give their fair share by taxation, if necessary.

Houston!

You are free to define yourself as you see fit, without apology or rationalization.

If you don't realize that this blog, MSNBC the cable channel and those who call themselves the "community" here are representative of the liberal fringe, that 8-10% on both ends of the political spectrum that is the most dogmatic and inflexible, there is little to discuss.

again, this blog reassembles the Clift quote to a "T"

"...outsiders and bad news not welcome"

Olbermann is a journalist? That's funny - I always thought he was a failed sportscaster who went on to do something easier, like speak down to Democratic sheep.

You forgot to include Stewart and Colbert. That would probably balance your numbers.

agent214

...and Houston!,

This guy would probably fall into the other 10% fringe on the right.

It's sad to me how all the Party lemmings on both sides are quick to point to FOX and MSN. Just step back and think about that for a moment.

Is the definition of your party affiliation and beliefs dictated by a propaganda machine? These people need to forget all the petty squabbling over each issue, until they have evaluated the core ideology that is the foundation of these two dysfunctional parties.

@cdahl

Tariffs didn't work in the past because we were a net exporter, and it would have hurt our manufacturing base, and economic condition of the time. And only in the last 20 years has economic Free Trade started to impact is economically. We are not losing jobs to Canada or Germany, it is the lower costs countries. I just got back from Guadalajara, Mexico, and ironically they are complaining that China is taking the jobs that NAFTA created, which took our jobs. China continues to dump low cost goods into this country, and US manufacturers continue to outsource jobs to manufacture those low cost goods.

Whether or not we are net exporters as a country isn't germane. We export any number of products and it is to those that tariffs would be applied. We are currently having a trade dispute with China in which tariffs of up to 150% are going to be applied to the export of chickens from the U.S. (I hesitate to mention China since I'm afraid that will change the direction of the discussion.) In any event, that's what happens when you try to protect domestic industries with tariffs. Other nations respond.

Dangerfield:

You are free to define yourself as you see fit, without apology or rationalization.

How generous you are.

If you don't realize that this blog, MSNBC the cable channel and those who call themselves the "community" here are representative of the liberal fringe, that 8-10% on both ends of the political spectrum that is the most dogmatic and inflexible, there is little to discuss.

I think it's kind of fringey for you to insult the majority of people who post here as being on the fringe, and then expect them to take you seriously. The real "liberal fringe" hates Obama almost as much as you seem to, alfhough apparently for different reasons. Moderate liberals didn't expect him to get everything on the progressive wish list, and might even view it as a bad thing if the more extreme liberals ever got EVERYTHING they wanted. There are few people here who fit any rational definition of an extreme liberal, although quite a few people seem surprised that they fit YOUR definition.

Bev: I can hardly keep up with you. You are on fire today. You are saying what needs to be said...and you said it well.

Excellent post, Beverly. It is beyond me how the very people who claim they want their country back, back from where? It didn't go anywhere. They have no concept that those who disagree with them prefer a different vision of wanting their country back. Fear drives republicans and I keep wondering why they are so afraid of everything. Life is too short to spend it being afraid of things that go bump in the night.

Bev:

Go girl you on a roll. Their is no time line. A time line implies that you have a plan, and the "Pledge to America" what I call the "Roadmap for the Destruction of the Middle Class", does not have one other than repeating the failed Agenda of the previous administration.

They spout all the flowery words but when asked for specifics and how they are going to accompolish them (the plan), they have no idea. None what so ever.

And the ones they hint at will drive the deficit to a Trillion Dolars MORE than the one proposed by President Obama. These people have no shame and in my opinion are pure hypocrits.

Ron

Thank you I try; but you know Independent Redneck Va. knocked it out the box when she spoke about --the Senate GOP blocks bill that would promote less outsourcing!!

I can't even fathom how the Chamber of Commerce, the GOP, and the billionaire Koch Brothers who have funded Dick Armey's fake Tea Bagger outrage with slogans and tens of millions of dollars

In fact, there is no comparison to what happened yesterday. How does insatiability, exploitation, poor education, greedy corporations, and shipping jobs over seas represent American values?

Interestingly, though, these perceived greedy hypocritical fears are all brought to you via Dick Armey, Karl Rove, the billionaires club, and the Koch brothers. I mean all these nonsensical things are in the signs of today; not American values. Outsourcing is the thing because it's cheap labor and tax loopholes for the greedy exploiters.

Sorry but the entire OP can be rewritten with just a few words changed to describe the left. Politics-as-usual are what I'm against. I don't want a Republican majority in Congress or Senate, but I want at LEAST 50% (I'd settle for exactly 50%) so there's no more closed door meetings that disregard the REPRESENTATIVE I elected to REPRESENT me. Pelosi and Reid have made it perfectly clear they do not want any bills to pass before them that interest me.

I want 50% so it is no longer possible to pass bills that haven't even been read. I want 50% so the president will get off his high horse and playing the blame game with unprovable talking points like how 40 seats of Republicans kept the 60 seat Democrats from passing bills in his first 18 months. I'm tired of being talked down to and ignored and so are the other ~80% who disapprove of Congress. I am NOT a racist, bigot, sexist, Islam killer, or Mexican national hater. I DON'T want people who are uninsured to die, the poor to starve, Grandma to have Social Security yanked out from under her, or be told I must purchase insurance under penalty of law as a solution to the cost of insurance. THESE are the reasons why I, as an independent who believes in the laws of this land that were written by BOTH parties through our history, cannot vote Democrat this November. I'd vote for 50 Ross Perot clones if they could run for Congress.

THIS is the runaway train that has taken the country out of the hands of the voters that we must take back.

THis whole blog is nothing more than a cheerleading forum for the SAME people over and over again. It seems the same people are just talking to each to stoke each one's ego. ie(excellent post, by god you're on fire, whew you really said it, etc....lol) then one even has the audacity to accuse Republicans of sloganeering.....lol WTF is all of the fake compliments if not slogans?

All of you need to get off of your lazy azzez and get a job and stop living to get on a blog to complain.....what a waste.

And ITM illustrates IR's point perfectly.

Jealous ITM? Tough.

STTS

I couldn't agree with you more "inthemiddle." It's the same group over and over again just waiting for an article to come out. I think you're correct, they must not have jobs, just hanging on the computer all day. Maybe they belong to the new group that calls themselves the "99ers." The 99ers have been collecting unemployment checks for 99 weeks. Pretty damn pathetic!! There are jobs out there, but god forbid if they're $5 of what they were making, they will not take it. Again "PATHETIC" So, if your all fired up and ready to go, get out there and find a job!!

ITM: First Read is a bit like your radio. If you don't like the music, you can turn it off.

Way to go, Ron! Love your post, keep it up. LOL! ITM--take Ron's advice--go elsewhere (Fox Noise).

xxFEDUPxx - to use your words, you are pretty damn stupid.

Good Morning Jody: I wish we had your senator Tom Harkin. A progressive in a somewhat conservative state who is much like "Mr Smith" (goes to Washington). He speaks truth and will fight to change cloture rules. Well written and thoughtful comments.

BTW, are there any (many) ads up opposing Grassley? Or is the Dem candidate waiting until the last two weeks? In Indiana Ellsworth has yet to run an ad in Southern Indiana, yet I know Bayh gave Ellsworth money that was left in Bayh's campaign chest.

Our President gave a great speech in Madison, Wisconsin. He is coming to Iowa isn't he?

Great post.

No, Ron. Not many campaign ads by Roxanne Conlin but plenty from Grassley. He has a 30 point lead in the polls. Conlin just does not have the money to compete but I expect she will be running more ads later this month. I would very much like to see Conlin win but Grassley is the "farmer" who manages to convince voters he really has their best interests at heart. I still see a good number of letters to the editor pointing out his hypocrisy. Like many democrats, they're saving their campaign dollars for those lost two weeks.

One thing about Conlin, I have contributed to her campaign several times. I always get a thank you note from her campaign.

Harkin is Iowa's best senator, at least we have one from each party. I hope he can get his filibuster legislation passed.

Forgot, President Obama arrived in Des Moines late last night after Madison. Wow, that was a huge crowd and a great speech. Let's hope those young voters realize that this election is as important as 2008. Change doesn't happen in 2 years.

"Yesterday, the Senate republican obstructionists blocked by filibuster vote legislation that would provide tax incentives for companies who create jobs in the United States. What a novel idea, instead of providing tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas, the democrats tried to provide incentives for those who keep the jobs here. The US Chamber of Commerce was against this legislation, big corporations were against this legislation. Republicans were against this legislation. The republican obstructionists ruling the Senate may not quite be a "corrupt junta" but they are getting close."

Where was the press coverage on this? Looks like the News Media is also a card carrying member of that "corrupt junta". People need to hear, see, and read what the Republicans in Congress are up to, but the powers that be have no intention of letting that happen, what kind of society is it when a small group of wealthy Corporatist types write all the laws, have all the wealth, and dictate what information is released to the public by the News Media? I can tell you what it ain't, it sure as hell has nothing to do with Democracy.

Jody -

The filibuster will be the death of our Congress and Senate in our Country. No matter which party is in power, now or in the future it will be used, by both parties to shut down our government. There goes Democracy as we have ever known it. Both parties will become parties of NO. We, as a Nation, will cease to exist. If we expect our Nation to continue to survive, we must put an end to the filibuster option. How can we allow ONE person to shut down a Country of 300,000,000 people. God help us.

I am a moderate liberal and I can't stand Nancy Pelosi's personality. But, I think she is a highly effective leader and she has done tremendous good for our country. Polls measure "popularity," not achievement. Most importantly, no one votes against their own representative just because they aren't fond of the Leader.

CA Tom,

Right on. Amazing that Dimwit would even brag about that. The last time the government was shut down it cost the American people 800 Million Dollars and it did not work in favor of the republicans that did it. Ask the Newt.

The republicans are so far out of the real world they may qualify as a planet unto themselves.

Jody, Iowa

Republican Senator Jim DeMint has declared that all legislation must be approved by him prior to consideration by the other 99 senators. It seems DeMint has determined that his Tea Party success propelled him to be the senate minority leader of the Senate. It other words, Senator DeMint has declared himself to be Senate Dictator.

First of all, Jim DeMint's name is derived from a tribe in South America which means crazy or demented.

He came to prominence as perhaps the most outspoken opponent of the Obama agenda and health care in particular. The senator has argued Republicans should make President Obama's effort to remake the nation's health care system into his "Waterloo."

The media leaves off the part of his quote "It will break him". His low information ruby red state, he knows, will get delirious with the "it will break him" declaration. "It will break him" goes back to plantation owners doing corporal punishment to slaves including death to the disobedient slave.

Frederick Douglass spoke of it in his autobiograhy "Life and Times of Frederick Douglass"

In 1833, Thomas Auld took Douglass back from Hugh after a dispute ("[A]s a means of punishing Hugh," Douglass wrote). Dissatisfied with Douglass, Thomas Auld sent him to work for Edward Covey, a poor farmer who had a reputation as a "slave-breaker." There Douglass was whipped regularly. The sixteen-year-old Douglass was indeed nearly broken psychologically by his ordeal under Covey, but he finally rebelled against the beatings and fought back. After losing a confrontation with Douglass, Covey never tried to beat him again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass#Life_as_a_slave

Or one can pick up any history book on Black history and will see a lot more than the paragraph many people saw of slaves picking cotton.

Jim DeMint's home state, much of which is poor and rural, faces some particular challenges. Its unemployment rate of 11.8 percent exceeds the national rate of 9.4 percent. And 16.2 percent of the population has no insurance, more than the national average of 15.3 percent according to NYT.

Yet Demint wants shut down government to deny his base unemployment, Medicare, food stamps, education, small busiess loans; and most of all, no jobs to avoid this poor lifestyle.

BOoooo!

I understand why successful people run for the Senate and then leave after a few years---they think they are going to accomplish something and then find that they belong to an out-dated institution run by archaic rules that make no sense and nothing gets done. It is maddening to think that the important work of the nation goes undone while self-important senators put "holds" on legislation, refuse to hold hearings for qualified judicial appointments and threaten to filibuster every piece of legislation that comes before them. No wonder the American people are disgusted with them. And I would say the same thing if the Republicans were in the majority and the Democrats were pulling these stunts.

"The last time the government was shut down it cost the American people 800 Million Dollars and it did not work in favor of the republicans that did it. Ask the Newt."

If only it were true, USN, if only it were true. The Newt's head is so big he's now convinced that shutting down the government was a success and he's one of the voices calling for a repeat! Conservatives are guilty of believing their own propaganda, and that way lies trouble. Republicans of the "Reagan Revolution" knew their rhetoric overreached and they needed to compromise. That's why even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he had to, negotiated with Communists, and compromised repeatedly in order to continue with the business at hand. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/10/even-reagan-wasn-t-a-reagan-republican.html

Today's Conservatives have gone so far afield they're rewritten the history to paper over the inconsistencies. They are pure ideologues, and our nation suffers as a result.

Jody, this topic should be talked about every day on every news outlet, you are spot on with your comments, as well as California Tom!!!

The senate is going to end democracy, if one senator can stop all legislation for any reason, then we basically have a one person dictatorship which shuts the government down!

Remember libertarian/ tea party types want small government, well this will give them what they want, no government, from their viewpoint problem solved!

I say go to Somalia , if you want no government, see how that works for ya!!

BTW what does sts or stts mean, I see this posted alot, and don't know what it means, will somebody help an old guy out?

Jody,Iowa----great post! The rules must be changed to allow the President to push for and obtain the changes that we the people elected him to do. The minority party LOST the election, they should not be given the chance to obstruct and dictate the agenda! They had their chance and we the people voted for a new direction. One disgruntled Senator and a minority party cannot be allowed to dictate to the rest of us! They don't have to suffer any consequences for their actions and therefore should not be able to run the show. They have set out from the start to make sure that the duly elected administration fails at any cost! The problem is that it is the entire country that loses, not just a political party! What could have been accomplished has been greatly diminished and will not produce the results that were possible. We need to return to the way it was intended to be, simple majority rules. Stop the insanity!

Louis J.

Excellent, right on. Could not say it better. I think the republicans are terrified that our President has and will continue to help this country. This is starting to look like their last stand to turn us into a Banana Rebublic where this country will be run by the Billionaires and the hell with everbody else.

The rebublicans vote against every bill that has anything to do with creating jobs and then complain that our President has not created any jobs? Hypocrisy in motion.

Loius L and US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

President Obama broke the mould of ignorance and intolerance. He is part of the dream that Martin Luther King Jr. had.

So true, now if only the hate talker Glenn Beck could get in the groove. I have to judge Glenn Beck by the content of his character.

Maybe, I should have mercy on Glenda; especially when s/he start crying, although I am not qualified to diagnose Glenn Beck, I would be willing to bet he has a Dissociative Identity Disorder (multiple) Personalites disorder; just like Sybil.

Glenn Beck kills me when one of his alter egos wants to turn this country into a theocracy; which, btw, conflicts with what Glenda says is in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

Did anyone see where O'reily said on Comedy Central Glenn Beck can't be available for interview beacause is keep in a sealed room?

Okay that was my thought...I was embittered more than a wee bit when the President gave his State of the Union address and all the Republicans refused to stand or to clap...like they were all in detention...outright defiance, it showed blatent disrespect...I was truly ashamed

but my thoughts lean towards that until we fix the big money machine that flows to our representatives and Senate from lobbyists and big interest groups it doesn't seem to matter who gets to sit in "The Big Chair" nothing is going to be really changed for the common man.

People ask how rich does the rich man have to be? It isn't about having enough cash for your great grand children anymore it is about power and the more money you have the more power you get.

What the money is buying now is media and polsters pitting american people against each other and their own interests, locking us into hurtful, angry words. Deprecating remarks that belittle and insult. Hateful speach that I would be ashamed to think much less lobb at a difference of opinion openly.

Bring back rational thought and treat each other with more respect and that will be a great start to some positive change for all of us.

beverly, navy and louis - Did any of you break your arm patting yourself on the back?

Martin Luther King was a far better man than obama, far better. obama isn't fit to stand in his shoes let alone be compared to him.

Never did realize that 'comedy central' was a viable spokesman for political commentary. Be better off listening to CBS and ABC.

Navy and IR: Hard to say which post I enjoyed the most. So you both win the post of the day. You both make Democrats proud with your use of facts and insight. The opposition has neither.

US Navy: For these reasons and others I will not vote Republican

So you'll vote Democratic to support the 9.6% (and rising) unemployment rate, the massive trillion dollar yearly deficits that our children and grandchildren will pay, the continuing to fail housing market that breaks bankruptcy records every month, the non-existent illegal immigration policy (except to sue states that try to do something about it), a trillion dollar government run health care program that no one wanted, and failed bailouts on top of bailouts (just like the latest one for small businesses).

If that's what you support, more power to you. But you are in the extreme minority.

Looks like you struck a nerve there Retired with JoAnna... lol

I'm with you... I wouldn't VOTE for a Republican for Dog Catcher!

We should ALL know better by now than challenge her fiction with some concrete FACTS!

Nice Work!

JoAnna:

As Ronnie Reagan would say, "There you go again". Without facts (factless) and feckless.

JoAnnaSmith1

Retired i'm with you,

what Joanna does not UNDERSTAND is that to vote republican is a vote for the policys that caused everything in Joanna response. the High unemployment was caused by republicans policys, along with the banks, the housing market, and Retired Joanna seems to believe that we had no deficets when Obama took office, she seems to believe that all of our deficets were caused by Obama, but there were not. also Retired, what failed bailouts is she talking about, GM and chrysler are on the way back, they are calling back workers layed off 2 years ago, ford is turning profits, wall street is back, and the banks are solvent again, what the heck is she talking about. i think her coffee is way too strong this morning.

Retired,the Funniest part is that she is complaining about massive trillion dollar defiects, if i'm not mistaken but back in the 80s when our deficets were twice as much and liberal were screaming about the deficets, the republicans party, the party that she is all behind, told everybody conserned that

DEFICETS DON'T MATTER!!!!!

they said this from 1982 till 1993, when a democratic president said he was raising taxs to bring the deficets down, the republicans party was up in arms. they said we can't raise taxs during resession. well he raised taxs and from 1994-2000 we created 23 million jobs,

Now retired i ask you, what sane person would vote republican given there track record on deficets and tax cuts for the rich that don't create jobs and broke us back in the 80s and again from 03-08. please tell me!!!!

Great post, US Navy. I saw that interview with Craig Fritsche; he liked the legislation and was glad it passed but I wonder if he realized it was GOPers who voted NO. Once again, the disconnect between conservative ideology and the reality of that conservative legislators are actually in the back pockets of the powerful big business and not the "real" small businesses like Tart.

Joanna,

Again, in my opinion, as with most of your posts, no new ideas, just talking points. Lady you are without facts (factless) and feckless.

Have a great day.

Ron, Indiana - As Ronnie Reagan would say, "There you go again". Without facts (factless) and feckless.

So Ron, what is the current unemployment rate? What is the rate of deficit spending? What is the Obama illegal immigration policy? How well is the housing market doing? What is the current rate of health care cost increases? Lets hear your facts Ron? Of course you have none, none that differ from reality.

Biden is so correct. You Leftists are nothing but a bunch of whiners.

Navy: Again, in my opinion, as with most of your posts, no new ideas, just talking points. Lady you are without facts (factless) and feckless

Yeah, I guess I don't copy and paste enough articles here for your liking, you know, like you do. You still plagiarizing those articles as your own, or are you giving the proper credit to the real authors of what you have claimed to be your work?

Who else is dizzy from all the spinning JoAnna's doing this morning?

There are plenty of FACTS up on this board already this morning... that are obviously either not read or ignored!

All of this demand for facts is nothing more than a waste of time & distraction...

Gotta side with the guys on this one... you are indeed factless & feckless!

Feisty Redhead: All of this demand for facts is nothing more than a waste of time & distraction...

You are so correct Feisty. It's getting late in the election cycle game, and the Democrats don't have anything positive to show for their efforts, so it's time for them and their supporters to get back to telling lies and spinning so they can try and salvage something from massive defeat they'll get in 34 days.

Feisty

Who else is dizzy from all the spinning JoAnna's doing this morning?

I think its mostly Ms JoAnnaSmith1

JoAnnaSmith1

Joanna if the republicans take control of the house or senate, it will not be the end of the world, you have heard of the power of a veto, and it take 2/3rd of the house to over ride a veto. i think the last time a veto was over ridden was when reagan vetoed a bill making martin luther Kings birthday a national holiday. it was over ridden and it became law, if the republicans repeal HCR and tax cuts that may expire, the president will veto it and the republicans will never get 2/3rd of the house to over ride it. so please stop this, world is coming to a end for the democrats. also Joanna you are forgetting the power of the tea party.

Beverly in Chicago:

Who else is dizzy from all the spinning JoAnna's doing this morning?

More spin for you Bev.

From the Boston Herald 2010-09-25:

A testy U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday blamed clueless voters with short attention spans for the uphill battle beleaguered Democrats are facing against Republicans across the nation.

“We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening,” Kerry told reporters after touring the Boston Medical Center yesterday. - Senator John Kerry 2010-09-24

So Bev, you okay with Senator Kerry calling the Democrat voters uninformed and ignorant?

And what slogan is the Senator talking about? Hope and Change? Yes We Can? Which? Maybe both?

Looking forward to your response. And have a nice day!!

Joanna reminds me of 'Tokyo Rose'... remember her? She was on the radio during WWII spewing all sorts of 'news' about the allies and how they are going down to defeat.

We all know how THAT turned out.

I challenge Joanna to put forth ONE non-partisan solution to a problem we have here in America - just ONE - that doesn't include bashing the Democrats. There has to be ONE solution that you can put forth that will be enough for us to debate or discuss without a partisan lens.

I truly don't think that she can.

I don't think that the e-mailed talking points from the GOP actually allow for persons like Joanna to actually THINK for themselves. I sincerely hope she proves me wrong.

So, Joanna, what is it going to be?

I see a new pattern forming this morning with certain 'paid by the word' posters who feel it necessary to share with us comments that have been made by Democrats the last few days about un-motivated liberal voters...

It has to be one of the most conspicuous attempts I have ever witnessed at trying to turn Democrat against Democrat!

Personally - I don't give a rats a@@ what they have to say to wake up and re-energize the base!

Ahhh... nothing like the smell of right wing desperation first thing in the morning... lol

Pietro: an excellent challenge this morning, but I doubt you will hear from her. It would be a difficult task for her since she has shown no interest in doing anything but tearing down the country...well that, and personal attacks against other posters, which she seems to "forget" is a violation of the COH. But, I am sure she will own up and apologize. We all know her level of honesty and insight.

Jeff - A very reasoned post gets a reasoned response.

No doubt any majorities the GOP gets in Congress will be thin at best. In the House, the GOP may have, a 10 vote majority. In the Senate, at best, a 2 vote majority.

The world is coming to end though, for the Progressives. The time for the most liberal President and liberal Congress in modern times ends in January. You see the panic in Obama who is trying to whip the Progressives into shape to attempt to retain both houses in Congress. Obama is lecturing his base voters to get out and vote else they lose the chance to add to the very liberal give-aways Obama has gotten for them in the last 20 months. It does not look like Obama's efforts are working very well.

Jeff, the first order of business is to stop the run away train of the Progressives. That happens with this election, and we'll call that Step One. Obama did not run as a Progressive, but he has governed as one, and the American people are rejecting that agenda. Obama identifies himself with his Progressive base today, but going forward he'll have two choices 1) Stonewall the newly elected moderate Congress and risk losing in 2012 or 2) Work with the moderate Congress and have a chance at re-election in 2012. I doubt Obama, unlike Clinton, will be able to moderate his political position, it's not in his nature, so I expect him to veto nearly everything the Congress sends him. With that, America will reject him in 2012 like they are rejecting the very Progressive Congress in 2010, and we'll call that Step Two.

So you see Jeff, 2010 is just one step in the process. First the Congress, next the White House.

Pietro: I challenge Joanna to put forth ONE non-partisan solution to a problem we have here in America - just ONE - that doesn't include bashing the Democrats.

Pietro, why all the anger? Happy times are coming soon! After the election the Republican majority in Congress will join hands with Obama and declare they'll be oh so happy to work together. It will be a wonderful time.

You wanted a solution to a problem? How about the deficit? How about we do a 10% cut across the board for all programs, including Defense. Real cuts too, not cutting the growth of the programs. That would be a start to solving the deficit problem.

Now it's your turn.

C'mon Joanna, you have GOT to do better than that.

You wanted a solution to a problem? How about the deficit? How about we do a 10% cut across the board for all programs, including Defense. Real cuts too, not cutting the growth of the programs. That would be a start to solving the deficit problem.

What do you propose to cut and how are you proposing that we get that through Congress? Be specific and concise in your answer.

Your turn.

So the Republican agenda in its entirety consists of

-Defeat Democrats in Congress

-Defeat Barack Obama

Thanks for straightening that out.

Which is also funny Pietro, if Obama did, say, try to cut 10% out of the military budget, the next scream you would hear would be poor JS1 claiming that Obama was trying to destroy the military. Think she will make a more serious run at your question?

JS1, Senator Kerry wasn't calling just the Democratic voters uninformed, he was also talking about you. From your posts, it is obvious he has hit the nail on the head when it comes to your information level.

John B:

That is called Politics.........

That is the same mantra the Democrats used to defeat Republicans.

All of the Bush bashing just hardened the base over those years. I said it in here years back that the Democrats were going to reap what they sow. I knew all of that bashing was going bite democraps in the azz.

Pietro:

JoAnna aka "Selfish Redhead" gets her "facts" from Faux News...so she is factlless and feckless. In the world of Fauz News, there is no difference between opinion and hard, solid facts.

Joanna

So you see Jeff, 2010 is just one step in the process. First the Congress, next the White House.

what history has taught us and that is during the midterms the incombent party always looses seats. this is not something that is new, in reagans and clintons case they retained the white house. in 1982 people voted against reaganmonics, in 1994 they voted against HCR, this time its worse because we got HCR. only time will tell, in reagans case the jobs started coming back in 1983 and he won a landslide in 1984, with clinton it was about the same, the jobs came back and he won a landslide. policys put in to place by both of these president took 2 1/2 years to take affect.

If the jobs start to come back say next year, and people are working, Obama will get his second term, Now please tell me, are you hoping the jobs will not come back so he can't get his second term, or do you want the jobs to come back, because if they do, president Obama will win in 2012!!!

Pietro - How quick and how obvious you are in YOUR partisanship.

You asked for a solution. I gave you one. I asked you for a solution. You gave nothing. Now you ask for more. Sorry, it's still your turn.

And it's not a matter of wanting Congress to cut spending Peitro, it has now become a necessity. The People demand it. Or haven't you been paying attention to what the People have been saying?

How exceedingly odd. Now poor JS1 believes that she speaks for all THE PEOPLE!

Pietro:

JoAnna's game is to dodge, duck, give no answers, then say it's your turn. Like all tea partiers, she has no facts, no answers, no idea how to govern. STTS

Jeff - If the jobs start to come back say next year, and people are working, Obama will get his second term, Now please tell me, are you hoping the jobs will not come back so he can't get his second term, or do you want the jobs to come back, because if they do, president Obama will win in 2012!!!

Which brings us back to my original response. If Obama chooses to play ball with the Republican majority, the jobs will return, and thet will help in his re-election bid. If he chooses to veto most of the legalisation sent his way, jobs will not return, and he will lose in 2012. The country will get an immediate bump in the economy if/when a Republican majority is elected to Congress. By that very fact, the businesses of the country will know they have a buffer between them and the most antagonistic administration in modern times towards American businesses. The businesses will know that Obama can no longer back up his rhetoric against businesses with legislation from the current Progressive Congress, and that will be a plus for them.

Face some facts. Obama is very hostile towards businesses. The current Congress won't even do an up/down vote on what the tax policy for businesses will be come January 1st. That makes for more uncertainty for businesses. There will be a vote when Republicans are in control and businesses will know what they are on the hook for wrt taxes. Obama can choose to sign or veto that legislation. His choice. Either way, he will be held accountable for it.

You asked for a solution. I gave you one. I asked you for a solution. You gave nothing. Now you ask for more. Sorry, it's still your turn.

And it's not a matter of wanting Congress to cut spending Peitro, it has now become a necessity. The People demand it. Or haven't you been paying attention to what the People have been saying?

Joanna, since we are just talking here, don't you think that I have the right to ask you to CLARIFY your very broad and vague answer to my question? Do you call THAT answer a 'solution'?

I challenged you because you seem to just bash the Democrats. OK, I'm calling you out. Let's see how well you can explain or defend a point that YOU yourself brought up.

So the question - AGAIN - is this:

What do you propose to cut and how are you proposing that we get that through Congress? Be specific and concise in your answer.

Your Turn.

Pietro,

One has to understand what in the budget is “mandatory” and what is “discretionary” spending and what would be required by congress to change anything in the mandatory parts of the budget which is 55% of our budget.

One has to understand what in the budget is “mandatory” and what is “discretionary” spending and what would be required by congress to change anything in the mandatory parts of the budget which is 55% of our budget.

Thanks, Dennis, for your input. I think that will be enough for Joanna to comment on. So, Joanna, based on what Dennis has provided, do you care to weigh in on the debate?

Joanna, since we are just talking here, don't you think that I have the right to ask you to CLARIFY your very broad and vague answer to my question? Do you call THAT answer a solution's?

What clarification do you need Pietro?You cut the budget, 10%. You go to every cabinet member and say 10% in cuts are needed. Either make it up with improved efficiency, or make do with what you got. How hard is that for you to understand? Defense does without a new ship it wants. HHS reduces and/or eliminates a inefficient health care program. Education eliminates funding for a reading program. Homeland Security eliminates future growth. Food stamps are cut back (oops, the Dems already did that one).

Pietro: Thanks, Dennis, for your input. I think that will be enough for Joanna to comment on. So, Joanna, based on what Dennis has provided, do you care to weigh in on the debate?

Still waiting on you Pietro. You seem to want to poke holes in others ideas without any of your own. The very defintition of a troll.

Either come up with an idea, or get lost.

Joanna, Joanna, oh ye of little facts (sigh). When Senator Kerry spoke of the uninformed, he was speaking of you and your ilk.

But keep up with the talking points, you're very amusing, although quite predictable.

Enjoy your moment in the sun, I believe we Progressives are getting the Big Mo behind us; your numbers are shrinking.

Either come up with an idea, or get lost.

Well, Joanna, that's a pretty hostile attitude from someone who has labeled ME a troll.

I find that FASCINATING.

What clarification do you need Pietro?You cut the budget, 10%. You go to every cabinet member and say 10% in cuts are needed. Either make it up with improved efficiency, or make do with what you got. How hard is that for you to understand? Defense does without a new ship it wants. HHS reduces and/or eliminates a inefficient health care program. Education eliminates funding for a reading program. Homeland Security eliminates future growth. Food stamps are cut back (oops, the Dems already did that one).

This is your answer to my question? Ok, fair enough.

Personally, I think that we should start at the top with the Defense budget where we are spending 800 Billion a year. Cut that down to 500 Billion a year. I think that we should leave everything else alone for now until the economy can re-absorb the monies we are overspeding on the military budget.

I also saw from another poster that our current economic model is probably not correct. He stated that the current model is growth by DEBT. The more debt we incur, the more GROWTH is recorded. I think that this poster is correct (I will find the post again and give the credit where it is due).

So, Joanna, with us cutting the budget 10%, so you think that our current economic model is correct the way it is or if it is not, what should we change it to?

Your turn.

And it is illustrative when poor JS1 is asked to respond to a legitimate question, she cannot do it. To disguise that she attacks the person who asks the question. Most people would be willing to admit that they simply do not have the answer.

JoAnna;

Why don't you just answer the question straight up that Pietro asked, or you go get lost. You do not add anything to this board anyway since we all know the republican talking points.

Pretty hard to give Pietro an answer when your party has none.

Pietro - So by your numbers you want to cut defense by 37%. You do know that the budget for Defense was "only" $660 billion though, so your numbers are already off.

What about other departments? They should all stay the same? Or do you advocate 37% cuts there also?

Not sure what economic model you are talking about. Doesn't sound like you do either. Does it have a name? Kind of hard to discuss something with you, when even you don't know what it is.

Pietro - So by your numbers you want to cut defense by 37%. You do know that the budget for Defense was "only" $660 billion though, so your numbers are already off.

I see. well, that may be the case, but the new appropriation that did not get through cloture in the Senate was $780 Billion. I think we can start with the new figures, don't you think?

What about other departments? They should all stay the same? Or do you advocate 37% cuts there also?

I believe I already answered that in the previous post. Here is what I posted:

"Personally, I think that we should start at the top with the Defense budget where we are spending 800 Billion a year. Cut that down to 500 Billion a year. I think that we should leave everything else alone for now until the economy can re-absorb the monies we are overspeding on the military budget."

Not sure what economic model you are talking about. Doesn't sound like you do either. Does it have a name? Kind of hard to discuss something with you, when even you don't know what it is.

Joanna, again with the HOSTILITY... tsk, tsk, tsk. We are just talking and exchanging ideas, correct? There is no need to be hostile, is there? I mean, this is the reason why we are on this blog, correct?

Actually, it was an idea posted on this thread (post #50, Tachyons), and he brought up a very interesting point. His point was that our current model is based on DEBT and how we carry it. When the CREDIT stopped flowing, the economy literally shut down. The mere fact that money - and therefore wealth - is created with no backing other than the full faith and confidence in the American Government, is probably a recipe for failure.

What is your take on that? I mean it is all well and good to CUT budgets, but if the foundation of that budget is not rooted in anything 'tangible', then we could have an issue.

What do you think about that, Joanna? Do youthink that MAYBE our deficits COULD be reduced if we had more tangible 'assets' securing our debt?

Your turn.

Once again Pietro, you're putting out a couple of words, like "debt" and "credit" and asking for an opinion on it. Not much to go on P. So is this idea something like the economic theories like Trickle Down, Keynesian, capitalistic, socialistic, supply side, demand side, or something new and different. Which?

Or if you can't classify it, maybe you can explain it in greater detail so we all can understand it.

And I hope that wasn't too hostile, you seem a might sensitive.

From dictionary.com:

dense /dɛns/ [dens]

–adjective, dens·er, dens·est.
. . .
2. stupid; slow-witted; dull.
3. intense; extreme: dense ignorance.
. . .

This is a perfect description of JS1's posts.

JoAnnaSmith1, you could not answer Pietro's 6.40 post so you tried to deflect this by deliberately trying to confuse the question (you also used this method in 6.39) and attack Pietro's intelligence. His questions are perfectly clear and very straight forward to people who actually understand economics. The fact that you can not even answer these questions illustrates that you clearly have no understanding about how economics or the Federal Budget works. The President nor Congress can 'just tell every department to cut their budgets by 10%." This is not legally allowed since many budgets are set by law.

Give it up JS1, you are out classed and do not have the intelligence to keep up with Pietro.

Pietro,

I believe the Defense budget that was proposed included “Homeland Security” bringing the total to nearly $800 billion. DHS is normally considered with the DOD for budget purposes.

Debt based economy (link):

http://prosperityuk.com/2001/11/the-negative-consequences-of-the-debt-based-money-system/

Dennis: Homeland security budget is $42 billion. Combining it with Defense at $663 billion, that's $705 billion.

Still waiting to understand what you're talking about Pietro. I imagine you're doing the same.

Just another 12 billion dollars in stimulus that hasn't worked yet. What is the President up to now? I know when W left the deficit was estimated at 700 billion, now if I am not mistaken we are over 1.5 trillion in debt. But all of you blame the GOP, but maybe you need another government lesson. The Congress spends the money, appropriates the money, and passes the laws of this country. Since 2006 they have had control, since that time, those holding the purse strings have been Dems. Our country of people has allowed them to continue the practice of "too big to fail". Not just GOP but the DEM. We should vote out every incumbent, and start over. But you all believe that piling massive debt upon our children, and tax rates going up is okay. Unless we cut the spending, stop the overtaxing, and cut programs that don't work we are all going to end up like Cuba. Government controlled and poor.

So keep defending your liberal friends, look at our past programs that haven't worked. Social Security by FDR, the Great Society by LBJ, and Contract with America--GOP. Until we force the government to balance a budget, have term limits for Congress, and quit allowing judges to legislate from the bench we are just going to have SSDD--Same stuff different day!!!

Big Bear,

All of the things listed as “Bush” were enacted prior to Dems taking control of Congress except the recession.

Here is the breakdown of the FY2010 deficit (dollars in trillions) per the CBO.

$0.15 - The 2 wars (Bush)

$0.45 - 2 tax cuts (Bush)

$0.30 - Stimulus (Obama)

$0.50 - The Recession started in 07 (Bush)

$1.40 – TOTAL

Bush = $1.1 and Obama = $0.3

Deficit link:

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/study-bush-tax-cuts-cost-more-twice-m

National Debt link:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Nicely done, Dennis. But BigBear62 and whatzzit2u are just two low information posters congratulating another low information poster for getting her intellectually bereft arguments debunked.

Gotta hand it to JS1, though, she is persistent . . . like a mosquito.

like a mosquito.

And we are all well aware of how it works out for mosquito's... lmao!

You are 100% right. It is time the people we put in office start representing us the 98% of voters instead of the 2% of voters. Isn't that how our government supposed to work? When they only listen to the 2% it is more like a monarchy instead of a democracy.

Once again Pietro, you're putting out a couple of words, like "debt" and "credit" and asking for an opinion on it. Not much to go on P. So is this idea something like the economic theories like Trickle Down, Keynesian, capitalistic, socialistic, supply side, demand side, or something new and different. Which?

Or if you can't classify it, maybe you can explain it in greater detail so we all can understand it.

Actually, Joanna, this is how people form ideas. We talk and bounce thoughts off one another, you know. And no, this is not any 'regular' type of theory. This is 'thinking out of the box' a little. Sorry, but this type of thinking doesn't fit into a neat little box that can be 'classified'.

However, my question was not that difficult to understand. Maybe you didn't know what I was talking about. Maybe you didn't care. Maybe you were trying to look up what I was saying so that you would have a snappy comeback.

Maybe not.

The purpose of this little exercise was to see if you would share ideas with me, even when I asked a pointed question in my challenge to you. you came back with a pretty 'generic' answer.

When I pressed for more detail about your generic answer, you got a little irritated with me. When I actually laid out an idea - spawned by another poster, no less - you seemed confused and wanted me to 'classify' if for you.

Look, my real purpose on here is to learn from people who have a differing perspective than I do. I think that your prespective is a LOT different from mine. I have no time to spar with posters about their ideaological beliefs. We can talk about policy, or theory, or anything - and can civilly agree or disagree if that is the case.

Maybe you don't care about that, maybe you do.

Oh well. I guess it is what it is.

I gotta admit that your hostility towards me is a bit, well, interesting.

I am sure we will talk again, Joanna.

Soon.

Well Pietro, I see you still have no answer to what you were attempting to talk about. Now you're off telling us you wasted all of our time for a little exercise you were conducting. Fascinating.

Well I'm sorry the rest of us aren't as smart as your Pietro. Sometime some of us ask for clarification, an explanation, an additional information before we weigh in with an opinion of our own. I guess we should just bow to your great wisdom and ask for forgiveness of our ignorance instead.

Perhaps Feisty, or Dawn, or US Navy, or the many other high powered and deeply thoughtful Leftists that roam these pages have an opinion of what you're talking about? Seeing you're struggling with educating us on the Right with your great knowledge, I would think the combined brain power of those Lefties would meet your incredibly high intellectual standards. I'm certain they'll be chiming in with their educated and learned responses, just like they provide us with every day on so many other subjects.

I hope I didn't offend you with anything you might perceive as being hostile. You do seem to be the delicate type, so I'll try to be extra gentle with you in the future.

Every once in a while it's necessary to take the measuring standards out of the box to make sure they're still accurate and to make sure the copies made based on them are accurate.

Proving that JS1 is going to avoid issues instead of answer them works the same way. It just has to be done once in a while.

Well Pietro, I see you still have no answer to what you were attempting to talk about. Now you're off telling us you wasted all of our time for a little exercise you were conducting. Fascinating.

Well I'm sorry the rest of us aren't as smart as your Pietro. Sometime some of us ask for clarification, an explanation, an additional information before we weigh in with an opinion of our own. I guess we should just bow to your great wisdom and ask for forgiveness of our ignorance instead.

Perhaps Feisty, or Dawn, or US Navy, or the many other high powered and deeply thoughtful Leftists that roam these pages have an opinion of what you're talking about? Seeing you're struggling with educating us on the Right with your great knowledge, I would think the combined brain power of those Lefties would meet your incredibly high intellectual standards. I'm certain they'll be chiming in with their educated and learned responses, just like they provide us with every day on so many other subjects.

Joanna, this was NO intellectual exercise. I challenged you to answer ONE question that I posed. That's all. We are just talking here.

I have no interest - or time - to play stupid head games. In the challenge, I asked a question. You asked for clarification. I answered with what I thought would be a solution to our budget. I asked a question about DEBT and CREDIT and then you asked for more clarification. I stated that the question was clear.

Now we have this.

Its funny that I can exchange ideas with MOST others on this blog - left and right - and we can be civil and agree on things and disagree on others. Your diatribe about 'being smart' is drivel. There are MANY other people on this blog that are smarter than I am and I want to learn as much as I can from them.

So what are you saying, Joanna?

Never mind. I see that your mind is closed. I love the hostility towards me though.

There is nothing to see here... moving on...

Hey Pietro! SCORE! Game and match. Well done.

JoAnnaSmith1,

I commend you on you determination. It's seems you were being attacked from all sides. If I had the time I would join in the discussion, but alas, I must get back to work.

What you are experiencing is a sampling of what this country will face soon enough. The rage and anger from those who expect the government (and the wealthy) to take care of them, when they realize their dreams of a Utopian society are being seriously questioned and contested.

Take a look at the news coming from Europe with all the violent demonstrations from the coddled masses who are opposed to the austerity measures being taken to keep Spain from collapsing. Same thing going on in Greece, Belgiem, Poland and other EU countries.

One would think that we could see the failure of Socialism in those countries and learn from their problems, but, it seems there are plenty in this country who are just so darn smart that they can make Socialism work here when it is failing everywhere else in the world.

I would suggest that those who have the means to start a serious savings program, eliminate all debt. Become as self sufficient as possible, because it looks like the pro-freedom, smaller govt proponents are going to be increasingly attacked by the liberal socialist left.

Keep your chin up, pray for some "real conservative change" in November!

Jefferson was right but you were wrong.

Rage and anger . . . I keep hearing that from idiots like the truly misnamed Jeffersonwasright but don't see where they are getting that idea. They usually say that when they have been confronted by indisputable facts they can't deny and totally proves them wrong. Why is that? Is this what psychologists call 'projection'?

Hey, Jeffersonwasright, have you ever read any early American history? How about a Jefferson biography? How about his autobiography? From your post, I expect you are one of those low information people who thinks they know a lot because they heard it from Glen Beck, or Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, etc.

"For all the problems Obama has created"

Do you consider rescuing the country from another Great Depression "creating a problem?

You can no longer be denied health insurance if you have a pre-existing condition, or be kicked off your plan if you become sick. Your knucklehead kid can stay on your plan until he turns 26. How is any of this "a problem?"

I do not see a single Problem that President Obama has caused, he has in fact been SOLVING problems, only to have the legislation blocked by a minority in the Senate who have used every dirty trick at their disposal to block all of the things that would have helped us get out of the hole and problems that the Repubs left for him.

On HCR, people wanted MORE reform, not less, and the things that the Repubs and TP'ers complain about most are the things that the Repubs inserted into the bill themselves, how did HE cause this problem?

JoAnna S likes to use generalities yet has NO proof to back them up. Yes, Pres. Obama has pointed out that the right wingers, with all of it's super rich corporations, have been complaining about his programs and the way that they use their bought-and-paid for medias to lie about what he has been doing. Most of the problem lies in the fact that the Repubs and their Too-Rich-To-Fail backers want to keep all of the programs from the Bush years so that they can keep screwing the rest of us out of what little money that we have left. They could care less that there are so many unemployed as it makes it look like Pres. Obama has done nothing, when in fact, it is the Repubs who have done nothing but to block all progress that we could have been making in this last 20 months.

Pres. Obama realizes the reality of this situation yet is NOT going into the gutter to fight the Repubs, keeping himself above that level, as he has always done, to show that there is a clear difference between himself and the Repubs who will lie, cheat and steal every time they get the chance.

We have a clear difference this time at the polls: will we vote to keep the Dems who have been working to get us out of the hole that we are in; or vote for the Repubs who have consistently voted to keep us down in that hole and vow to take us back to the same programs that dug the deep hole to begin with?

Who do you blame, JoAnna Smith besides President Obama? Any clues on what happened from 2001 through 2008? Any concept of what caused the financial collapse? Any concept of how big oil, coal, Wall Street OWNS the republican party? Ever read about the damage done by big coal, the devastation in Appalachia, southern Illinois, and elsewhere, the true costs of coal? Ever read anything about BP that said BP, Halliburton and TransOcean were NOT to blame for the oil disaster?

Amy B. Portland,ME: Do you consider rescuing the country from another Great Depression "creating a problem?

So what kind of a so called rescue is it when you sell the country down the river for generations to come? Liberals like Amy here just can't comprehend that the debt Obama has created in such a short time will have extreme negative effects on the economy for decades.

And Amy, please, save the hyperbole. The Carter years were so much worse. Misery indexes, fuel shortages and lines to get it, super high inflation and interest. The lies from the Liberals of how wonderful Obama is are starting to add up.

B. Honest;

Great post. The republicans cannot get over their hate of President Obama and it is driving them nuts that even with their obstructionism and hypocrisy our President is helping all Americans, and not just the select few the republicans support.

Every day we see more and more reports on how the Billionaires are buying off the republican party. Just look at Karl Rove's group that pledged 52 Million dollars for their campaigns, where over 90% of those contributions come from Billionaires (with a B). US Chamber of Commerce pledging 100 Million to the republicans so they will trash the American Jobs Bill, and it keeps going on and on.

Really -- the Carter years were WORSE? In spite of PILES of statistics that all speak to the worst recession since the Great Depression?

Speaking of which, the Republicans would have done just what Hoover did -- sit on things and wait until the stalled economy woke up of its own accord. Or, as it turns out, until Democrats who actually understand that people have to actually have money in order to spend were elected. Economists are nearly all in agreement that things would have been much worse without the actions the government took to end the Great Recession. More here; http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf?L=HPADV2&C=ZANDIBLINDER&P=LEARNMORE

JoAnnaSmith1

I worked in a diner in 1982 when the Reagan Recession hit. Times were scary in the service industries. The owners of our restaurant came up with a gimmick called
"The Recession Buster Breakfast." 2 eggs, toast and homefires for $1.99. Funny, the stuff you remember, isn't it?

Not so funny to remember that unemployment was at 10.8% two years into Reagan's presidency. Tell me, did Reagan "own" the economy by then or was it all Jimmy Carter's fault?

Amy and Jody,

All anyone needs to see to understand where the root of today’s debt problem began is the “Debt History”. As the graph will clearly show is that it was caused by Regan.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

B.Honest: I do not see a single Problem that President Obama has caused, he has in fact been SOLVING problems, only to have the legislation blocked by a minority in the Senate who have used every dirty trick at their disposal to block all of the things that would have helped us get out of the hole and problems that the Repubs left for him

We'll start with this: "I do not see a single Problem that President Obama has caused". That is the very definition of a partisan hack, one that can't evaluate their own because they can't see the trees for the forest. What really is being said is "I will blame Obama for nothing, but will be first in line if any credit would to ever be doled out if he ever accomplished anything". Even Republicans could objectively be critical of Bush. Liberals, hard-core Leftists, refuse to be critical of Obama, he's the very definition of The Messiah for them.

And this" "he has in fact been SOLVING problems," - Really? Like what? Unemployment? Nope. Immigration? Nope. Deficit spending? Nope. Illegal immigration? Nope. Health care? Premiums keep going up, so nope. Pull out in Iraq? Nope (50,000 troops still there don't you know).

Finish with this: "only to have the legislation blocked by a minority in the Senate who have used every dirty trick at their disposal to block all of the things that would have helped us". Once again, it's always someone elses fault. Two things, what legislation has been blocked? Obama himself checks off the list of items that were passed under his watch, and it is impressive. Too bad none of them had anything to do with helping the middle-class. Second, no President gets everything he wants, and Obama has gotten most if not everything he wanted. And it's helped America how again?

B.Honest. Great post.

Dennis, you are so right. Republicans cheer Reagan as their hero but Reagan was anything but one for middle class America, least of all for debt. Reagan increased the debt 189%.

The Great Recession which began in Dec 2007, lasted longer than any since WWII. It was also deeper than the previous three recessions COMBINED.

JS1: You never fail to be amusing. While you would ignore the fact that it was the Cheney/Bush administration that headed this country into the ditch, there are those of us who know the truth. Unless you are FOR lying us into war, and keeping that war off budget. Are you?

JoAnna Smith. If facts landed in front of you, you would not recognize them as such.

stts

JoAnnaSmith1

With all due respect, your posts are the very definition of partisan rhetoric. You twist every issue into a negative attack on Democrats.

NewdayDawning:

Republicans never let facts get in the way of their rhetoric. What did Larry O say? Something like everybody is entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.

Amen, Navy, but this constant ignoring of the foibles of the previous administration is starting to get on my nerves! One would think that Cheney/Bush never had their hands on the wheel of this nation, and drove to destruction.

JoAnnaSmith1,

Can you PLEASE explain how the debt will be paid to extend the tax break? OR, should the President just "take it off the books" like the previous administration and PRETEND it does not exist?

You talk a good game, BUT, it's very weak..... Sorry!

JoAnnaSmith1 - cheerleader for the big corporations that only want to take away her money and the Republicans who want to take away her freedoms.

Another, to quote Billy Joel, "happy idiot" cheering on those that do not have her best interests in mind. Perfectly willing to continuously post the Republican talking points (feckless) while providing no facts (factless). When challenged and shown to be wrong, she blithly attacks the person rather than trying to prove herself correct.

STTS

MPEVANS: Can you PLEASE explain how the debt will be paid to extend the tax break?

By cutting spending MP.

Or maybe we should talk to Obama, who is for extending 83% of the Bush tax cuts to those making less than $250,000 (Gee, I thought the Libs told us those tax cuts only helped the rich. Turns out that wasn't true.). I'm certain Obama has an answer for you. Or we could talk to the 49 House Democrats that want to extend ALL of the Bush tax cuts. I bet they also have the answers you seek.

Joanna

Face some facts. Obama is very hostile towards businesses.

honey you got to be kidding, the bail-outs of the banks, auto industry, and wall street, tell me that you are not following the facts, and the fact is that he has done more for business than i wanted him to do.

your not stating fact, your stating your personal opinion. but the facts are the facts, he gave business a trillon in loan to bail them out, how the heck is that being hostile towards Business.

JoAnna-

So...the count is now up to 49 House Democrats wanting to extend ALL of the Bush tax cuts, to include those earning more than 250K?

That number is certain to grow between now and Election Day. They're letting their constituents know where they stand.

It's only fitting to have as many as possible on the record for the lame duck session ahead of the new Congress being sworn in...particularly since the House Democratic leadership is afraid to schedule a vote on this before November 2nd.

MB - Sorry, it's 47, not 49, yet.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100928/ap_on_bi_ge/us_tax_cuts_2

Of course if the 179 Republicans join them, that would be 226 votes, and the measure would pass in the House. Of course Pelosi would have to allow the vote.

JoAnna-if you paid attention to what we "liberals" write about the tax cuts, you would know that we feel that they do help the middle & lower earning folks as well as REALLY helping the wealthiest. In helping the middle & lower earners, the tax cuts also help the economy because those people will spend the cuts, unlike the wealthiest who will save the money. That said, many of us have also said we would forfeit those tax cuts if that is what it took to get something done.

JoAnnaSmith1

So Bev, you okay with Senator Kerry calling the Democrat voters uninformed and ignorant?

______________________________________________________________

Only, if it's true JoAnna.

And what slogan is the Senator talking about? Hope and Change? Yes We Can? Which? Maybe both?

____________________________________________________________

I meant the right's slogans like... the country is going to hell, take my country back, don't kill my granny, Obama is Hitler, keep your hands off my insurance, Botox Peloisi, Islam is evil, No more taxes, don't tread on me, and other etceteras.

_________________________________________

Looking forward to your response. And have a nice day!!

I will you do the same.

Steeler-fan: JoAnna-if you paid attention to what we "liberals" write about the tax cuts, you would know that we feel that they do help the middle & lower earning folks as well as REALLY helping the wealthiest. In helping the middle & lower earners, the tax cuts also help the economy because those people will spend the cuts, unlike the wealthiest who will save the money. That said, many of us have also said we would forfeit those tax cuts if that is what it took to get something done.

The debate becomes whether the government can spend the money better, or if the individual can spend the money better. Without a definitive answer, I would error on the side of the individual. And to your premise that "unlike the wealthiest who will save the money", I disagree. The wealthy will invest that money, and they will invest it in things they think will be successful. That's how they got wealthy. Unlike the government who will spread it around with no expectations of success for anyone that receives it.

And you say many would forfeit those tax cuts. Why? It's your money. Again, for some reason you think the government can spend it better. I don't see any proof of that notion.

All of you who keep picking on JoAnna are part of the problem. A legitimate discussion needs should be one that includes all points of view. Not just a cheerleading squad for those who agree with you.

Steeler fan - I said "Again for some reason YOU think government can spend it better". I meant to say "LIBERALS think government can spend it better". I don't know what you feelings are on the issue, so I can't assign that premise to you. Sorry for presuming.

Anne B,

When were we rescued from another great depression? Has our recession really ended? Why should we have to take care of our kids until they are 26 years old? I thought they became adults at 18, or do liberals just use that number to get votes.

Why do we have to spend 1.5 trillion on health care when we could have just passed simple regulations to have pre-existing conditions and sickness not be a reason to get insurance. But 1.5 trillion to accomplish those small feats.

Gosh I hope that you keep your 26 year old at home until they are 40. Quit breastfeeding and allow them to grow up.

How about this, The Republicans have refused to work or compromise with the President. Bush allowed wall street and big business run our country, BP is responsible for the largest oil spill in American history, If anyone destroys your property do you hold them accountable or do you say thats ok. Fox news is all one sided, and promotes violence.

Big Bear,

Again with fact less, low information claims.

We were rescued from another depression starting late in 2008 but you don’t believe the top economists in the world. And yes the recession of 2007 did officially end in July of 2009. But as the President says it won’t be over until people are back working again.

No one said you have to take care of your kids after they turn 18 – you now have the option to help them that you didn’t before.

Where did you come up with $1.5 trillion for health care – got any proof/links?

What about all the people with no access to health insurance? You sound like your Christian idea is to just forget them – Wow!!

Juneyoung,

Not sure where your going, the Messiah was/is not interested in working with or compromising with the Republicans, apparently what you and he both want is the Republicans to nod in agreement and be good little lemmings while we go off a cliff.

So you say FoxNews is promoting violence?

Hmmm, so what about the Messiah's comment on the Today show, "I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick,"Wow, how's that for a bada$$!

Dennis,

It's debatable if we were headed for a depression in 2008, but it's a moot point at this time.

People will be working again when the government allows the people to keep more of their own money and they are able to decide how to spend it.

Since when is health insurance a right? I didn't see that part in the bible about "health insurance for all". Nor did I see in Constitution, where the government could force us to buy something, or be penalized for not doing so. But, the liberal left is re-writing every other historical event so I guess it was only a matter of time before the bible and the constitution got worked over.

You know that Jefferson was a Deist, right? So why such persistence in using the Conservative dog whistle term "Messiah"? It's a term that evangelical Christian fundamentalists will recognize easily, and is designed to appeal to them. To most of us it looks like heavy sarcasm, but the Christian Right will see a certain reference to a "false Messiah" who will be followed by large numbers of followers who are being decieved into damnation. Very frequently there's a "deception" comment attached to the "Messiah" slur. Even though Barack Obama is a confirmed Christian large numbers of people are being taken in by this "false Messiah" narrative. http://o.bamapost.com/

An interesting thing about the psychology of Conservatives is that Cognitive Dissonance doesn't even seem to exist. I've often wondered how one person can simultaneously be a closet Muslim and have belonged for decades to a Christian church in Chicago?

It must have done your heart good to see that Senator Feingold was able to attend President Obama's rally in Wisconsin last night, huh?

I guess sometimes the negative spin is not always the accurate spin.

P.S. The only thing funnier than the President and Vice President having to beg their "base" to "stop whining", is the LOUD WHINY SQUEALS that got as a reply! ;o)

Oh the irony.

Nash,

Think it was great that senator Feingold showed up. It was the WH who was "spinning" about his expected attendance you know. Sadly, he has nothing to lose anymore, as his own internals now show his opponent with an insurmountable lead. You're welcome for posting the Politico article, did you agree with the author? Are Glen Greenwald and Co. damaging the administration from the left?

I look forward to your "take"...

have a great day...

This is another one of those noncontroversies made into an ongoing media generated storyline.

dangerfield,

I just read the article that you posted . . . here is my take . . .

I find it curious that those who demand that the President be held "accountable" for his actions desire to be held "unaccountable" for theirs.

If you want to be critical of President Obama, that is certainly understandable. But where I get lost is the desire of progressive critics to wail loudly for over a year about how horrible the President is, but then pretend that their words have absolutely no effect.

That is simply not true. Regardless of the merits of the arguments being presented, the simple fact is that the message delivered is "Obama sucks".

How this helps accomplish the progressive agenda is beyond me, but I am confident that those paid to blog their opinions have it worked out.

I'm gonna continue to support the President I helped elect and keep my eyes on the big picture and not obsess over every little disagreement, because I am focused on the broader goals.

But I have absolutely no problem with folks who prefer to complain loudly and let the chips fall where they may. It is counterproductive in my opinion, but hey, that's why this is America.

In closing, I think the fundamental problem is that many in the Democratic base are having trouble transitioning from being out of power to being in power. After a decade of railing against "the establishment", many are unable to retool their message to work within and improve "the establishment".

Kind of a shame.

I have absolutely no problem with folks who prefer to complain loudly and let the chips fall where they may. It is counterproductive in my opinion, but hey, that's why this is America.

Nash, I am sorry that you feel that disagreement and debate about the issues within the progressive community is "counterproductive" but not all progressives think with one mind, or agree on all aspects of every issue. Debate is healthy and the best way to test the validity of your beliefs in the marketplace of ideas.

How doesn't that resemble Dick Cheney tuning all his TVs to Fox? He didn't want to be "distracted" by all that "counterproductive" dissent and difference of opinion he would have encountered on the other networks..

You Said;

"In closing, I think the fundamental problem is that many in the Democratic base are having trouble transitioning from being out of power to being in power."

That does contain a grain of truth for some in the blogesphere for sure, and maybe even some in the now evil MSM (except MSNBC)

as to the transitioning thing... it looks like we will have less of a problem with that sooner rather than later...

dangerfield,

As I said above, and will reiterate, I have no problem with dissent.

I have a problem with dissenters accusing the President of being a weak in the knees corporate sell out for a year and a half, and then when the fruits of their labors come in, a depressed Democratic electorate, they bat their eyes and say innocently "Who me?"

If you are gonna dish it out, stick around to take it.

That's alls I'm saying.

I have a problem with dissenters accusing the President of being a weak in the knees corporate sell out for a year and a half, and then when the fruits of their labors come in, a depressed Democratic electorate, they bat their eyes and say innocently "Who me?"

Characterizing the "dissenters" in a way that de-legitimizes their criticism is hardly fair, or would you really prefer a cadre of "POLLYANNAS" singing "home on the range"?

You have to try to accept the stone cold reality that one of the reasons for the current electoral situation and the depressed democratic voter is the disappointment they feel with the job that the administration and the president are doing.

As someone who is active in democratic politics and fund raising I have heard it all week trying to raise funds for a candidate in Pa. and one here in NY...

dangerfield,

I am not characterizing all dissenters, just those who fall into the category to which I was referring.

Ya'll know who you are.

Bev;

Too funny. Thanks for the laugh today.

How can that be? I thought they had the same audience.

Forrest Grump

How can that be? I thought they had the same audience.

Strange, I know; but, Sponge Bob though "hilarious" just like FOX NOISE is a lot more educational.

Very well said

Well said, ranmarie. It makes me angry to think the minority rules which is contrary to the Constitution. Not one mention of this vote on the mainstream nightly news casts. Voters are oblivious to what happened. Maybe it is time we demand the nightly news spend a few minutes reporting on Senate activities.

Ranmarie;

Nice post and you have hit the nail on the head. This country (Senate) is being basically held hostage by the cowardly actions of the right. A minority of 41 can dictate the ploicy over the majority of 59. THat means for example that bascially 59% of the people can support something, like stop outsourcing jobs to China and keep them here in America but the 41% that spport Big Business and want to destroy the middle class and the American Dream get to veto it.

When you have a minority that is bought and paid for by Big Business, Wall Street and Billionaires this is what happens. They get here way with only a minority vote and the majority get to stand in the unemployment line.

You are 100% correct. The vote on the Ameican Job Bill got little coverage yesterday or even today. Instead the Media is fixated on Dancing with the Stars (the Palin Show) and the one running for mayor in Alaska. Go figure.

Unfortunately, it looks like Charlie Crist is going down and Marco Rubio will be elected so he can filibuster Obama tax cut proposals along with the Republicans who've been doing that sort of thing for almost two years, now.

I think Winston Churchill was the one who said something like "democracy is a terrible form of government, but it's better than all the others." Sometimes I think that while democracy may be better, it's not better by much these days. The electorate that is supposed to be the ultimate authority in this country sometimes collectively acts as insane as King George III talking to his foot.

Well said, Nashville. I agree completely. I watched Crist's interview. If I were a democrat living in Florida and had to make a choice--my preference would be Meeks, but I would realize that Meeks cannot win and cast my vote for Charlie Crist rather than allow a Tea Party candidate like Rubio to win.

Jody, Iowa

If I were a democrat living in Florida and had to make a choice--my preference would be Meeks, but I would realize that Meeks cannot win and cast my vote for Charlie Crist rather than allow a Tea Party candidate like Rubio to win.

I've always said there would be 2 alternatives with Crist and Meeks and I too would vote for Crist. Besides it's not over until it's over. There is still time to flip Rubio.

The president has said he wants to raise the taxes on 2 percent of the nation and people in his own party are saying No..

Even with the Presidents proposal, the leaders of his party that control both the House and the Senate have failed to bring any Bill to the Floor of either house that would extend the bush Tax cuts (keep taxes the same) or Raise taxes on the 2 percent the president wants.

This just in the Democrats have voted to recess Congress rather then Raising Taxes on 2 percent of the American people that Obama Wants, Hmmmmmmmmm

Having a hispanic senator whose conservative just might tip some the hispanic vote. Dems shouldn't take the hispanic vote for granted. Just look at the Cuban population in Miami.

Why isn't Obama criss-crossing the nation to show up at campaign rallies for Dems?

...so you can bitch about Obama criss-crossing the nation to show up at campaign rallies for Dems?

I thought the G-NO-P wanted Obama to do his job and not be Campaigner-In-Chief?

Noid,

We do want him to do his job,.. Tell us when is he gonna start?

Of course they voted against the jobs bill, they can't make any money if they have to pay the workers a liveable wage, and no doubt, the welfare and happness of the wealthy are so much more important to the republicans than the welfare and happiness of the working American family. It has always been that way and I don't expect it to ever change.

Tell us Union,

How much should we be paying people that work at McDonalds, Jack in the box, wendys.. what is the living Wage that you demand that people be paid?

UnionBaby,

Can do, all it takes is for Americans to wake up, get off their butts and go vote. But that does not appear it will happen. Good idea though.

In November Americans will be Voting, and what they will be Rejecting is the Democrats.. Funny how that works,

Rob-459463

I believe the key message of the Tea Party for any GOP hopeful is to "cool it" on the social issues and instead get back to the principles of limited government by re-affirming the 10nth Amendment and getting this Federal government to live within it's means and Constitutional limits. There are many Federal programs that we can roll to the states.

Ummm,that would be called another Great Depression and anarchy under the current condition US in.

Beverly,

This country is already in a State of Depression over what the Liberals and Obama are doing to it..

but, we will change that come Novermber, Soon Happy days will be here again.

Why should a political rally be shown on National T.V. The Media should not be used to prop up one party.

lisa s

The Media should not be used to prop up one party.

If there was a law against that, Fox "News" would have to go out of business.

Big cheer to your post, Houston. It seems, for whatever reason, that President Obama gets almost no credit for what his administration has done, sometimes the "professional left" has ignored what was achieved to focus on what they didn't get. I find that troubling and understand why the White House has been vocal on it. I have no problem with the professionals being critical but in their criticism, they simply fail to point on the good within what was accomplished. Health care is the classic example. So we didn't get a public option--look at what they did get. It isn't perfect but no legislation ever is but to get to perfection, there must be legislation in place to allow improvement.

Quite possibly one of the best and most enlightening posts of the day so far!

Last Night on larry King, Ben stein, said during a discussion about education and the role of parents said, that some kids fail because they don't have the right parents!!!!

You don't think parents should bear some burden of responsibility?

My parents always checked up on me to make sure I did all my homework. If I got bad grades (rarely) my parents stepped in and used appropriate discipline (grounding, no TV, etc) to get me back on track. Why did they do this? Maybe because it was their job as parents.

If your son or daughter is failing because he or she isn't doing their homework whose fault is it, your kid's fault or the teacher's fault?

Second the president of the national teachers union was on as well and she made every excuse in the book reguarding teachers that are just no dam good.

Lawrence O'Donnell on Morning Joe on Monday made a very valid point...watch an episode of Jersey Shore and show me the teacher who is supposed to try and reach one of those kids. Are there bad teachers out there. Sure...but the idea that we should scrap the entire system is also ludicrous.

Pay-For-Performance is, on face value, a great idea but The Law of Unintended Consequences says there are two dangers...

1. A teacher who normally turns out above-average students gets, by luck of the draw, a group of slackers. Is it his/her fault that the students don't want to do the work and do we penalize that teacher for it?

2. A teacher, desperate to show improvement, throws softballs to his/her students so they get good grades but they don't really learn anything. Do we really want to reward that teacher?

What is wrong with thinking that there should be personal responsibility on the part of the parents and the students? Good grief, I'm not a teacher, not married to a teacher, don't have one in the family, but even I'm sick of hearing some of the negative comments about teachers. Are there some bad teachers out there....Definately. But I don't understand why so many people can't see how a students home would life directly affect their performance. Homework only works if it's being done. If parents are involved, then students will do better, it's been proven time and time again.

"she seems the believe that if you get past your tenure then a teacher should have a job for life."

I agree with you. I graduated from a post-BA teacher preparation course in 2005, and I decided not to pursue a teaching career. I hate to say it, but I ran into very few teachers in the schools where I interned that I would call good quality teachers. My "mentor," in fact, hated kids, parents and "mentoring." She only volunteered to mentor an intern hoping she could leave early on Friday.

Da Noid

A teacher, desperate to show improvement, throws softballs to his/her students so they get good grades but they don't really learn anything. Do we really want to reward that teacher?

please believe me, I'm not making excuses for parents, i just could not believe he said that.

Da Noid, my x-wife and i got 4 kids through school. my x-wife made sure they were taking classes that perpared them for college from the time they started. yesterday i mentioned that my son who was not a good student was in a class that he seems to not have homework, long term assignments, reading assignments but was getting a A. so i showed up unannounced and sat in the class and found out that this teacher had no control and was not giving home work because he said all there assignment were done in class. the next day i got him moved to a harder class with more reading and home work assignments. his A turned in a C-. by the end of the school year that C- was up to a B. a real B grade. Not a artifical A.

if you have seem my post about education, you will see that i know that it takes parents perparing kids for school and teachers that expand on what is taught at home. its a partner ship, that has been lost over the years. parents working with teachers and vice versa.

If your son or daughter is failing because he or she isn't doing their homework whose fault is it, your kid's fault or the teacher's fault?

My kids and my fault. its my job as a parent to make sure they are doing home work and make sure the TV is off and there were not surfing the internet, and my kids job to be responsible for his assignments because i made sure all my kids knew that the education there were getting was the only free thing is this world, and they must take advantage of it, at the same time being in constant contact with my kids teachers, through parent teacher confrences or open house at the school or E-mail to get weekly progress reports.

i use to get so mad when parents, Black parent would not show for confrences but when there kids failed they blamed the teacher for not letting them know, well if you show up for confrences and kept in contact then you know what going on.

i have 2 daughters that finished college, and one ready to graduate in the deans list. My son, well thats going to be harder, but he is in his second year of college and i keep my fingers crossed!!!! LOL LOL.

all this would not have been possible if my x-wife had not made sure of there classes and me for going to confrences and keeping in contact through out the year, also summer school, i paid extra to keep them thinking all year.

I guess I have more to say about teaching...

On a more positive note, I did intern in an excellent school, King Middle School in Portland, which is based on the "expeditionary learning" model of education. The teachers there were actually happy, as well. The key to improving our schools is to recruit above average college students to go into teaching, and to innovate the overall system, so both teachers and students feel excited about the work. The old model is just not working. School should be more stimulating than staying home and watching Animal Planet.

Just a couple days ago I read an article about how a teacher in a poor neighborhood committed suicide after the LA Times published an article mentioning him by name as an "ineffective" teacher. The guy was an extremely dedicated and hardworking teacher who was highly respected by his students. The only reason he had a bad rating was because of student test results.

I thought at the time that the LA Times owes this teacher's family and his students an apology for being responsible for driving him to suicide. The "teach to the test" idiocy has become lethal. There are bad teachers. I had some when I was in public school (ss well as some excellent ones). But blaming teachers as the main cause of the problems with public schools is just plain wrong.

Amy B. Portland, ME

you hit the nail on the head on that, for years school districts were not recruting the best of the best, they took what they could, i think based upon cost. it cost more for the best college students. if you ask a college grad if they would rather work for a company making say 60k or teach and make 40k, the best will make the 60k in every case, but if schools disrticts would recrute the best and pay them based upon they achievements, instead of hiring the grad that was not the best.

Jeff,

Well done, sir. I salute you and your ex for a job well done.

Sadly, there needs to be more of you out there.

Da Noid

You know whats sad, and that the hardest part was dealing with school administrators, who had no kids of there own and if they did there kids did not go to public school, but there were ready to tell you whats best for YOUR kid.

i had many angry conversation with administrators who tied to lower my kids expectation with easy classes, and they fought me all the way, thank god i won, or my son would not be in college today, he would be flipping burgers.

its was like they(school administrators) were only interested in seeing good grades, not good progress. that was the problem i had with no child left behind, it focused on test and grades instead of the amount of learning. i kid can get a A and not lean crap in a easy class, and get a C in a hard honers or AP class. but to no child left behind, the C in a hard class is a failure.

Jeff,

Sorry to say that it is a combination of factors that effect schools today. One of those factors is parents, not being home, more worried about their own lives, having to work 2 jobs, etc... Unless a parent is a teacher, why would school officials listen to them. They are not in the business of education.

Every student learns differently. A lot of teachers don't understand that either, which keeps them teaching the same format year after year. But at the same time, we can't allow the kids to just plug into their ipods and not pay attention. Unless you are going to just flip the burgers at Micky D's, you have to be able to adjust in life also. I have seen in my lifetime the swing back and forth among parenting and teaching. The thing that lacks more today than it did 50/20/10 years ago is the lack of discipline among the 3 areas, kids, parents, and schools. Reminds me of the Carter years, of course, he is superior to all of us.

BigBear62

I will say your right with parents being too busy, both parents working, so when out oldest was in 2nd grade, my x-wife and i decided that she should stop working, and be at home for the kids, we did with alot less, but the end result made it worth it.

Great post, Terry. Today's GOP is not the republican party of Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt and certainly not Abraham Lincoln. It is now the party of selfish greed unwilling to compromise or recognize that half of America disagrees with them.

Terry, DAV;

Good to see you again. You nailed it. The republicans campaign on being for Tax Cuts to Small Business, provide them with much needed capital, reduce the deficit, create jobs, transparency, support for the middle class, etc., etc. Their deeds show us just the opposite.

They vote no on every bill that even remotley tries to create jobs

They vote no for 9/11 first responders that need medical care

They vote no for unemployment's extensions calling the unemployed hobo's, lazy, not worthy and other names

They vote no to keep manufacturing jobs in the US, even though on their web site, this was the second most important topic of their constituents. They do not even vote for what heir own people want.

They are threating to vote no on the Infrastructure Bill

And if that does not work, they are going to repeal bills or just close down the government.

The republican party has been bought and paid for by special interest groups, plain and simple. They do not care about the middle class. They see a society where a very small select group of people run it. Not a democracy, they want an oligarchy.

I am a registered Dem and I am tired of the govt hand outs, look at the Pres aunt, a perfect example, she is not a citizen of the US, yet she is drawing diability paymnets from YOU and ME. She should be assisted bu a local church or charity where she lives or go back to her home country. She should not be milking us.

I am tired of listening to Republicans and Democrats complain. I am tired of the president and congress not listening to the people (ALL THE PEOPLE).

"They vote no for 9/11 first responders that need medical care"

And they are right to do so. I fell and hurt my knee, and I demand the Govt. pays for it, This is exactly the kind of freeloading hand outs that is bankrupting this country.

The 911 bill just passed. It would not pass before because democrats wanted to add items not related to this issue.

Disabled vet....nice try distorting the facts.

Rob You only make {cents} sense. Truely the best post today. I can't believe the usual gang of backside lickers aren't all over you about how the Tea Party could bring good change to the political landscape. I could give a hoot if gays want to backside bump, or if an 18 year old wants to abort her baby, just don't use my tax dollars. Americans need to stand up and start taking care of themselves again. My country doesn"t give me sh_t, I pay for every bit of it, and I want more local control of how tax dollars are spent.

Rob..... Give me a BREAK!!!! In the late 70s, Barry Goldwater said that the Republican party has "been taken over by a bunch of kooks!" The gop hasnt been conservatives since BEFORE reagan! You've been HAD!

Tom, Barry was referring to the religious Right. Barry makes my point.

From Wiki:

"In a 1994 interview with the Washington Post the retired senator [Goldwater] said,

When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.^[41]

In response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, "Every good Christian should be concerned", Goldwater retorted: "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."^[42] (According to John Dean, Goldwater actually suggested that good Christians ought to kick Falwell in the "nuts", but the news media "changed the anatomical reference.""