Excellent post, IR. Senator Tom Coburn, one more self-appointed King in the Senate. The power of one senator is digusting. People like Coburn and DeMint are so devoid of humanity, they live underground.

Great post, IR--I hadn't heard about the situation in Haiti. The way these Senators behave is disgusting but I have to say we have no one to blame for this but ourselves. We haven't demanded a more functional Congress, we haven't called out these people. And I know that Democrats have done the same thing--I would call them on it as well. It is time they put the needs of the nation and the world ahead of their own petty politics but until there are negative consequences for failing to do so, I don't think we'll see a change.

Steve - lets hope they vote out a bunch of corrupt Repugnants as well - cause every single republican I ever met is as corrupt as the day is long! case in point - mobster paladino in NY and whitman in California - now that a coast to coast pair if I ever saw it!

Steve, be our guest, vote for republicans, it is a free country. Anyone who thinks it is OK for Coburn to stop Veteran's benefits and stop relief aid to Haiti, for DeMint to limit the investigation into the BP oil disater is just fine and dandy deserves the Government they will get which is not Government for the people but for the rich and for the corporation.

IR;

I had saw that yesterday and you did a great job in your post today. I was surprised (kinda) that this was not covered by MSM before now.

We are starting to see the underbelly of the republican party. We have seen one lone ranger this week deny subpoena power to the BP Committee basically denying them the tools to do their job. A committee that had overwhelming support. And the republicans will later claim that the committee did not do its job. Dimwit wants to shut down the government.

While we were watching a dysfunctional Senate where 41 people can dictate their agenda to the 59, the republicans have found another way to violate the American people with only one vote.

The republicans are not interested in governing this country at all. They just want to take power by any means so they can create their "Great Society" for the top 2%. The rest of us will be no more than slaves responding to their bidding and be grateful for the scraps that they leave us.

This is where we are heading unless we get out and vote to stop them.

Great post, IR. Republicans have demonstrated repeatedly over the last 10 years that their devotion to veterans is all lip service. The process of secret holds is particularly egregious and violates one of my main principles. If you believe in something do it right up front and be proud. Don't do it in secret, hiding your agenda. If you have to hide your agenda it can't be honest.

Steve 505729;

Open your eyes and look around you. This mess is the direct result of the mismanagement of the previous administration that you republicans so carelessly fail to acknowledge. We are paying for those mistakes now and will be paying for them for a long time.

You guys claim to be for jobs, the middle class, education, transparency, and al the talking point is your "Roadmap for the Destruction of the Middle Class".

If so then explain to us why you vote no on everything that has anything to do with making America stronger.

Just answer me this;

How are you going to reduce the deficit - what programs will you put on the chopping block?

How are you going to create jobs?

How are you going to help education?

Entitlement programs such as? Unemployment insurance in the worse economic recession since the Great Depression, money that fed families and kept a roof over their heads. Restricting insurance companies ability to deny coverage to Americans with pre-existing conditions, eliminating their ability to cancel coverage for someone who becomes ill, requiring insurance companies to cover children up to age 26, eliminating the life-time cap on coverage, provide health care to those who cannot afford it and are otherwise condemned to death to the tune of 45,000 a year. Yes, those so-called entitlements are really awful.

I will vote democrat because I have seen what republicans have done to the middle class since Reagan was elected. They have systematically shipped jobs overseas, reduced incomes for most Americans, and increased the level of poverty while making the richest 2% even wealthier and more powerful over the rest of us. Yes, those republicans are the stalwarts of respectability--empower the rich but sell it as small government and tax cuts. How easily the naive are fooled.

I assuming by our citizens you mean the 15% of the tea party Steve. I don't think so the other 85% have something to say.

This mess is the direct result of the mismanagement of the previous administration that you republicans so carelessly fail to acknowledge.

Sorry, I have to disagree with you there. The GOP is not being careless when they fail to acknowledge the previous administration. We're not supposed to talk about the guy who was President before President Obama.

My guess is that because the GOP wants to forget that guy we aren't supposed to be allowed to remember him...or something like that.

No ideas - solutions or answers... only more of the chest pounding and school yard taunting from the righties!

If you think they're pi$$ed now... wait until things don't go as planned on November 3rd!

Great Posts everyone - you might not necessarily agree with 'our' positions - but you have to admit at least people with an IQ above a rutabaga will think about them...

Which leaves the rest of them as low information voters...

Steve-505729

yea,

Democrats vote for a bunch of Entitlement programs for the last 1.8 years and they wont even run their Campaigns on those so called Achievements, thats the problem with Democrats they dont stand up for what they say the believe in because they know its not Popular with the American people..

And Yes I will Vote for Republicans because i have seen the Damage Obama and the rest of the Democrats have done to this country for the past 4 year

______________-------------------------------------------------------------______________________

Oh, for Crissakes

Great, just what US need politicians who are for special interests rather than serve the needs of the people.

Steve, have you not see the entitlements the top 2% of our society like the Koch Brothers, oil billionaries and other in the billionaire's club have have done towards limiting the prosperity of the middle class?

Btw: MSNBC Ratings Rises; Fox News’ take a Nose Dive to 21% In Total Viewers And 26% For Younger Viewers.. I sense another conspiracy theory coming from Glenn Beck. what will Beck do if over that groupie hill crowd (50+ yr olds) starts to gradually disappears due the deat panels? LOL.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/q3-2010-ratings-msnbc-beats-cnn-for-a-4th-straight-quarter-in-primetime_b32857

PS: Glenn Beck has created tension in Fox Noise’s polluted grimy soiled mucky Echo chamber . Apart from Beck’s touting bias non sense such as Hitler, the Holocaust, Joseph Goebbels, Obama and administration Marxist, socialist, Somusit Islam/ xenophobia anti-Kenyan revolutionary Mau Mau dreams and suggesting violence…

As of Sept. 21, 296 advertisers have asked that their commercials not be shown on Beck's show (up from 26 in August 2009). Fox also has a difficult time selling ads on "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Fox and Friends" when Beck appears on those shows as a guest. Beck's show is known in the TV sales world as "empty calories," meaning he draws great ratings but is toxic for ad sales. If nothing else, I sensed that people around Fox News have grown weary after months of "It's all about Glenn."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/magazine/03beck-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Does anybody know if Fox Noise has put this interesting tidbit on blast as a smear fom the left like they generally do? Fox is good at putting them negative stories on blast. What percentage of the media will agree with Fox; I wonder?
Now I don’t claim to be oracle like Beck; but, if beck happens to put a republican (he can’t) in the white house, I’ll bet Murdock and Roger Ailes will cut their losses and get rid of Beck’s Murder.INC

I think you pay attention to Independent Redneck Va.'s excellent post because the floodgates are open for Senators financed by influences of money domestically and internationally. We don't need Republican subsidiaries of billionaires whose only aim is to stack right wing activist on the Supreme Court.

Mo;

Remember that the republican/tea party is only interested in what Wall Street, Big Business and the 2% have to say. The other 98% are treated as backgound noise.

Good Job Tom Coburn, it is about time someone in Goverment realized that we need to start taking care of the millions of people hurting (kicked out of thier houses) in the USA.

Thank you for posting that encouring news IR

Bev

Yes i saw the Entitlements that Obama spent on the Unions over 400 billion dollars spent on bailing the Unions out from his Stimulus package for less then 7 percent of the population..

Meg Whitman. She has an illegal housekeeper working for her for 9 years and she "just" found out that she is an illegal? Are you kidding me? How stupid does she think we Californians are. Now, I may still believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, but I'll damned if I'll believe Witman's lies. Jerry Brown (as controversial as he is) will clean her clock. He'll play "kick the can" with her all the way down the street. (That's for you who are old enough to remember that old street game.) Ahhh, memories.

True that, California Tom. Somehow the letter she received from the IRS 7 years ago didn't provide any clues that her housekeeper was illegal. Or Meg's a liar.

Steve, you haven't answered the question. How much of your tax dollars do you feel should be directed to subsidizing billionaires?

John,

I understand that Taxing Business more will result in Higher prices for their goods which in the end Hurts the poor and Middle Class more, Business dont Pay Taxes.. The people that buy their goods pay their Taxes.. Until you get that thru your head, you will be willing to pay Higher Prices for those goods and Services

Left-wing panic attack. Let me guess - in your home, you max out a credit card and then apply for and receive another without worrying about your debt. Just keep on spending money that you don't have, keep buying things that you don't need - then, default.

This administration needs to quit making financial promises that We, the People, cannot keep.

Steve-505729: I understand that Taxing Business more will result in Higher prices for their goods which in the end Hurts the poor and Middle Class more, Business dont Pay Taxes.. The people that buy their goods pay their Taxes.. Until you get that thru your head, you will be willing to pay Higher Prices for those goods and Services

Steve, that is exactly the reason I don't understand why we have to bow down to these slease bags. They are not going to help anyone but themselves no matter what happens. I refuse to get in their corner and defend them. Any way we go the middle class and the poor will be hurt so why should we continue to make the rich richer without a fight.

The small (not) businesses will not create the jobs that everybody says they will, there is no guarantee of that. Yet the republicans continue to try and sell this to the public. If the tax cuts will work in the future, why are they not working now or the past 10 years. It is nothing but a narrative that was started after the President got into office and another way for the opposition to try and get their way. The small (not) businesses will continue to send the jobs off shore for small wages and more riches for themselves and will not care anymore for the middle class and the poor than they do now.

It is time to put them on blast and let them know that we are on to them and don't intend to take it lying down. I will always be in the corner of the less fortunate and if it is in the plans from a higher power for things to get better, they will, if not then we will just have to live with it. But, I will not put any faith in the small (not) businesses or the republican/tea party to make them better.

I am fed up with the whole mess and I intend to vote and encouraging everyone I can to do the same. We may not win but I am willing to go down trying.

Anything to save the CEO's precious bloated compensation packages, right?

"The CEO of MegaTech can only afford 1 new Mercedes this year and not two."

...yeah, that doesn't elicit much sympathy from me.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Congress pass a pay as you go law this past year? Now as I understand it, pay as you go means that if you promise to give money to an organization, a program or an earmark, you've got to come up with a way to pay for it? If that law was not meant to function as a bottleneck for the unlimited spending that has been the hallmark of this Congress and bankrupting the country, then why did the democrats vote for it?

Steve, you've avoided the question instead of answering;

"How much of your tax dollars do you feel should be directed to subsidizing billionaires?"

EVERY DAY we're choosing winners in the economy by lowering taxes for this or that industry, forgiving taxes in the name of "economic development" if they place jobs in this or that place, or giving favored tax status to capital gains over earned income.

"How much of your tax dollars do you feel should be directed to subsidizing billionaires?"

Sorry TJM - Repubs killed the bill. after telling everyone how much they supported it.

SSDD from them right down to the Pledge without lemons.

John,

Giving a business a tax break is not my money.. Taxes are just way for the govt to get more of my money and other peoples money.

I am not sure why you think all the money in this country belongs to the govt to take whenever they wish.

Steve, the Republican Party is every bit as culpable when it comes to entitlements. It's just that beneficiaries of Republican largess are rich folk and the burden is borne by the middle class and future generations.

Commonsence.. The Republicans have not been in control of congress or the Presidency for the last 2 years .. and yet the democrats have put hs 3 Trillion dollars more in debt. as you can tell from 1980 the time our Deficts and debt have Risen the most is when the Democrats control Congress.. These are Facts that can't Be Disputed.

Steve – Wrong again !

National Debt link: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Steve, you come here every. single. day and pretend that government doesn't cost money, that all taxes are stolen goods. It's an intellectually dishonest position, so I'm going to ask directly;

What should the government provide in the way of services and how shall we pay for it?

Income Taxes are stealing.....

IR, Jody, US Navy Ret.,

Thank you for bringing this up again, all of you great posts, we should see this every day from my viewpoint!!

The Senate is broken!! We need to get serious about reforming this once high held institution. The practice of a "hold" is a perfect example of ineffective governance. We send 100 senators, and 435 representatives, and 1 President to do the work of the people, but 1 Senator can and has stopped everything from proceeding as Sen. Bunning did earlier this year by denying unemployment benefits to those who DESPERATLY NEED THEM!!!

I hear constantly that the Republicans are the "values" party, well this is one "value" I abhor, denying a basic need to fellow Americans for subsistence, WOW!!

This "rule" of the Senate must go, it is the definition of undemocratic, one person rule, any senator can place a "hold" for any undeclared reason, and remain anonymous, it's wrong, just plain wrong, and it needs to stop now!

Again thanks for all the thoughtful posts, I hope this topic stays foremost in our minds, and will be the first priority of the new Senate regardless who will control it.

For all the bloviating-just imagine if the Dems were powerful enough to not need one Republican to pass their insane agendas? The fact is they have had filibuster proof majorities since Jan 2007-yet they continue to blame Bush for 2008 even though they controlled all the pursestrings! Anybody realize that simple but overlooked fact? They could not pass their culture and economy killing policies, because even in the Democratic party, there are some individuals not willing to add to the 130 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities they have created since 1965. Fact is folks we only take in 3 trillion a year in revenues and very soon the interest on our debt will take most of that-so how are we going to keep expanding government size, agencies and service-not to mention Social Security, Mediacare and Medicaid. A financial reckoning is coming and if the Dems keep on acting and spending as though it does not exist- in order to feed all their social programs, welfare recipients and insane earmarks and pork barrel spending-we will have a total financial and societal collapse.

Dennis.. I know you like to come on these boards and LIE to people on here but my Facts were Right on the money. here is a Chart of how much each party Spent when they Controlled all of Congress..

http://i44.tinypic.com/34g1xu1.jpg

now as we can see by this Chart that when Republican Controlled congress by themselves they added 2.4 Trillion dollars to the National Debt.. When the Democrats Controlled congress by themselves they added 5.8 Trillion dollars to the National Debt now since it only went up to 2009.. and we know that the Democrats have Added another 1.3 Trillion dollars to the National Debt . .I added that to my numbers . and how i came up with the 5.8 Trillion..

I know you dont like FACTS.. but here they are

Steve,

Your numbers are not adjusted for inflation where mine are tied to the National GDP.

Steve your numbers are correct but misleading.

STTS

John Bolhman Thank you and thank you for stopping by and sharing with us this afternoon. Hope you get a chance to stop by more often I find that you always add a positive to our discourse here. You'll come on back and see us now you heyaar.

Do you seriously think that the dems care any more about you than the repubs do? Seriously?

I give full credit for the mess we are in now to Bush AND Clinton, and all of the other presidents and congresses that we had for the past 40 years. They ALL had a hand in it. Rather than trying to clean it up though, your boy, Obama, and the current congress have done NOTHING to fix the problem. They have only fixed the blame on where they think it should be to make themselves look good. They have not fixed waste in the govt, they have thrown money at it.

I do not want a republican controlled majority in congress any more than I wanted the dems in control. Any time we have one party controlling 2/3 of our govt, we have disaster. I agree that republicans seem to only care about big business and the military industrial complex. But democrats only care about giving away entitlements to those who are not willing to work for them. It's called BUYING VOTES.

Neither party gives a crap about the middle class and they both treat us as background noise. When are all of you going to wake up and see that? Hopefully you will by November 2nd.

Dennis,

Nothing misleading about my numbers in anyway.. YOU said i was wrong. i proved that you lied when you said i was wrong.. Your answer is to say my numbers are misleading.. Just admit that what i said was 100 percent correct.. I know its impossible for a Democrat to have to Admit they were wrong

IRV

Disabled

Jody

John Des Moines

C'mon you bozos!

Do you honestly think we are buying your "Great Post So and so" Bull $hit?

Strange how the first posters are the same EVERY frickin time with this "First Read or First Thought" Op Ed.

This is the last time I bother commenting on one of these threads, as it OBVIOUSLY doesn't represent a true public sentiment.

If you're not all the same person, you might as well be, because you're the only ones paying any attention to the lefty propaganda.

Can any Republicans/Tea Partiers, in good conscience, support Mitt Romney for President?

"Obamacare" was practically a carbon-copy of "Romneycare", Romney's health care overhaul in Massachusetts. Just look at the similarities:

- Insurance companies cannot deny coverage for a pre-existing condition.

- New requirements for businesses to provide health care, and tax breaks to help pay for it.

- New subsidies to help people with modest income purchase health insurance.

- Most Importantly: THE INSURANCE MANDATE -- government requires EVERYBODY under the law to purchase health insurance.

Mitt Romney, as Governor, put in place an insurance mandate for all citizens in Mass., years before Teapublicans were deriding Obama for "Big Government FORCING Americans to buy private insurance".

Any Tea Partiers / Republicans who support Mitt Romney for President CLEARLY demonstrate that they are two-faced individuals who only oppose "socialism" when it's done by Democrats.

Obamacare = Romneycare.

No ideas - solutions or answers... only more of the chest pounding and school yard taunting from the righties!

If you think they're pi$$ed now... wait until things don't go as planned on November 3rd!

Great Posts everyone - you might not necessarily agree with 'our' positions - but you have to admit at least people with an IQ above a rutabaga will think about them...

Which leaves the rest of them as low information voters... Thanks Red good to see you today

Oh my goodness, Independent Redneck. Say it ain't so. How could Senator Tom "First, do no harm" Coburn, M.D. do something like denying aid. That almost sounds harmful.

Please don't tell me Senator Tom "Pay the hush money, John" Coburn would do something so cynical as to single-handedly thwart the will of the people.

Please don't tell me Senator Tom "I am a Christian" Coburn (R- C Street) would deliberately ignore J.C.'s immortal words, "Whatsoever you do for the least of these my brethren, you have done unto me."

Please say it ain't so. It just sounds so, well, darn it, so hypocritical. Not Tom. He's a Republican. Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!

I don't see the point in trying to reason with people who have already made up their minds.

Especially those that make a living purposely skewing facts, and deliberately creating unwarranted controversy.

Sorry but, this administration has made it's bed. Time to go night night!

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Remember that the republican/tea party is only interested in what Wall Street, Big Business and the 2% have to say.

If you have to resort to lying to others about what or whom I'm interested in then you've already lost the argument. If you can't see the Democrats sending trillions in new customers (without price or tort reform) to the insurance companies or the huge bailouts going to Big Business, Wall Street, and the 2%, I don't know what to tell you other than to take the blinders off.

Both sides are guilty of corruption. As an independant voter all I could see was the left justifying it when they did it and the right coming up with a Tea Party movement to clean out the garbage (even Republican incumbents). I had no choice but to join in their movement since I refuse to defend the actions of people so obnoxious that they admit they don't even read the bills they pass and resort to name calling if someone calls for a motion to not vote until they all read the bill.

"But if Romney is the front-runner, he’s starting out at a much weaker position than Bob Dole or John McCain ever did at this point in the ’96 and ’08 cycles."

And how does he stack up against where Obama was in 2006?

This drivel is meaningless this early in the contest.

Romney is going nowhere fast if he keeps supporting the likes of Christine O'Donnell.

He really made a contribution to her campaign!

Pathetic.

I can't think of any conservative friend who thinks the republican party is devoid of corruption or ethics violations, or any misconduct.

That's a silly notion.

Yet the liberals seem to be able to explain away even the most blatant acts when it involves one of their own.

I'll leave you with two words: Rangel Waters.

The circle jerk that goes on here is disgusting.

Must say I don't think I've ever seen anything as ridiculous as people who decry "Faux News" then pepper their posts with links to NYT, The Economist, AP, MSNBC, etc. as "facts."

This country is doomed until the left understands that "the 2%" is protected from failure by bailouts and special treatment from the allegedly benevolent and caring government they claim is our champion. It's GOVERNMENT that's destroying the middle class through excessive overt taxation and that stealth tax, inflation. The dollar has lost 95% of its value since the creation of the Federal Reserve.

This country is doomed until the right understands that they cannot mount a legitimate small-government campaign at the same time they support imperial military adventures and massive levels of what amounts to right-wing socialism, that is, spending money on intercontinental strategic bombers and building new 1100 foot long aircraft carriers while we already have 12 in service. The next generation of aircraft carriers is nearing the end of the design phase. 12 flattops. I don't think there's another country that has more than one.

Also take notice of the names of the newest aircraft carriers. Ronald Reagan. George H. W. Bush. The lead ship in the new class is to be christened the Gerald Ford if memory serves me. Neo-cons. And don't delude yourself into thinking they only control the right. Interestingly enough, most of the Bush defense team remained intact in the Obama administration.

You all are arguing about whether you'd rather have a Democrat or Republican piss in your eye. Me, personally, I'd just rather not be pissed on at all.

Concentrating who controlled Congress ignores the fact that the House appropriated LESS than either Regan or HW Bush requested in their budgets, at the same time that Republicans insisted on reducing tax rates because the "Laffer curve" would magically create more revenue. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html We've had supply-siders in the White House for 20 years and EVERY ONE of their budgets increased the debt faster than economic growth. It's all laid out here. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html The slide show about 2/3 down the page is particularly instructive.

Thanks IR! I owe ya one! ;0)

Didn't take long at all for them to prove my point did it?

ClintH and other Fly Bys:

If you do not like this board then do us all a favor and just leave. If you have something you want to talk about then post it.

Well said Seattle. We currently have more classes of ships than other countries have ships period.

I am still so ashamed than Tom Coburn represents my state. You notice I said , my state, BECAUSE HE DARN SURE HAS NO CLUE WHAT OKLAHOMANS THINK! YES I AM SCREAMING!!!!!!

Aye aye sir Disabled!

Just one question: Which gets written first, the comments or the article?

Thanks John, I forgot about Time Magazine.

Also, when whoever wrote that zfacts webpage started talking about "Roosevelt's debt ended the Depression and the war" it lost me. This is the classic "broken window" fallacy writ large. The Roosevelt administration was an unmitigated economic disaster and at the end of the war when the Truman Administration asked Congress to resume much of the Roosevelt domestic economic platform they gave Truman the finger because they understood it was a horrible idea.

I don't like the debt as percentage of GDP matrix. The US is a debtor nation and therefore pursues a policy of inflation because it's beneficial to pay off old debt with new debased dollars. GDP is a tricky indicator of economic growth because it's manipulated by inflation, which is why the government economists were able to proclaim an end to the recession based on consecutive quarters of growth. Kinda hard for GDP not to grow when the money supply is doubled by the Federal Reserve. All GDP shows is the total value of the economy. It doesn't tell you that it's in debased dollars. Meanwhile, gold is at $1,300 an ounce and shows no signs of slowing. Not many months ago it was at $1,000. Hands down best investment you could have made in the past 20 years. Almost all because of central bank inflation.

Charts that show debt in 2009 dollars show a much smaller spike during the Second World War and then it pretty much flatlines until 1980. After that it looks much the same. The key here is that it appears the debt was falling when measured against GDP because the government has been pursuing a policy of inflation for about 100 years.

The supply-side theory relies just as heavily on slashing spending as it does slashing taxes. The latter was done, the former was not. Now I'm not interested in getting hung up on which party does the most spending. The FACT is Congress controls the purse strings, and they've been slowly abdicating this responsibility to the White House for quite some time now. Presidents can submit budget requests for a moon colony if they want to, but Congress does not have to appropriate the funds. It's always funny to me when people talk about the Bush budget or the Clinton budget. It's all Congress, always has been.

Ain't no big thing Red..................And justshootmefast I have this thing you see I like to see what everybody has to say. May not agree with it but I want to see it and being as Independent as I am I'm pretty resistant to somebody trying to filter it for me.

I just don't believe anything the Republicans have to say anymore....

Numbers can be spouted and radio personalities can rant as much as they want...but my gut feeling says: they are self serving bastards that just don't care about anyone but themselves.

What is the RNC proposing? Anything, anything at all? Or just keep trying to pull down the man that is trying to pull us all up? Denounce him for anything and everything...he can do or never will do any good? I remember the witch hunts on Clinton as well...it's the same old thing with the Republicans. I'm tired of it.

I hear you guys saying the Democrats ran the house....I don't remember them just flat out refusing to work with Republicans. Voting NO on any and everything the President proposed.

What our country needs is action, positive movements and unity.

Based on this gut feeling, I'll be taking my vote to the Democrat side. Just because the Republicans SAY they are taking over in November, doesn't make it so...it's they way they been winning elections for some time now...time to stop the pattern.

The message apparently needs to pounded in harder than it was when Obama won. It's important we ALL send this message to the right in November. The more negative they are, the higher the victory of margin.

We are all living through the aftermath of the Bush administration. 8 Years of raping and pilaging the American economy. Now the people that complain the loudest are the same people that voted for Bush, TWICE. Sorry numbskulls, now you will have to live with it. Bush wrecked it and now Obama will fix it or begin to fix it. The mess that Bush left may not be able to be fixed in one term, or two terms, or for several terms after that. We all got pretty well screwed. Now all we can do is look up.

Curious; Who owns this presidency? Obama or Bush?

Does it depend on the success of this administration?

Pretty cowardly, no?

"If it's good I did it, if it's bad you did it!"

That's not leadership, that's passing the buck.

In other words, ANYONE could do what Obama is doing.......only ALMOST ANYONE could do it better.

Want to know why that narrative doesn't get traction anywhere except within the Conservative echo chamber, ClintHorace? It's because the only relevant measure is are we better or worse than we were when Barack Obama took the oath of office? The answer unequivically is "better." We're down to 50,000 soldiers in Iraq rather than hundreds of thousands. We're making SOME jobs every month instead of losing 750,000. The Dow is about 50% higher now than it was then. We've had multiple months of growth in the economy.

Are we there yet? Of course not, but NO ONE says we are. They only say we're considerably better off than we were when Bush packed his bags and sold that ranch in Crawford he only bought so the rural folks would think he was one of them.

It obviously depends on what your definition of "better off" is.

When you say things like "the Dow is about 50% higher than it was then", you've already lost any credibility. 50%? Really!

I'm not sure if you realize this, but the unemployment rate has continued to rise despite an 800 billion dollar stimulus bill, that was SUPPOSED to keep it below 8%. Remember?

Couple that with the fact that Obama simply can't spend money fast enough to push his RADICAL agenda, thus putting the next couple generations in a hole they'll never be able to dig out of, and I'd say we have a clusterphuck in Washington that makes the Bush administration look like a group of geniuses.

But you just keep skewing statistics to your hearts content!

10788 on 9/30, 6547 when the Bush free fall finally stopped on 3/9/09 for an increase of 64.8%. http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^DJI#chart5:symbol=^dji;range=20090101,20100930;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined

You're also wrong that there was a promise that the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%. The President never uttered those words and unemployment was over 8% WHEN THE BILL PASSED CONGRESS.

And economists are virtually all in agreement that actions of the government pretty much prevented another Great Depression. http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf

Thanks for playing.

...Remember that the republican/tea party is only interested in what Wall Street, Big Business and the 2% have to say. The other 98% are treated as backgound noise.

I chuckle as I read all of the whiny, exaggerated, ridiculous and childish statements made today. If you did 5 minutes of study on who the tea party folks are, most are salt of the earth Americans. Most are middle to lower middle income. Regular people. Not at all what some of you lunatics try to make them out to be with your whiny liberal nonsense.

Your President and party just completed transferring more wealth to fewer people than any time in the history of the world. They "rescued" more millionaires and billionaires than ever in history. The President's offices are filled with Goldman Sachs former employees. The democrat party is the party of the rich, and health insurance companies, auto manufacturers, bankers and insurance exec's are all very grateful for Obama's payouts.

Good luck with that class warfare nonsense though, the liberal idiots still buy it. Most of the rest of us know the truth.

That's what I mean by twisting words John.

50% of 10,000 is what? If it was 8,000, it would be at least at 12,000 by now, right?!

Shouldn't it be around 15,000 according to your "logic"?

Willful ignorance!

Obama never said unemployment wouldn't go above 8%?

You're just a flat out liar, just like your Supreme Leader!

OK, I see the problem here, it's math skills. When a number goes from 10,000 to 5,000 it's a decrease of 50%. When a number goes from 5,000 to 10,000 it's increased by 100% or doubled.

Let's look at a real world example. From its high of 14,093 on 10/8/07 (15 months before GW Bush left office) the Dow fell to a low of 6,547 on 3/9/09. Doing the math we find that the value is 6,547/14,093=.465 of the original value, or subtracting from 1 and moving the decimal 2 places to the right the Dow lost 53.5% of its value. That's over half, just to clarify.

From that low of 6,547 the 9/30/10 value of 10,788 gives a change in valuation of 10,788/6,547=1.648, or an increase in value of 64.8%.

Oh, and I'll also throw in a fact check on the 8% claim. http://mediamatters.org/research/200906090039

Please try harder next time.

It's because the only relevant measure is are we better or worse than we were when Barack Obama took the oath of office?

The Dow is about 50% higher now than it was then. We've had multiple months of growth in the economy.

See the problem John?

Where was the Dow WHEN Obama took office?

I have a small interest in the market and I watched it TANK DURING the Obama administration.

Bottom line: The "are you better off" question is OBVIOUSLY a matter of opinion.

If Obama didn't "say" the bit about unemployment, and remember I said IF, he sure as hell implied it with one of his hundreds of speeches.

Try harder?

Finding fault with this administration, and in particular, Obama..... it's like fallin' off a log Juanita.

OK, have it your way. When Barack Obama took office the Dow was 7949. Now it's only up 36% instead of down by half as it was late in the Bush Administration. Of course any rational observer can see that the trajectory was nearly straight down when he took office and it's unreasonable to expect an instant reversal. As it is the reversal came just as the stimulus was passed.

Bottom line: You just aren't interested in facts. While I prefer an honest debate I'm just as happy pointing out that Conservatives aren't interested in honest debates. Thanks for your assistance.

You just admitted you skewed facts.

How can you have an "honest debate" when you PURPOSELY try to manipulate even the most insignificant data, in an attempt to portray this president as productive and popular.

He's only popular with you and the small percentage that make up your dying breed.

And productive? I think DESTRUCTIVE is more appropriate.

No, I measured from the point at which the Bush Crash was finally arrested a few weeks after Barack Obama was sworn in. You insist on measuring it at the exact point he took the oath of office as if placing his hand on the Bible and following John Robert's stumbling interpretation of the Oath of Office would somehow instantaneously cure the ills of the economy. Nice example of the typical Conservative use of projection, however. You've accused me of doing what you in fact are doing, manipulating the facts.

Among those facts over 2/3 of Americans still realize that while it's Barack Obama's job to fix the economy the George W Bush Administration and Conservatives wrecked it. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/09/poll-george-w-bush-obama-economy/1

As far as popularity is concerned if you go here http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx and go to the "Compare Presidents" tab you'll see that President Obama is still MORE POPULAR than Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan were at this point in their presidencies, and GW Bush was already coming down off the artificial high provided by the 9/11 attack.

And I'm still the only one to provide any facts in this debate.

No, I measured from the point at which the Bush Crash was finally arrested a few weeks after Barack Obama was sworn in.

A few weeks?

The Bush crash?

You're grasping at straws; which is why I called you out in the first place.

And spare me the links, that could be refuted a hundred times over with my own carefully selected sources.

Just because you continue to say something, it won't make it come true.

Though, it is funny to hear the EXCUSES libs will come up with!

As for you, you're not worth my time. It's like trying to converse with a rock.

Maybe we'll see you around in some other thread beside the "First Read" or "First Thought" BS......if you have the balls, Juanita.

And the Conservative is reduced to claiming his sources, which he won't reveal, are superior to my sources which I have revealed, and ends in a personal attack.

My work here is done.

Amen, Jody--even if nothing else had gone wrong with the Gulf oil spill, the fact that 15 people lost their lives should be enough to get Congress behind a thorough investigation. I'm not sure that sub poena power will guarantee that the truth will come out but the penalty of perjury should at least get some people talking. Mr. DeMint must be in the pocket of the oil industry--why else would he object?

Jody,

You are right on point. There is nothing in the republican agenda that will make America stronger as a whole. The republican party is he!! bent on this "Great Society" of theirs that is comprised of Wall Street, Big Business and the wealthiest 2%.

In this "Great Scoiety" of the republicans, there will be no room for the Middle Class, it will become extinct. There will be only unregulated Big Businesses and Wall Street that will replace the government as we know it, and everything will be controlled by the 2% of the people.

Our country will look like something out of a science fiction movie.

The problem with Democrats is that they Expect 2 percent of the Population to pay for the Things they think they are entitled too. its the same thing with you every day US NAVY,

Can't agree more, Jody. By no means was it an isolated opinion when Conservative Rep. Joe Barton apologized to BP because our President had the temerity to expect them to shoulder the responsibility for the disaster they caused through their own negligence. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65G42D20100617

Conservatives in Congress know their masters are the very wealthy and work very hard to keep them pleased. They've done very well http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm as concentration of wealth reached an all time high last year.

Steve. I do NOT expect 2% to pay for everything but they could pay their fair share for roads, bridges, education. I assume you are in that 2% category otherwise you would not object to their paying at least the same tax rate as middle America pays. Most of that 2% pay 15% or less as a tax rate because they have more tax exemptions, they can set aside their large income as deductible. Don't take my word for it, Warren Buffet admits it.

Social security and medicare are NOT entitlements, we pay into them. I am so tired of republicans acting as if democrats are worthless, shiftless no goods who sit by and expect things. I worked from the time I was old enough until I retired. I paid my share of taxes and did so without whining about it. By the way, there are republicans who sit and do nothing, the lazy few are bi-partisan.

STTS

The problem with the Republicans is that they see nothing wrong with 2 percent having most of the money in the country, but everything wrong with them having to pay taxes.

BRAVO RichS!

Steve;

Nice try, spin away. Just answer the questions I asked.

How are you going to reduce the deficit? What programs will you cut?

How are you going to create jobs?

What are you going to do to improve Education?

Answer them.

Jody..

The Difference between a Republican that sits around and does nothing and a Democrat that sits around and Does Nothing is that the Republican knows that it is their own Doing that has them in the position they are in, The Democrat blames others for the problems they are having

Steve,

It is not wating the top 2% to pay more, it comes down to they should have to pay on what they have and not be able to use the tax system to move more money off the tax roles and skirt paying their share!

I have proposed an across the board flat tax rate of whatever without any chance of adding any, and I do mean any kind of loophole! But that will never happen with this current lot of Republicans because that will cut into their greed!

The Republican talking point has been that the President wants to raise taxes, but the real question to this current lot of Republicans is how do you expect to pay for these Bush tax cuts which has been shown to balloon the deficit and will continue to do so and furthermore should the wealthy have already been creating jobs since to top 20% of the wealthy own nearly half of the wealth in the U.S.?

The myth of taxing the rich less to create jobs has been and will always be de-bunked----because they don't, they line their pockets with more greedy money!

Terry,

Your Taxes have been Raised, IE the HCR bill, first they said it was interstate commerce.. then they claim its a Tax.. but please Tell us why they didnt put any Bill on the table of Either house that would Extend the Bush Tax cuts for the 98 percent of the American people they claim they are for?

"Most of that 2% pay 15% or less as a tax rate because they have more tax exemptions, they can set aside their large income as deductible. Don't take my word for it, Warren Buffet admits it."

That is actually untrue and has been proven to be so, but if it were, it is fair that all pay the same rate. What is unfair is that 50% of households pay 0 in federal income tax and a large portion of the 50% actually get welfare $$ back.

And no, I am not in the top 2% bracket, I just belive that all people in this country should share the cost of running it.

Steve,

Nice try answering a question with a question. You failed your part of the test!

Frankusa,

Then do as I have tell you elected officials that you want a flat tax rate without loopholes and or any way of putting any in as I have proposed many times before!

Terry, DAV;

Nice post, you said it better than I can. We are only asking for the 2% to pay their fair share, nothing more. We are in an economic pickle thanks to to irresponsible mismanagement of the previous administration. We are going to have to spend money to get out. Big Business, Wall Street, and the richest 2% are not going to do anything.

With that in mind, we need to be prudent in how we spend and that includes not keeping the 830 Billion Dollar earmark for the richest 2%. Most every economist, republican and democrat agrees that keeping this tax cut for the richest 2% provides the least bang for the buck. These tax savings will not go back into the economy. AS per Bloomberg News, the richest people (2%) will just save these dollars meaning that Wall Street gets a 700 Billion Dollar pay day. The tax cuts to the 98% will find their way back into the economy if for no other reason than we have to pay our bills, eat, pay for insurance etc.

That is what we are saying.

You righties can keep spinning it anyway you want, the bottom line is giving tax cuts to those 2%, that do not need it anyway, would be Fiscal Irresponsible since it gives us nothing in return. No benefit to the economy, no jobs, just more spending money for those that need it the least.

The problem as I see it, USNR, is not that Steve doesn't have the answers to your question-it's that Obama doesn't have the answers.

He was supposed to have them, campaigned on having them, but his 'solutions' have actually made matters worse.

I read an interesting commentary the other day in, of all things, the Daily Beast. The writer pointed out that when Obama was a community organizer, he could explain his failure to succeed as being the fault of the legislature. When he was in the legislature, the explaination was that he was only one of many-he had not the power, and the problems originated in Washington. When he was a U.S. Senator, the explanation was that he was only one of a hundred-thus, powerless to bring about solutions to problems.

Now that he is president, the explanation is that it is Bush's fault. The writer seemed chagrined at this. I'm thinking he believes he backed the wrong candidate. If I am correct, he takes his place with the majority of the electorate-and a growing number of the punditocracy.

OK NJ, then it's on to you. How have President Obama's policies made matters worse? It's your position, prove it.

Dr No:

What a surprise to see you this morning. After Pietro used fact check to desimate your earlier comments, I thought you might get a clue. You and JoAnna have a lot in common: you both comment without facts (factless) and you are feckless.

BTW NJNB - the 6% drop in likely Republican voters was the MSNBC/WSJ poll that came out 9.28.10...

Tell me again you don't know what I'm talking about!

As for your above comment... is that all the ammo you have left? Your OPINION of someone elses OPINION?

Shesh... forget about Fall we're entering into full blown silly season!

Joe,

I can answer the Questions but I would rather keep the spotlight on the Failed Polices of the Democrats and the Obama administration, Democrats that come to these boards Know in their Hearts know that the Democrats in Congress have been so bad they they wont Defend them, all they want to do is blame everything on Republicans..

US Navy DAV,

It's interesting when you ask the Republicans how they plan on paying for all of the Bush tax cuts they want to be permanent, they have no real answer and try to spin it.

The other thing that is extremely interesting to me is why are the rich not creating more jobns when 20% of them own nearly half the wealth of the country?

That is the real question I want these so called patriotic Republicans to answer!

I want to know why Unemployment is still at 9.6 percent and we are 3 Trillion dollars more in debt with nothing to show for it,

when will you democrats start holding your own party accountable,

Where do I start, John? Okay, HCR.

My insurance company no longer offers the plan I pay for-it seems that it doesn't make the grade of 'equality of benefits'. So, now, I have to buy a plan that covers LESS than the plan I had before. I'm not alone-there are thousands of people discovering that their plans no longer exist, will cost more, and cover less. Read something other than First Read, and you'll discover the truth. Go to realclearpolitics any day of the week-there are always one or two articles on the ramifications of HCR.

Another HCR 'benefit'-my husband's company has always provided Medi-Gap insurance to their retirees. They can no longer do so because HCR has made it illegal for them to provide it-because there is a built-in ceiling on Medi-Gap plans-they cover what Medicare does not. Therefore, a benefit provided by my husband's employer can no longer be provided, thanks to HCR.

Do we need to talk about the deficit? It is ballooning-and someone will have to pay for it.

Obama dressed a turkey up as a peacock, and signed a bill this week that he called a 'tax cut for small businesses'. What is actually in the bill is authorization for the Treasury Department to take over small community banks, whether they like it or not, and force them to give loans to people who may or may not be qualified. The community banks did not want it, and certainly the electorate would not have wanted it if they had known that this was merely a foil to take leftover TARP funds to 'bail-out' banks that did not need bailing out, that resisted bailing out, and fought against this bill to no avail. Think that will make things better? I don't.

GM and Chrysler had a chance to go through a structured bankruptcy, which would have negated such union contracts as paying people for years even though they had no jobs. Instead, the guaranteed bondholders, primarily teacher and fire and police pensions, got the shaft,and the unions got control of the companies. Then, GM takes money out of one TARP account, and pays it into a second, and we are told that they have repaid some of the loans. I notice that narrative ended pretty quickly-most voters are aware of the old shell game, so that line of malarkey was an epic fail.

The housing market is in a bigger slump now than six months ago, because the tax incentive for home ownership was short-lived. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would have seen that coming.

The business roundtable just announced that business managers see lower sales, and lower hiring numbers, than three months ago. Ipso facto, no progress on the unemployment front.

While we're on the subject, 99 weeks of unemployment seems a little excessive, given that there are millions of illegal immigrants in this country doing jobs that Americans refuse. I'm sorry, there is something wrong with that picture.

Raising taxes during a time of economic contraction is the absolute worse thing anyone can do-but Obama plans on doing it. Wait until you see the GDP and unemployment numbers after this next fiasco.

Want to talk about Iran? How's his engagement going with them? Seems to me that they are closer than ever to having nuclear weapons-and he let an opportunity to help topple that government go by. Afghanistan is in worse shape than ever-looks like his 'plan' isn't working. Those talks with Israel and the Palestinians were crippled from the outset by his decree that the moretorium on building in the West Bank had to be continued-was never going to happen, given that the missile strikes did not end with its inception. Yeah, he's a real wiz at foreign policy.

Every day, Obama proves that he was not equipped to be president of this country. I only pray we survive this experiment.

Terry DAV;

I think we will have a long wait. Great posts today.

Joe,

I was going to say what a great post 2.22 was but then i realized that i would just be doing what the liberals do with their own and Stroke your ego, when i know you dont need to be elevated by anyone. You stand on your own...

Fiesty-did not see the article you are talking about, but just went over to realclearpolitics-could not find the poll you meant, but looked at the larger poll nunmbers.

It has a margin of error of + or - 3.1%. Therefore, there is essentially no change from the previous poll. The way it works is this: suppose you have a poll result of 47% approval, and 53% disapproval on fire hydrants. Now, in one sense, you could say that six per cent more people disapprove of fire hydrants than approve. However, given the margin of error, it is just as likely that as many approve as disapprove, so it is just as likely that they are evenly divided. Now suppose that you did a poll that found that 49% approved, while 51% disapproved. You have, essentially, the same numbers as the previous poll. Likewise, if you had 44% approval, and 56% disapproval. Since all of these are within the original margin of error, there has been no substantial change.

I'd have to read the actual poll you are citing, because a 6% drop in likely republican voters could just mean that they polled fewer republican voters than democrat voters. It could be bad weighting, and it could be that, given the margin of error, there is no change from the last poll.

frankusa--you are incorrect. There are different tax rates for different types of income. Capital gains (like on stock sales), interest and dividends are taxed at a flat 15% while wages can be taxed at up to 35%. So Warren Buffett does pay less tax on his interest and dividends than his secretary pays on her wages. If you think that is fair, then you should support the Republicans. If you think that rewards passive investment over working at a job, then you should support the Democrats.

Steve,

You don't know the answer to your own question?

As for holding any party accountable, the Republicans are banking on you having amnesia, since they brought us this mess by not funding things properly in the first place and spending like no tomorrow. This current lot of Republicans are the one in teh same group that brought this upon us.

What I really find interesting is people are really stupid enough to believe this mess can be fixed in an overnight manner. It took several years of tax cutting and free for all spending to get here and it will take a lot of work and compromise on both sides of the isle to get this accomplished.

The other thing that I find interesting, is from the moment the President was sworn into office, Boehner has been hell bent on obstructing everything, and will only entertain his parties ideas only. I guess from his perspective, working together only means his way or the highway.

One final note, as for the Republican party calling veterans un-patriotic during the last administration, they have no idea what a veteran was willing to sacrifice for their exhistance in this country!

Therefore any veteran no matter what side of the isle they stand on has proven their patriotism in the most honorable way anyone can, with the possibility of losing their life!

If Warren Buffet's secretaryis paying a 35% tax rate, then he is paying her really, really well. She's one of the evil rich people you are always complaining about-making over $200,000 per year.

Terry,

Obama and the Democrats passed a 787 Billion dollars Stimulus bill that did nothing to bring the unemployment rate down.. as a matter of fact after it was passed was when it when up to over 10 percent

That's a pretty vague description of what's changed in your policy, NJ. Please elaborate.

It does say here http://www.medicare.gov/publications/pubs/pdf/02110.pdf that plans E, H, I, and J are no longer available but if you already have those medi-gap plans you can keep them and the benefits won't change. Sounds like your husband's employer chose to drop the plan. Not the government's fault.

Again you willfully ignore what was happening to the deficit before Jan 2009. The deficit was climbing like a fighter jet on maximum effort take off when Barack Obama took office and much of it was structural deficit that was built in by Republican mismanagement. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html That sort of thing takes time to fix, even when the new Administration isn't handed the worst recession since the Hoover Administration.

Accusing the government of nationalizing the banks through the small business tax break legislation is a pretty strong accusation. I can find no HINT of this on Google. I defy you to back it up.

GM and Chrysler are now profitable and up to date on their payments to the government for loans they begged for to avoid liquidation. Try as you like, you can't turn a success into a failure. TENS OF THOUSANDS of people have jobs because of that.

And on, and on, and on. Sorry NJ, your trite Conservative talking points just fall flat every time.

Warren Buffet claimed that his secretary paid 25% which was a higher percentage than he paid because of his many exemptions and deductions.

RichS:

So right! 2% never had it soooo good.

Not to mention that billionaires can afford tax attorneys whose job is to find loopholes in the Tax Code to allow them to pay little or no taxes.

Imagine that!

The little people subsidize their tax cut and their tax loopholes.

Then weirdo Republican Tea Partiers get all PO’d when the government has to step in and subsidize the poor.

Should they be allowed to starve and not receive health care? If the answer to that question is no, then I think Food Stamps and Medicaid are keepers. An whaddya know? The middle class gets to pay that bill...and the World Keeps Turning while Republicans keep Spinning.

Steve, I know you aren't real fond of people who know what they're talking about (sometimes referred to as "experts") but Economists are in almost total agreement that the Bush Recession was ended by government action. http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf?L=HPADV2&C=ZANDIBLINDER&P=LEARNMORE

Steve,

By your claim if the stimulus bill was not passed then the unemployment rate would have droped?

If memory serves me correctly many leading analysts stated that the stimulus did not go far enough and staved off an even higher rate of unemployment.

Once again you fail to realize that this mess brought to us by the current lot of Republicans will take time to correct.

They are just banking on you falling into that stupid category and believe that they have the answer when in fact all they want is to secure more riches for the rich and powerful.

Steve ->> “Obama and the Democrats passed a 787 Billion dollars Stimulus bill that did nothing to bring the unemployment rate down.”

But the CBO said that if the stimulus had not passed that the unemployment rate would be 1.6% higher.

John-http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/28/tarp_again_107337.htmlhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/28/tarp_again_107337.

You can't prove something that didnt happen Dennis,

but we can prove that after the Stimulus was passed Unemployment when up . Cant we

Steve,

Of course you are one of those people that only believes the CBO when they say what you want them to say.

NJ, link doesn't work.

As I pointed out, Steve isn't real fond of people who know what they're talking about. Don't confuse correlation with causality. Or put in language Steve might understand;

Socrates was very wise. My parrot's name is Socrates, therefore my parrot must be very wise.

Have you gave a thought to the other side of the issue. MONEY. We now have a 1.6 Trillion annual debt. Is spending millions on an investigation to find someone at fault going to bring those people back? Why is is always our responsibility to fix other countries when they have a disaster? Sorry but I agree with Coburn 100% on the veterans issue. I know for a fact that disabled vets are taken care of very well. My brother is one. $4000 per month disability is very good compensation. When these people sign up to serve in the military they know they put their lives on the line and know the consequences. How much more money needs to be thrown at the veterans administration to make you happy?

Dennis

I didnt mention the CBO,, You did.. I could careless what they project.. but i can tell you straight out by history. That after the Stimulus was passed.. that Unemployment when up to over 10 percent. Dispute thoe facts

John i dont come here to Argue your points. I come here tell the Truth then let you prove me wrong. Which you never have..

KevinT,

Get back to me on the veterans issue when you have walked through the gates of hell!

By the way if it weren't for us veterans, you just might not be enjoying your current way of life!

It takes someone very special that is willing to step up to the plate and swear that they will defend this nation and the Constitution up to giving their life for it!

Those of you who keep harping on making the rich pay their fair share, I agree with you, but I'll take it one step farther:

EVERYONE pay their fair share. The half of the folks who pay no income taxes or get refunds from the govt in excess of the taxes they paid in, are also not paying their fair share. Get rid of the loopholes in the tax codes and go to a flat rate. you make X dollars, you pay Y taxes. Period.

But I'm sure that wouldn't go with your "stick it to the rich" line of thinking.

To answer your questions:

To reduce govt spending and balance the budget? Get rid of the fraud in govt agencies. Get rid of addendums and pork added on to bills in order to get votes or allow the president the line item veto. The bill needs to stand or fall on it's own. Bills must be paid for in the budget or they will not be allowed to pass. (Paygo)

To cut the deficit: First - Don't allow congress to raise the deficit cap. Second - have the budget balanced with money set aside to pay the principal of the debt, not just the interest.

Jobs: stop imposing new regulations on businesses. Enforce regulations already on the books. Repeal NAFTA. Stop giving tax breaks to outsourcing companies. Enforce immigration laws already on the books. Deport illegals. Stop allowing for anchor babies.

Education: Stop taking money that was originally earmarked for education (lottery sales, etc....) and slushing it off somewhere else. Get rid of the glut of administrators. Hold school districts accountable for the level of education they give their students. Fire teachers who are subpar.

Until our elected officials are ready to make deicisions to fix the problems we have instead of pandering to whatever interest group can get them the most votes, we will continue to have these problems.

The current crop of republican front runners doesn't seem to be any different than the group of democrats they want to replace. I just hope we find someone who will be willing to do what needs to be done in time for the elections.

Steve-505729

Terry,

Obama and the Democrats passed a 787 Billion dollars Stimulus bill that did nothing to bring the unemployment rate down.. as a matter of fact after it was passed was when it when up to over 10 percent

*******************************************************************************

Oh brother......Steve, econ 101 and a little bit of econ history will show you that jobs don't recover as you, and most of us, would LIKE them to. Saying it over and over again won't make it so. Job creation is a lagging response....sometimes as much as 48 months....after the end of a recession. Candidate Obama told us this over and over again. Economists agree.

No Joe--please read my post more carefully--all I said is that Warren Buffett has said that his secretary pays a higher effective rate on her earned income (wages) than he does on his interest & dividends. For married people, the 25% rate applies to taxable income over $67,900. While that is certainly a good net income, I would hardly put it in the top 2%.

As I said before--if you think this is fair, then you should support the Republicans. If you don't, support the Democrats.

VermontGirl,

lagging jobs is a Direct Results of the Democrat Policies, Spending over 400 Billion dollars to Bail out Unions that only benifit less then 7 percent of the Population, not Extending the Bush Tax cuts and letting the American Businessman and Business Women know where they Stand. Democrats always seem to Play the Divide card.. Pit one Group agaisnt another. Black against White , Rich agaisnt poor.. Rich agaisnt middle Class.. Middle Class against poor.. Citizen against illegal. Law Abiding Citizen agaisnt Criminal. its disgusting. and people like you Buy into their Divisiveness

Passing bills and laws that Raise the Taxes on American Business that most thinking people understand are just gonna get passed on to the middle Class and Poor...

Steve, the unemployment numbers went up immediately following both of the Bush tax cuts. Corrections take longer that the time needed to get us into this situation.

It is not wating the top 2% to pay more, it comes down to they should have to pay on what they have and not be able to use the tax system to move more money off the tax roles and skirt paying their share!

If you want that, tell your Democrat representatives to allow the flat tax idea to come to the floor rather than blocking it every time the Republicans try to raise the idea.

As it is now, how much do you consider to be "their share"? http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

The top 1% already pay over 40% of the entire income to the treasury. The top 10% pay over 70% of it. I can't find the link on irs.gov right now for 2009 stats though. With 1 in 5 being unemployed or underemployed, the burden shifted even more to them.

Kevin T,

I didn't want to have to pull the flag out but here comes the B.S. I know for a fact the maximum amount a individual who is 100% disabled with combat injury makes and that is not it. Try again.

Even if you add the GI bill (which we had to buy into) you come up short.

Steve, I've repeatedly backed up my arguments with outside links. You make claims without back up then claim neither my links nor my arguments are valid. It's time for you to yawn and go to sleep, like you always do when you realize you're backed into a corner.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Terry, DAV;

Nice post, you said it better than I can. We are only asking for the 2% to pay their fair share, nothing more. We are in an economic pickle thanks to to irresponsible mismanagement of the previous administration. We are going to have to spend money to get out. Big Business, Wall Street, and the richest 2% are not going to do anything.

You do realize that the Dems have had control of congress (meaning both the house and senate) for goin' on SIX years. You do don't ya? Now that they control the White house it has only gotten worse. Man you guys are to easy.

Tom, you might have so called facts, but I have proof. I am a vet myself. I do not make it a big issue. I see so many people take advantage of the veterans hospital where I live. My brother in law for example, served 3 yrs. That was 30 years ago and now he goes to the VAH for a gall bladder operation. Tell me how did he get away with it? Is it fair that vets that really need the help have to wait because of the ones that abuse and take money from the system? I have private insurance, see my doctor for checkups. A lot more could be done to help the ones that are disabled and truly need the help if the waste, corruption, and abuse was cleaned up. Tom Colburn is a medical doctor, if anyone in congress knows about waste in the medical field, it is him.

absurdo, your math skills could use some polish. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

You're off by half, Republicans have used every tool in the box to obstruct progress for that entire time, and for 1/3 of that time our Conservative Republican President was working right along with them.

We know Conservatives need to distort the truth to look good, but try to keep it within reason.

omg, I'm sick of the Mormon argument... let's move on in the national dialogue already, so old! He's a tremendous leader, and frankly this whole thread has been spawned off a spun story, baseless arguments and week assumptions.

It's political season, let the mud dragging begin... . Seriously, what a wacky season politics is in our national dialogue!

But think of the fund-raising potential!

That way, he not only doesn't have to do interviews with the other nets, he's acutally FORBIDDEN to do so.

Wait, what? Are you serious? Proof? Verifiable links?

drive-by-observer

Maybe Mitt needs to do like Palin, Newt, Santorum and Huckabee, and go on contract with Fox. That way, he not only doesn't have to do interviews with the other nets, he's acutally FORBIDDEN to do so.

How's that for 'fair and balanced'? Sounds pretty unhealthy for the political system and it's attendant, much-needed discourse to me.

Maybe Mitt could replace Glenn Beck if Roger Ailes decides to cut their losses with Glenn Beck since Beck would no longer be valuable to that murky FOX Noise Echo Chamber.

FOX Noise is losing more revenue. In fact, 296 advertisers have asked that their commercials not be shown especially when Glenn Beck is on "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Fox and Friends" shows.

Exodite- I got it off the Des Moines Register a couple of days ago. It was bylined 'politico' if I remember right...

I'm gonna go look that up. This is the first I've heard. <_<

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42745.html

It's more complicated than drive-by put it though.

Fox, in an e-mail to POLITICO, indicated that once any of the candidates declares for the presidency he or she will have to sever the deal with the network.

On occasion, they will make appearances on other networks — when they have books to promote — and in those cases their contributor agreements are suspended during that period. Fox News has made rare exceptions for various contributors in terms of appearances on other networks

Potential GOP Presidential Candidates Speak Through Fox News, Rarely On Other Networks

If the presidential election were to be held this November instead of in 2012, odds are that the Republican contender would be employed by Fox News. That's because, as Politico reported Monday, except for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, "Fox now has deals with every major potential Republican presidential candidate not currently in elected office."

Barring elected officials such as Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), recent winner of a Value Voters straw poll, and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who may also run, Fox News has an almost exclusive monopoly on the entire field of GOP frontrunners: Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, John Bolton, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

nice post

Supply Side Economics (or trickledown) does work and all one has to do is look at the Micorsoft, 5 Billionaires and over 12000 Millionaires were Created because of this company, These people were smart and Invested their Monies Wisely, They didnt waste their money on things they didnt need, and now because of their smart investments they can afford to buy whatever they want..

"I don’t know about anyone else but I don’t WANT to be taken care of."

Then why do you support liberal nanny state policies?

"...not one in which my final position depends in large part on whether I worked hard to be born wealthy"

One cannot work hard to be born wealthy. FYI most wealthy people were not "born" wealthy. If you believe the "rich" and their families have always been rich then you are dilusional.

Microsoft isn't an example of Supply Side anything. It is just a regular capitalist example. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Rich,

Microsoft is a Private company that made Many people Rich, The perfect Example of Supply Side Economics,

"One cannot work hard to be born wealthy." Perhaps you should seek enlightenment here; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

Since you assert that most wealthy people weren't born wealthy, I'm sure you have some statistics to back up that claim. Otherwise you're just talking.

And if trickle down economics is working so well why is wealth accumulating so rapidly at the top? http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=12682

Why is the middle class increasingly left out of the economic pie? http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/gdp-per-capita.html

Why is the spread between the rich and the middle class greater even than it was before the Great Depression?

Why are middle class families hurting while the elites of society prosper? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38935053/ns/business-us_business/

John B. terrific post. Supply side economics can only work for short periods of time before it collapses, combine it with deregulation and we get the Great Recession.

Microsoft is not an example of supply-side economics, it is an example of a group of entrepreneurs who had a vision about computers and the future of them. They became millionaires not because of supply-side economics but because they were intelligent, computer whiz kids who recognized the potential. They would have been successful regardless.

Jody,

Your post get wierder every day. The great recession was started by the Community housing act started under Clinton and Barney Frank. Was then reved up when companies started hiring off shore, NAFTA etc. (Clinton Policy) and then put into overdrive when gas prices skyrocketed.

Thanks for reinforcing your ignorance Steve. Supply-side economics is a theory that reducing taxes and regulations is the best way to spur economic activity. This can work in the short-term, but in the long-term you run out of taxes to cut (and revenue to run things), and cutting regulations leads to huge messes to clean up later.

"Trickle Down" is just Supply-Side for dummies (usually Republicans). Private companies that make money is just regular capitalism. Just making up definitions for things for the sake of argument is lame.

FrankUSA, still spreading the Conservative untruth that Fannie and Freddie caused the economic collapse? Even YEARS after it was debunked? The banks gambled with our money and lost. They overleveraged, then securitized the risk and sold it off to players like AIG...or each other. Fannie and Freddie had LESS THAN 20% OF THE SUBPRIME MORTGAGES. Who forced the other 80%? Who caused private companies to issue "liar loans" where information was falsified to qualify unqualified buyers?

Fannie and Freddie did not cause this crisis. http://seekingalpha.com/article/98533-fannie-and-freddie-did-not-cause-this-crisis

Speculators caused this crisis. http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/09/housing_markets_3

What Steve and Rich fail to say is "trickle down or supply side" only works by borrowing money to replace the revenue lost from tax breaks to the rich. It happened in 1980 under Regan and it happened again in 2001 under Bush II. So yes it works in the short term, till the public gets tired of deficits.

Might I suggest a book to read, FrankUSA? It's called 'The Big Short' by Michael Lewis. Only through knowledge will you be able to know what you are talking about.

Several have pointed out that supply side works in the short term and they are correct. It is an appropriate response when inflation is high but should only be used for a short period of time. The problem is that it was used for too long and went too far under Reagan and Bush 41.

The largest Deficts in History have been when the Democrats control Congress.. Go figure..

John B., check your facts. This mess started on January 3rd, 2007 when the Democrats took control of the House (Pelosi), Senate (Reid), the House Financial Services Committee (Barney Frank) and the Senate Banking Committee (Chris Dodd). These are the idiots that made life easy for EVERYONE to get the mortgage and Fannie and Freddie to back over 90% of the troubled mortgages. Bush tried and failed to control Congress and deserves part of the blame for not YELLING to the world about what these SOB's were doing. Read the facts and tell Obama and your fellow Lib Demobrats from balming everyone but themselves!!

frankusa. Personal attacks are so becoming to those who make them. Prove it. Prove to us that Fannie and Freddie caused the Great Recession. Provide the links, tell us the source. Or is the source FOX?

bobsopinion, sources please. Support your opinion with facts and data. John has provided sources and data. I even provided the title of a book that documents that your assertion is wrong. Where are your sources? Who are they? What data do you have to back that up?

Calling an opinion a fact does not magically make that opinion a fact. bobsopinion, you have provided only opinion, not fact. Back it up, if you can.

@bobsopinion: Funny. All this time I thought Countrywide Financial's own internal policy was responsible for that.

The Democrats have investigated every business that they claim created the Recession. Except 2.. Guess which ones.. Yep thats right. Fannie and Freddie

You lie, Steve. The heads of both Fannie and Freddie were brought before the commission.

The mess did not start in January 2007 - there's no way it could have. The cake had been baking for a long time.

For those who believe George Bush was valiantly trying to constrain the evil Fannie and Freddie, listen to this speech from 2002:

http://www.youtube.com/watch/?v=GkAtUq0OJ68

A speech from 2002? Back then both Democrats AND Republicans thought there was no problem with toxic asset trading and Fannie/Freddie. Why? Greenspan told them so. The same guy who advised Clinton.

It wasn't just the Fannie/Freddie thing that caused it. Unfair foreign trade agreements like NAFTA & China Free Trade, toxic asset trading gone crazy, Congress passing jobs allowing CEOs to hire sweat shop labor overseas, gov't forcing banks to make high risk loans based on racism claims, 9/11 attacks hurling us into war right when we were recovering from the last recession, and many other things.

True dat, Allen. There is never any one thing that causes these kinds of problems but a lot of people do not have the thinking capacity to know that. Not only did the things you mention contribute but the problems started many years ago. There were a few small steps in the 60s and early 70s but Reagan really opened the gates to the path that led us to where we are today through deregulation and advancing a total 'hands off' government philosophy. It was the economists and finance people (bankers, loan originators, speculators, etc.) who believed in a rational market and got too greedy that actually took us down that path.

Still, supply side vs. Keynes economic policies is not a big part of the election. It's really an election about nothing, if you can't/won't include macro economic policy. Policies like supply side, trade, illegal immigration, are not even being considered, and they are all major jobs issues, and issues concerning getting out of the recession, which is costing trillions in lost revenue, profits, wages, etc. We really have another election about nothing, maybe minor economic issue, micro economic issues, things that really don't matter to a whole lot of people, certainly not major jobs issues, or things to get us out of the recession, just a continued decline with the same failed republican/neocon, proven failed, economic policies.

Please Tell us Salt Grass,

Put a Number on this Fair Wage that you think people should be Paid.. How much should people that work for Mcdonalds, Burger King, ect ect ect.. be paid.

According to liberals everyone should be paid the same wage. They just don't admit it. This is a underlying fact because if the didn't they wouldn't support a progressive tax system which is nothing more than a tool to make everyone "more equal".

I think the pay at the top is excessive and the pay at the bottom is not substantial. I did not mention the fast food nations jobs, because those have always been considered part time and or student positions. Retail however use to offer people careers, but now retail employees are paid below poverty. So would like fries with that Chinese import?

Salt Grass,

You see that is the problem. the more Money that you pay people the more money you have to charge for the product you are selling. So. What is a Fair wage and how much are you willing to pay for that Pair of Jeans you want?

Nice Conservative narratives, which as usual are not based in fact. I'm a Liberal. I expect to work hard, and do. I expect to make more money than my 200 employees. I have no problem firing people who don't hold up their end of the job. I realize that the CEO and the janitor have always been and will always be in different income brackets.

What I don't believe in is the Conservative version of Capitalism as decoupled from social responsibility. The average CEO hasn't EARNED $10,000 more every DAY than an average worker makes in a YEAR. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/06/joe-biden/biden-points-out-disparities-between-ceo-and-avera/ Not only is that inherently immoral (though Conservative prefer to believe that morality has no roll in the economy) but it's bad for the United States economy. When our economy was strongest, in the 1950s-60s the vast majority of people made enough money to buy a modest house, trade cars regularly, take vacations, and otherwise do a fantastic job of priming the economic pump.

Back then the average CEO made a few dozen times the average wage, and that's fine. Now they make a few HUNDRED times the average wage, and climbing fast. America suffers as a result. You see it's about balance, and the Conservative economic belief system is about as unbalanced as it can be. We're being led rapidly toward a class-based society in which the fast majority of us aren't even stakeholders. When that happens we're done as an economic power. We're a banana republic.

No, liberals do not believe that everyone should be paid the same wage. That's the dumbest comment so far today. Liberals like to earn big wages, too. When America's economy was its strongest, CEO pay was high but not multi-millions. GM's CEO was making over $20 million a year while the company itself was nearly bankrupt; that guy was not earning his money, he was just sucking the company dry. No economy can survive if CEO pay eats the profits, if workers are paid lower wages to compensate those multi-million dollar yearly salaries. The middle class is the economic driver, when the middle class shrinks ultimately those corporations will suffer because the middle class can no longer afford the products they make. It is a short-sighted vision for any company.

John, you're an amazing human being.

John B.

I agree with ED, you are an amazing individual.

We used to have a company in Vermont - Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream (they have since been bought out). I know them well as they used to be a customer of mine. Ben Cohen always had a model that the CEO never made more than 7X the lowest paid employee. Sounds a lot like you. That model worked and they were one of the most socially active companies on the planet not to mention very successful.

I think this proves everything that you say John, is true, and can be done and still make a lot of money not only for the CEO but also for their most precious investment, the employees. B&J also had a Profit Sharring Plan that all employees were eligible for on day one.

Kudos John B. you are a great American.

Whats a fair wage? can anyone put a number on it?

Steve. A living wage is enough pay to provide the basics of food, clothing and shelter; a fair wage provides those necessities plus some extra money for savings and a little fun. There is no set rate; minimum wage barely provides a living wage. A CEO making $20 million a year should be able to pay $20 per hour for starters.

Whatever rate is set for a fair wage, it should be low enough to encourage whomever's earning it to strive for me, while not putting the acquisition of higher education/certifications/training out of the realm of financial possibility.

You cannot expect people to elevate themselves if they have no means to do so. Not everyone has a network of friends and family to rely on. At the same time, you can't create a situation where a person is disinclined to change their sitaution because they're paid too well for whatever menial task they perform. I don't want to see Wal-Mart greeters driving $40K SUV's or in ownership of wide-screen flat-panels.

That extra income from a fair wage should provide the earner with a choice: I can blow this extra wad on temporary fun, temporary entertainment, or I can save it up and do something more with my life.

But leaving people hanging, just barely able to cover their bills? No way. That doesn't fly in my book.

How much more guys please you continue to say that we need to pay people more. . But how much .. you see your defintion of a Fair wage can't be computed because No matter what there will always be someone making less

so what is it. do you want to pass some kind of law that Guarentees every person in this country 40k a year. . 50 k a year.. 100k a year.. HOW MUCH.. put a number on it. dont just say "LIVING WAGE"

How 'bout we start with a wage that's at least equal to the poverty level. Then our tax dollars can stop subsidizing welfare in order to allow the WalMart heirs to live higher on the hog.

Steve, your inability to understand that one can't quantify a number is disturbing. Theoretical legislation which carries a specific dollar value would be rendered moot over time as the value of the currency changes.

I've often advocated that the pay rate for Congressional officials should be scaled to the median wage of the bottom 50% of earners. In situations like this a formula you can plug variables into is a better option over a set of defined values. It's basic algebra.

Your premise is false. Your argument is based on your preconceived notion that the left wants to make sure the guy who runs the fryer acquires as much earning potential as a bid project manager. Until you let go of your a priori bias, your assertions are going to continue to be poorly made and met.

LOL.. ED .. Great . .here is what you do then. Take all the Money and Property from all the Bottom 50 percent of Earners.. Split it up Evenly between all of them.. then in 5 Years those that were at the top of that 50 percent will be back in the same place they started and those at the Bottom . Will be back at the Bottom.. Period..

You are the one that fails to understand anything you can't put a number on how much people should be Paid.. but you say they need to be paid more.. Proof you have no answers.

...okay. You prefer to misconstrue and obfuscate my point because you can't seem to let go of your erroneous view. This is not a war with hills to be taken and lines to hold; this is a discussion.

Your statements are wholly lacking in reason or logic. You have demonstrated a clear inability to engage in critical thought - that is the last time I try to reason with you on an adult level.

But we DO put a number on what people should be paid. The current Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr. The average big company CEO last year made $4,447.12/hr. That would be 3.42 times the annual US median household income EVERY WEEK.

Those are the sorts of numbers that lead even the pro-business, Conservative Wall Street Journal to become alarmed at the rapid migration of wealth from the middle class to the very wealthiest in our society. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116849172911973577.html

A fair wage is different depending on what part of the country a person lives. Anywhere there is a large accumulation of wealth, the cost of living tends to be higher and the people on the lower end of the scale are at a greater disadvantage. In areas where there is less affluent people living the cost of living is lower and affordable.

Salt Grass: hence why a fair wage should be scaled on an area-by-area basis and marked against the median income for that locale.

Jody, Iowa
Steve. A living wage is enough pay to provide the basics of food, clothing and shelter; a fair wage provides those necessities plus some extra money for savings and a little fun. There is no set rate; minimum wage barely provides a living wage. A CEO making $20 million a year should be able to pay $20 per hour for starters.

So what's the problem? The average starter wage at GM is $39.68 (almost double what you claim he should pay). http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070924073107AAuGk8O

That was 5 years ago too.

You have to remember that most CEOs don't draw an hourly wage. They collect profit sharing from controlling stock just like the other investors. If they lose hundreds of millions, he's not going to be drawing over $4 grand an hour.

So how to explain the wages of CEO's where the company was losing money? Some compaines award bouns in stocks, but the base pay is still high comapred to the people responsible for the production.

Pat: You too have the gift of language. It cannot be denied. Don't blush. It shows in every post you write.

Mario Cuomo. Not Andrew. Yikes.

Thanks Ron. I don't agree but thank you just the same.

In your defense, Pat, Andrew Cuomo is certainly more articulate and has more of a gift of language than his opponent, Carl Paladino...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/30/carl-paladino-threatens-r_n_744939.html

Way to keep it classy, Tea Baggers.

Good to see you this morning Pat!

Things got so UGLY last night... I had to walk away...

Ditto what Ron said.

Hi Feisty. I turned off the computer and watched 10th Inning. My son came by and we kept talking about 2004 and Pedro and all the memories of that year. We laughed a lot. It turned out to be a lovely evening for me. I don't let anyone here on First Read upset me too much. If they do, I as well walk away for a bit. They're miserable mean spirited people in the GOP. They're not happy unless they hate or blame someone else.

What a waste. People need to take some joy out of life. It's too short to spend it hating everybody under the sun.

Thanks for this reminder that some important American institutions transcend politics. Especially here in Pittsburgh we need to remember that. I agree with Ron----you also have the gift of language, Pat.

Pat, absolutely wonderful post. You have the gift of telling a story about what you obviously love, baseball. I agree, Ken Burns is a national treasure--what gifts he has given us, uninterrupted on PBS.

Thank you all for the kind comments. Baseball. It's that time of year again. Can't wait! In between the clouds & all the rain peeks out the bright sun. And then all of a sudden you see the colors of the leaves that are becoming so brilliant. Fall.

"Hating the Yankees is as American as pizza pie, unwed mothers, and cheating on your income tax." Mike Royko

lol

...except that the Astros lost and I'm about ready to kill Drayton McLane.

Try being a Cubs fan...lol

Amy, yes we are chopped liver. No one pays any attention to the moderates in this country. Sad state of affairs isn't it?

It's almost like giving respect to the KKK of the old days. Because this is what the teabaggers are to me. I listen to them. I see their signs. And it's not pretty. Yet they are "angry" according to some journalists. Don't they know that the reason they are angry is because Barack Obama is our president? For some, they don't want an African American. And for others, they are being exploited by the wealthy Koch Bros. and Dick Armey.

That's all there is to them. Shallow. Petty. Selfish. Ignorant.

Amy---you are probably too young to remember President Nixon's "silent majority" but I think progressives/moderates are the new silent majority. We aren't loud like the Tea Party folks and we quietly go about our lives, trying to do the right thing. I would like to think that we are in the majority--we did make history as you remind us, but we do need to speak up. I don't think we are that interesting to folks like Chuck Todd--what kind of headline is there in "Maine woman works hard and does the right thing". Much better to focus on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.

I don't think it's fair to reduce the Tea Party movement to a teeming, seething horde of bigots and racists. That's an inexcusable as the right likening the liberal element of this country to fascists & socialists (in the same breath!) looking for the destruction of America.

Are there people in the Tea Party who're mad that the President is black? Of course - thinking otherwise would be fooling oneself. But stating that all Tea Partiers feel that way is a fool's statement, too.

Can't disagree ED. I'm perfectly comfortable conceding that tarring all in the Tea Party with the brush of racism is going too far. That said I think it is fair to say that they provide an environment that's comfortable and accomodating to racists.

No denying that assertion of yours, either John. In the same vein, liberal environments can provide safe haven for radicals as well, but not all leftists are revolutionaries.

Agreed, and during the Hippie years Liberalism accepted such, much to the detriment of the Left. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone on the Left promoting a "Second Amendment solution" to being in the minority these days without being denounced.

Amy...., Ive thought for quite a few months that Chuck Todd has an agenda. IM not sure what it is, but it's becomeing obvious that he has one! He continually paints the DEMs in a bad light. Maybe he's trying to rile up dems to go out and vote. Maybe he's a closet republican! I dont know. For all his talking about polls, he never mentions that people are far more angry at republicans for what they've been doing. But Ive had my issues with Todd for almost a year!

Believe it or not Tom - at one time I thought Chuck would have made a great replacement for Tim Russert on MTP!

Color me blind... but he does come across almost as partisan as Gotcha Gregory!

Well said, Amy. The media wisdom falls far short in my view. They prefer to highlight the extreme rather than really analyze what is happening. The polls show such a mixture of opinion that any pundit predictor would be wise to just sit back, throw up their hands and say--we just do not know which way the wind will blow Nov 2. If we were to go back and watch the 2008 presidential campaign which started in 2007--we would see how little they knew then and understand they do not know any more today.

And what upset me, Jody, is I feel that the perception held by the media turns around and affects their news coverage. Like the tail wagging the dog.

I see it in Brian Williams' broadcasts pretty often, like when Republicans block something to spite the Democrats, and he mutters a throw away line like "this is why Americans are angry with Congress" when what he should say is "the Republicans are blocking this for political reasons, I wonder if Americans think that's a legitimate reason?"

dangerfield
That's all very revealing; but; what it shows is how you as well as republicans and TBs want the electorate to think Democratic don't want to run on their records.

Did you not pay special attention to this part of the article you referenced?

*It also appears, however, that Republicans have outmaneuvered their Democratic counterparts since the Citizens United decision. They have taken advantage of Democratic broadsides against the ruling, which have inevitably had an effect on the attitudes of Democratic donors.*

Or that Democratic donors are channeling their funds to districts that have progressive agenda?

This is why I think you should curb your enthusiasm before you are so quick to surmise what the electorate wants. Americans don't like being played for stooges. The KocH Brothers, oil giants, Wall Street firms and other global corporations are being exposed on a daily basis. it's for that very reason many will come out to vote against corporations whose money has allowed right wing activist judges on the Supreme Court.

These type of disconnected republican candidates should not be elected on some greedy, exploitative Pledge Republican signed to stack right wing activist judges on the Supreme Court Those justices can very little about the interest of American workers and consumers .

These right wing Supreme Court activist justices will do the same to continue money coming in from anywhere in the world without US knowing who they are. For instance, the Murdoch/Saudi interest would be to continue money flowing in the oil business, or corporations in America who will ship their jobs off shore to save a dime.

Here are two Democratics not afraid to run on their record of voting with President Obama's Healthcare, Wall Street, student loan reforms, and expansion of the GI Bill like Patty Murray and one Rep in the House. I do believe Americans are waking up and don't want the republicans repealing accomplishments. Nor do they want a stacked right wing Supreme court.

So don't be so excited about the spin. Time Changes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#39430080

Houston!

Yesterday, Dangefield gave us his definition of an extremist: anyone he says is an extremist.

_________________________________________________________________________

Looks like Houston! needs help with with reading comprehension and more important, honesty...

Anyone want to help Houston with the definitions of MALICIOUS? THIN SKINNED? UNPROVOKED? AD HOMENIM? MISREPRESENTATION?

Too bad you had to ruin a post about 9/11 with your own personal pettiness..it was in EXTREMELY bad taste...

Houston, well said. The selfishness of the GOP is prevalent--they would otherwise support the legislation for the VA, 9/11 responders, Haiti aid but their goal is to bring down President Obama. That to me is another definition of extremist--someone who places politics ahead of people.

Gonna side with Dangerfield on this. That post of yours is BS, Houston, and totally uncalled for.

Dangerfield:

Anyone want to help Houston with the definitions of MALICIOUS? THIN SKINNED? UNPROVOKED? AD HOMENIM? MISREPRESENTATION?

If you looked up those definitions, you might find "Dangerfield" listed there. Yesterday he insulted at least half the people who write to this forum by calling them a "liberal fringe." And he's so thin-skinned that he thinks a little snark directed his way is a more serious issue than the one I posted about: the attempt by extremists to deny medical benefits to 9/11 workers. Perhaps Dangerfield shares that extreme position, or more likely, simply doesn't care.

...are you saying you don't like the taste of Soylent Green? What's the matter with you? o_o

Steven, Delaware. Great point. Soylent Green is on the list of books banned in public libraries. Guess those who object to the printed word are afraid of what people might learn.

Steve, DE;

You hit it right on the head. That is the Science Fiction Movie I was referring to. Kinda scary huh, but we are seeing the narrative play out right in front of our eyes.

The movie was on last week on TCM and they had a 15 minute entrance sound bite on what the underlying social commentary was about. Seemed pretty appropriate. I think it is scheduled for a replay next month.

Mo;

Gets my vote.

Seconded.

Explain what "language" I used that was offensive? Can you? Will you? Stop your whining. Again...will any of you be attending the rally this weekend that is being put on by several socialist and communist groups, including the Communist PartyUSA?

Thirded!!!!

farey i think the reference to Hitler got you collapsed. that is very offensive to a lot of people for obvious reasons.

Maybe you whiners need to pay better attention. I mentioned that this weekend's rally will be attended by the Communist PartyUSA. They are one of the groups putting it on. So, if members of the American Nazi Party got together with the Tea Party people to form a demonstration, the Tea Party people would say "no, thanks. Go to hell." But the unions at this weekend's rally have done no such thing with the CPUSA. They are working with them to organize the rally. Shouldn't the unions be rejecting any and all participation from a party with a long history of supporting genocide, oppression and the destruction of freedom by their heroes the Soviets, Castro, Mao etc...?

Thanks for pointing out that once again BIG Corporations think nothing of holding American workers hostage!

Feisty;

How true. We have seen this before with other companies trying to use the HCR as a political wedge. They view this as an opportunity to increase their bottom line at the expense of health care for their employees and will blame President Obama, not mentioned that health care cost have been going up every year since I can remember and well before the HCR bill was even passed.

They also ignore that the provisions that have the real costs have not even been implemented yet. More smoke and mirrors to make a bigger profit and try to hide it.

In my opinion these people are more repugnant every day.

McDonalds releases statement saying that they have no intention to drop health insurance for their 30, 000 employees – That the WSJ article was complete speculation.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/30/mcdonalds-mlr/

McDonald's provides mini-med plans for workers at 10,500 U.S. locations, most of them franchised. A single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year.

Thanks Macdonalds!!

$728 for $2000 in benefits!

One MRI = $6000

One ER visit = $2100

One minor operation(appendix removal) = $21,000

Give me back my $728 and i will only be in debt 50 times more than i can pay!

Real Health care is unaffordable!!

I stand corrected:

thinkprogress is where everyone goes for the best in business news...what was I thinking posting an article from a site like the Wall Street Journal on business?

Ah, yes, dangerfield, the law of unintended consequences.

The problem for the Obamas of this world is that they are unfamiliar with unintended consequences-in the classroom, they do not exist. You and I know that in the real world, they are all too common.

Sadly, there is still a sizeable minority that still believes shouting 'yes we can' negates reality.

Danger,

The point was that McDonalds released a statement to the media regarding the WSJ story. I put the link to Thinkprogress so you could read what McDonald’s said.

Perhaps it is more believable for you if it comes via an AP story from CBS.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/30/ap/business/main6914700.shtml

Strangely, there's still a sizable minority that thinks the Wall Street Journal doesn't have a political agenda. That would separate them from the rest of Rupert Murdoch's properties, of course. I suppose if one is willing to consider the Conservative WSJ as a valid source but not the Liberal Thinkprogress then one could just click through to TP's source, Politico. http://www.politico.com/politicopulse/0910/politicopulse344.html

Yes, the "vote of confidence" statement in baseball means that the manager should be packing his suitcase...read the story Dennis, they aren't "speculating" they're "lobbying"...

as to sources, the least overtly partisan sources would seem to be the most credible and acceptable to all. TP simply linked the WSJ and Politico pieces, so linking the original articles would be better...

Who here agrees with Michael Moore's recent statement that "McDonalds has killed more people than Al Queada?" Who here believes that, sitting in your cube at work and being hit and incinerated by a hi-jacked plane is EQUAL to willfully walking down the street to Mickey D's and buying a #4 value meal? I have a feeling a lot of you agree with Fat Boy's statement. But I already knew yall were pathetic anyway.

mc Donald's is about toxic food. You need INS., to eat their food.

Michael Moore is prone to over the top statements. I wouldn't say that willful violence is comparable to an unhealthy diet.

He is right to the extent that those lost on 9/11 come awfully close to being all the people killed in the United States by Islamic terrorists EVER.

Business 101. And as the govt adds more crap on Business they will lay off. No business is going to loose money they lay off to pay for all these new tax and HC penalties.

No David, businesses will do what maximizes their profit under existing rules. If adding employees will increase profit they'll add employees. If laying off employees will increase profit they'll lay off employees. By your logic they would make the maximum amount of money by going out of business. It's a gross oversimplification.

David ->> "Business 101. And as the govt adds more crap on Business they will lay off. No business is going to loose money they lay off to pay for all these new tax and HC penalties."

Let me see if I understand what you are saying – Companies actually have more people on their payroll than they need to produce their product/service. So when taxes or regulations cost increase they offset them by getting rid of some of those extra people – Right?

According to my experience companies keep the human resources as low as possible while maintaining customer service/satisfaction. When their costs go up they pass the increase cost on to the price of their product/service.

Now if you want to make the argument that the increase in cost of the product will cause a decrease in demand and result in layoffs I might agree.

[This does not consider any impact of competition on price and staffing]

I agree with Capuano. Dodging a vote on the tax bill was an act of cowardice that is going to cost Democrats in the election. And the Republicans will end up getting their way, with the tax cuts for the wealthy being extended as well as those for the middle class. Whether the Repubs will also succeed with the crazy idea of making all tax cuts permanent, I don't know.

Thanks for that MUCH needed reminder Nash!

My husband & I were discussing that point the other day... given what the man has been up against his achievements are phenomenal even if he doesn't receive the credit he so duly deserves!

I agree, Nashville_fan.

And the fact that people know more about the state of Bristol Palin and Levi Johnson's relationship than they do the contents of the healthcare reform bill, how it affects them, and the fact that it cuts the federal deficit by 138 billion over the first ten years, is a baby that needs to be laid at the doorstep of the mainstream media.

*stands and applauds!* What an eloquent statement of what the President has accomplished in less than 2 years. Thanks Nash for reminding us of why we voted for the President and why we need to vote in November. I am so proud of this man for working as hard as he does for us every day, in the face of opposition and ridicule the likes of which we have never seen.

Nashville_fan

Once common talking point that I hear often repeated is that President Obama has been unsuccessful at "changing the tone" in Washington D.C.

I beg to differ.

_______________

And I (sadly) agree, the president has for all intents and purposes made things even worse.

__________________________________________________________________

Jan 25, 2010

Obama: Most polarizing president in history?

The Gallup Poll people delivered an interesting report today: President Obama was the most polarizing first-year president in history.

The average difference in Obama's approval ratings between Democrats and Republicans turned out to be 65 percent -- the highest first-year gap of any president so measured.

Of course, it takes two to tango, and, as Gallup's Jeffrey Jones put it, "the extraordinary level of polarization in Obama's first year in office is a combination of declining support from Republicans coupled with high and sustained approval from Democrats."

Obama's 88 % approval rating from Demcrats is the second highest level of party support for a first-year president, trailing only the 92 % Republican support for George W. Bush in 2001.

On the other hand, Obama's 23 % rating among Republicans is tied for lowest party rating of a rookie president, matching GOP "backing" of Bill Clinton back in 1993.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/01/obama-most-polarizing-presiden-in-history/1

January 25, 2010

Obama's Approval Most Polarized for First-Year President

Shows much greater party differences than approval for any prior first-year president

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- The 65 percentage-point gap between Democrats' (88%) and Republicans' (23%) average job approval ratings for Barack Obama is easily the largest for any president in his first year in office, greatly exceeding the prior high of 52 points for Bill Clinton.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125345/obama-approval-polarized-first-year-president.aspx

Early on, Obama was more polarizing than we knew

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 5, 2010

One of the puzzling questions about Barack Obama's presidency is how the post-partisan candidate of 2008 became the polarizing chief executive of 2010. The answer may be surprising. He was far more polarizing from the start than many recognized. His choices in office and his opponents' responses have only hardened that divide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/04/AR2010090403250.html

We are a polarized country and that's NOT just a talking point...The president's naivete in believing that republicans would suddenly transform and welcome him with open arms was a fatal mistake.

dangerfield,

Thanks for the links . . . of course, based on results achieved, President Obama has no equal.

Perhaps it is his determination to actually do things instead of just talk about doing things that many find so threatening.

Our country has been marching in place for so long - nice to have a President work to move the country forward for a change.

Polls about things don't fix problems, which is one reason why I think the emphasis on polls is like eating candy for dinner . . . tastes good, but not filling.

Very well written Nash, and unlike the previous Administration this one hasn't worked to plant division within the media by suggesting that our Constitutional rights need to be sacrificed for safety, that those who disagree are traitors, or outing spies.

Excellent, Nashville. The tone has changed. Despite knowing the GOP will NOT help solve our problems, President Obama continues to try getting them to do so. He is focused on his job despite all the media hoopla saying he isn't--he just ignores them and quietly goes about the work of leading this country out of the depths of near depression and getting no credit for doing so. I read a line in Alter's book about how frustrating it was for WH staff to have done "A" work to save the economy and getting a "C or D" on the report card from the pundits and the media.

Yes, 70% complete...I loved TDS last night, didn't you? Got to have a sense of humor these days.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-29-2010/indecision-2010---democratic-campaign-woes

Dangerfield:

The president's naivete in believing that republicans would suddenly transform and welcome him with open arms was a fatal mistake.

That's a great big exaggeration. Obama didn't expect Republicans to welcome him with open arms. He DID expect them to be able to put the best interest of the country before their own political ambitions. That seems to be a reasonable thing to expect from the party of "Country First" as John McCain put it. But their only interest was in destroying Obama, as demonstrated most strikingly when they sponsored legislation until Obama said he approved of it, and then flip-flopped into opposing the legislation they sponsored!

Nashville:

". . . it would be funny if so many folks didn't believe it."

That is what breaks my heart everyday. It is hard to fathom that so many people are so ignorant.

Therefore, I was not surprised how far the US has fallen in Education in terms of our ranking with other industrialized nations.

That a large number of the electorate would be satisfied with the likes of Sarah Palin running our country is downright frightening!

That's a great big exaggeration. Obama didn't expect Republicans to welcome him with open arms.

________________________________________________________________________________

It's a figure of speech meaning;

: an eager or warm welcome <greeted them with open arms>

Not an exaggeration at all...on my part anyway...

"I`m not going to anticipate problems," Obama said at his first news conference as President. "I`m going to go in there with a spirit of bipartisanship."

President Barack Obama

An interesting quote on bipartisanship from Barack Obama which appears on page 131 of his campaign best seller, The Audacity of Hope:

"Genuine bipartisanship, though, assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal, whether better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority will be constrained - by an exacting press corps and ultimately an informed electorate - to negotiate in good faith. If these conditions do not hold - if nobody outside Washington is really paying attention to the substance of the bill, if the true costs of the tax cut are buried in phony accounting and understated by a trillion dollars or so - the majority party can begin every negotiation by asking for 100 percent of what it wants, go on to concede 10 percent, and then accuse any member of the minority party who fails to support this "compromise" of being "obstructionist."

http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/07/21/obamas-bipartisan-audacity/

COLLEGE PARK, Md. — Sen. Barack Obama said Monday he is the candidate who can lead the country out of a long period of divisive and ineffective government, a theme he increasingly uses against Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was first lady for eight years.

The nation, he said, "wanted a politics that wasn't about tearing the country down, but was about lifting the country up."

"We need something new," he said, dismissing Clinton's suggestions that he is not tough enough to handle the White House's rigors.

"I may be skinny, but I'm tough, too," he said, drawing loud cheers.

In recent days, Obama has said Clinton has difficulty escaping a divisive past because she became a polarizing figure during her husband's presidency and her time in the Senate representing New York.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23114963/

It's not the magnitude of our problems that concerns me the most. It's the smallness of our politics. America's faced big problems before. But today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common sense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first. We have to change our politics, and come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans."

Obama's implicit claim throughout his candidacy was that public divisiveness was somehow a failure of leadership. This was mostly nonsense. This country has been divided over cultural issues since at least 1973 and Roe v. Wade. It has been divided on fiscal issues since Reagan cut taxes in 1981; this ended the hidden tax of bracket creep, but meant that legislators had to make hard choices between more spending and lower taxes. It has been divided on foreign policy issues since the Bush Administration's response to 9/11.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2010/05/obama_the_polarizer.html

"This is not and never has been about Barack Obama. It's is about solutions to problems. And by that standard, our country is in excellent hands."

The majority of the American people, and especially those who actually take the time to vote bed to differ.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Jorge, who would these "regular contributors" of Liberal points of view be? Certainly not Alan Colmes, who was specifically chosen for his weak defense of Liberal positions when cast for the show which had a working title "Hannity and a Liberal to be named later." As far as Conservative voices on MSNBC, can you name a Fox Liberal with as much air time, attitude, and latitude as Joe Scarborough, part of the Congressional Conservative class of 1994?

Most Conservatives don't want to go on MSNBC, they know they won't get the softball treatment they get on Fox. In fact more and more are realizing they can't talk to ANYONE except Fox without looking foolish. http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/CHRISTINE-O-DONNELL-WON-T-TALK-TO-NAT-L-MEDIA-ANYMORE-SHE-SAYS-474559

Jorge. You can google just about everything said on FOX and in 30 seconds discover it is a lie or only half true. Try it, you might be surprised.

I see you've been duped by Fox Jorge. You believe everything they tell you. It's not hurting anyone but you Jorge, so just go on getting duped by Fox.

Steve, how about the tripling of that national debt in the last 20 months? Does that not alarm you, on top of all the other ridiculous bankrupting moves these amateurs have made? If not, then YOU need to wake up, and soon!

BTW, the dems have been in control of congress for over 3 years now, so much of what has happened is directly their fault, not the GOP. It is convenient to deflect blame away from your party of misfits, but try to learn the facts and vote these radical bums out! They've had their chance and have failed miserably...

If that is true, God help us all.

He is ..with Christie

Smart, tough, tells it like it is..

Christie is the GOP front runner...one of the ways to tell is HOW MUCH time ED SCHULTZ spends attacking Christie lately..

If God has O'Donnell's back, it's time to worship another pantheon.

Exodite

God loves every one ...even people you dont like..

Don't proselytize to the Viking.

It's unfortunate that the Republican and Democratic parties are so entrenched in American culture that the fluidity of ideas and parties which marked America's earlier political history may remain just that - history.

There is profit and a sense of identity tied to these two groups. We are educated to believe the two-party system was intentional. We are educated to believe these two parties are the only 'real' parties that've ever existed.

Dislodging these beliefs, if it ever happens, will be painful - but it must happen if we're to get beyond where we are. The electorate needs to take back the reins of history instead of leaving them in the hands of the power elite, conservative or liberal.

The best and cheapest way to end two-party dominance of the political system is probably to have instant run-offs. That way people could make their first choice Ralph Nader (or Ron Paul) and their second choice Al Gore (or G. W. Bush). If neither of the two main candidates gets over 50% of the vote, then the second-choices of people who voted for a third-party candidate would be counted, or their fourth choices and so on, until someone got a majority.

Instant run-offs mean that nobody has to feel like their wasting their vote. Unfortunately, there's the chicken-and-egg problem: the two parties that stranglehold on political power cannot be removed unless the those two parties decide to agree to do it. The common desire to prevent third parties from gaining power is really the only thing left of bipartisanship these days.

Now I know what living in Mexico feels like.