Feisty: Forgot to include Alexi. Glad to hear he will win.

And Bev, you are right, people are coming to their senses.

Real Clear Politcs shows Kirk with a slight lead. But if some left-wing fanatic pulls one out of their hind-side and says Alexi "I loaned money to known mobsters" Giannoulias is going to win, well sure, go with that prediction.

Real Clear Politcs shows Kirk with a slight lead

Like I'm going to take your word for it or your website for that matter! lol

I think living here and being involved in the 'ground game' gives me more credibility than something you just pull our of your hind-side!

For once, why don't you try thinking for yourself instead of re-typing what someone hands you will ya?

Feisty- I'm not real familiar with Illinois or municipal rules and laws over there-

Is it illegal for a bank to loan money to a person that was convicted of a crime, or being a suspected mob figure?

How about selling them a car- is that legal? A happy meal? Anything illegal in providing services/goods to 'known mobsters' there? Pls advise, as one fatmouth-@ss has me wondering....

Have we actually sat down and thought through the plans of the republican tea party? I mean really, sit and think of what it means to cut things they way they claim to. It would be devastating to the economy. I cannot believe the dems are not pointing this out.

More, though…they say Sarah Palin is the King Maker. We all know that the actual king is the King Maker. I hear all these folks on the left saying they wish it’s her in 2012 because we can beat her. Here’s a news flash. Its Sarah Now! We should be running against that thing now. That kind of mentality is going to have us fighting wars with everyone. Image that thing tweeting to the president of Iran. Vote Dems, vote! Save the USA from the wicked witch of the north. Why are the democrats not hitting her back? I understood it two years ago. They thought she would go away if they ignored her like the fly she is. She is not going away. She has a personal vendetta against Obama. Go after her Dems.

Hey Feisty,

As one who lives in the southern part of Il, I can tell you Kirk will receive many more votes than your candidate in this part of the state. His ground game is much better than Alexi G. in southern IL.

Granted it is going to be a very very close race. Thankfully, many organizations will have an eagle eye out for voter fraud on both sides. Unfortunately we all know it will happen in St Clair County (where I live) as there are at least 2 democratic officials who have served prison terms for voter fraud in the last 5 or so years. Everything should be done to ensure that no voter fraud occurs in this race.

Feisty- I'm not real familiar with Illinois or municipal rules and laws over there-

From the sounds of JS1 she went to the same law school as Jill our 'rookie' attorney!

Neither one of them know what the hell their talking about!

JoAnnaSmith1

Real Clear Politcs shows Kirk with a slight lead. But if some left-wing fanatic pulls one out of their hind-side and says Alexi "I loaned money to known mobsters" Giannoulias is going to win, well sure, go with that prediction.

Joanna in chicago mark Kirk will not win, this has nothing to do with the mayor or even obama, its about the mark kirk that was in george Bushs pocket. mark was Georges Boy in Illinois, and Now this is going to bit him in the a**. everybody know that you can't win state wide office with out some support in chicago and the collar burbs, mark Kirk is not a fan in the city, southern burbs, plus he had problems keeping his seat in congress the last 2 election cycles, against Dan seals.

the turn out in down state illinois(springfield, urbana, peoria, effenham) will decide this election for mark kirk. cause alexi is not popular there as mark kirk.

just before you rant about the liberal daley machine, back in the 80s when reagan was president we had a republican senator that carried chicago. we may be liberals but we understand how washinton works.

just to show you how different even Illinois republicans are, the GOP candidate for governer is has not mentioned the tea party, former president bush, Bohner or any of the republicans that got us in trouble. he is running as a independent republican(very smart) and he looks like he will win. Not to mention he is endorsing a tax hike, the first in 6 years to balance the budget.

It is an anti-election with the failing economy as a centerpiece in a mid-term election that historically is not good for the party in power.

But I'm sure none of that matters...

There are banks nationwide lending money to people who may or may not be on the up and up; lending money prior to someone being indicted is not a crime. Banks lend money to make money, as long as a person has collateral and makes their loan payments, where is the crime? If memory serves me, Feisty probably knows more than I do, the loans were prior to the Rezko indictment.

RCP average is skewed because Toomey is +10 on Rasmussen Reports. That is sure an outlier poll. If you take out the outlier the RCP average will be Toomey +.34. Even with Rasmussen in it the RCP average should be well within the margin of error.

Mark Kirk, the guy who went to Russia and told them not to pay any attention to what Pres Obama had told them.

The ILL Republican Governor George Ryan, (just before Blago) went to prison--liberals do not have a lock on political corruption. Remember Nixon? Remember Reagan's Iran/Contra which was actually worse than Watergate?

Funny you should mention that Jody... Look what I just found in my in-box:

Last year, Kirk -- who started a "U.S.-China Working Group" in Congress -- was caught on tape bragging about how he told the Chinese government that U.S. budget numbers "should not be believed." And in his decade-long career in Congress, Kirk has voted time and time again to protect tax breaks that encourage multinational corporations to ship American jobs overseas to China, India and other countries. In fact, the day after his "Beijing Fundraiser," Mark Kirk voted to protect those tax breaks.

What a moderate! *insert snark*

I've been asking the campaign when they were going to drop this little 'bomb'?

It's ABOUT TIME!

Jeff - If Dingell is in trouble in Michigan, if Reid is in trouble in Nevada, if Feingold will lose in Wisconsin, if Boxer and Murray are struggling to stay close in California and in Washington, you can be assured that Kirk can win in Illinois.

People are tired of the corruption, the spending, the backroom deals, the continued interference of big government in their every day lives. Giannoulias would just be a continuation of those behaviors in the Senate.

Feisty,

I wonder why no one can ever disagree with you about anything without you coming back with an insult to that person. I didn't comment on how Alexi is doing where you are, you obvously don't live in Southern IL so you can't possible know how he is doing down here. I didn't say he would loose, I said it was going to be a very close race. You don't know anything about this area to include the fact that in every election we have some form of voter fraud. Just yesterday, someone was convicted of Voter Fraud in the Cahokia alderman elections.

That gives you no know reason to say, I don't know what I'm talking about. It only makes your obvious lack of intelligence more apparent

JoAnnaSmith1--

People are tired of the corruption, the spending, the backroom deals, the continued interference of big government in their every day lives...

Blah, blah, blah...

Yeah. None of that occurred before January 21, 2009. All that corruption, back room deal stuff...originated, developed and implemented by Democrats. Republicans, by contrast, sit on the right hand of God. They are the compassionate ones that blow sunshine and good will out their a$$es 24/7. They have America's best interests at heart. Boy do I smell a big stinking pile of BS somewhere!

Neither one of them know what the hell their talking about!

Because...

a) There sew stewped...

b) their soo stoopid

c) they're so stupid

I wonder why no one can ever disagree with you about anything without you coming back with an insult to that person

That gives you no know reason to say, I don't know what I'm talking about. It only makes your obvious lack of intelligence more apparent

Sorry Janet... but can you direct me to where I was responding to YOU?

Didn't think so... if you bothered to read what I wrote you would notice that I directed my response to Jody NOT Janet?

Funny that you have the audacity to question my intelligence... lmao

JoAnnaSmith1

Jeff - If Dingell is in trouble in Michigan, if Reid is in trouble in Nevada, if Feingold will lose in Wisconsin, if Boxer and Murray are struggling to stay close in California and in Washington, you can be assured that Kirk can win in Illinois.

Joanna all the people you mentioned are incumbents alexi is not a incumbant. also since you mentioned these candidates it looks like Feingold, Murray have closed the gap, and I see Boxer will win. the republicans are not going to get the senate, karl Rove has said that many times, thanks to the (witch) chick in Delaware.

Now, Joanna you completely ignored the main part of my post and that is, mark kirk needs to win down state in a big way, cause he knows he will not carry the chicago land area. chicago makes up 3/4 of the voters statewide(Ill population is 11 million but 9.3 million are in the chicago land area) so that will be the difference.

your rant on curruuption in Illinios goes accross party lines, former Gov Ryan is sitting in jail and Blago will soon follow. if alexi had loaned to mobsters he would be in jail given they fact the bank failed. mark Kirk is not a choir boy either. he has misreperented his time in the sevice the same as bluminthal in connecett, the national media beat him up on that. you sound as if a republicans has never committed fraud!!!!!!!!

Given the hard work Governer Quinn and US senator Obama have done for illinois vets mark kirk is viewed by vets as a liar and turn coat, does any body remember walter Reed. his constant votes against vets will sink him. he voted against the new VA bill pushed through last year.

JoAnnaSmith1--

People are tired of the corruption, the spending, the backroom deals, the continued interference of big government in their every day lives

There are a few major problems with this statement that most Republicans like to spew out without thinking, But the most obvious was during the healthcare debates and process if HCR, It's pretty hard to believe Republicans were "shut out" of meeting when they were invited to take part and were open to the general public and reporters, Actaully I watched several on TV with the general public in the room and listened to Republican politicians the next day screaming about being "shut out" Deciding not to attend a debate you were asked to come to DOES NOT equal being "shut out"

Now we can get into HCR being "Rammed down our throats" First off, It took over a year in debates, Second off, Republicans basically refused to debate and were going to vote against ANYTHING, SO If your going to be mad at anyone about not having a say in these debates look toward your Republican rep who refused to get involved, WSR,,,,,,,,Same thing

We can get into the Deregulation/Reregulation stupidity,

Deregulate industry,,,,,,,,jobs shipped overseas, crappy product, lower sales

Deregulate economic protections, Workers 401k, savings, mortgages, BUST

Enviromental protections,,,,,,,,Back to just dumping toxic waste, strip mining, oil spills ignored

To Democrats some of these are not just topics, They are sacred, "I worked for my 401K" But others like eviromental regulations have become a survival of the species, We cannot destroy the Earth, But we damn sure CAN make it destroy US if we poison our water and air.

No, there is no Democratic surge. It is in the author's imagination from smoking too much of that California medical marijuana.

Feisty, as usual you are off your rocker and are being fed some really good kool-aid. Spiked with ignorance btw, but you wouldn't know since you are drunk on it.

People are mad about the utter failure of the current administration and its awesome ability to spend money so fast it boggles the mind.

The party of NO?

No Marxism

No Spending without accountability

No Socialistic takeover of the auto industry, banking industry, healthcare industry (see The National Socialist German Workers' Party for eerie comparisons)

No Muslim PR for NASA as it's prime directive.

No bypassing the Constitutionwhenever and where it becomes inconvenient to your Marxist agenda.

No ethics violations that are allowed to be brushed under the rug. (see Wrangle and Waters)

No voting fraud (see Black Panthers)

No racism (see Democratic Political wing NAACP)

No big government (see largest big government in human history under obama administration)

No Czars (google "are czars legal under the US Constitution")

A party of NO? You bet!! I think I would take a better look at your party of yes.

In recent history, polling has not been an accurate predictor. One new variable is how Independents are being viewed and interpreted.

Independents used to be moderates, with most leaning to the left. However, at the end of the Bush/Cheney administration, many Republicans registered as Independents in anger. So now we have a large number of Independents leaning to the right.

This trend is the explanation for the Tea Party as well. At first it appeared that the Tea Party might not represent either party, or perhaps it represented moderates, especially those who are fiscal conservatives. But soon it became apparent that the Tea Party was just Republicans to the far right, and when the fundamentalists joined in with the old wedge issues of God and gays, we realized it is a complete farce and a backward one at that.

If the Tea Party really wanted to change Washington, their agenda would be:

* Equal public funding of campaigns

* Fair taxation that would preserve the middle class and working poor (instead of making the rich richer and the poor poorer per Bush’s tax cuts)

* Ending corporate welfare for businesses, especially those that ship jobs overseas (this in conjunction with Wall Street reform and consumer protections already passed by Dems)

* Non-profit health care (and regulation of the health insurance industry to ensure that care is provided in exchange for premiums paid as already passed by the Dems)

* Ending congressional raiding of Social Security, and turning it into a professionally managed pension plan with safe and guaranteed investments--Also requiring that government employees (including congress) have the same benefits and retirement plans as the rest of the nation

The list is much longer, but these issues are something the majority of Americans could get behind it. And if need be, a new centrist party could run as Independents, unlike the fake Tea Party that is running as Republicans. Then maybe we could hope for real change.

Russ is toast if ever there was. No Way he wins in Wisconsin.

there is only ONE poll that counts, the one on November 02 of this year. If the person finishes in first, he or she as the case may be goes off to another life in DC.

Fiesty - We didn't work as hard as we did 2 years ago to just hand the keys back to the Party of HELL NO!

Actually, we are prying them from your cold dead fingers. After all, you are toast on 2 Nov.

Yeah, I don't understand how suddenly the races are becoming so close. The Democrats failed miserably in everything they did, so there is no reason or logic to explain how suddenly they are doing a great job just 1 week before the election considering 2 years of 10% unemployment that won't budge when they promised it wouldn't get that high if they passed a $1 Trillion (failed) stimulus package. Or spending a whole year focusing on spending $1 Trillion more on a terrible health reform bill that mandates people to buy insurance from a private business instead of fixing the economy and jobs. Or how they promised transparency while drafting this bill that would change 1 sixth of the economy (I'm still waiting for those healthcare debates on CSPAN by the way). The list goes on and on...

Unless all the minorities and free-loaders who could care less if this country collapses from exponentially rising Trillion dollar debt are coming out, as long as there is a black guy in office and the country heading towards free-loading socialism, that's all that matters for them...

I am not familiar with Il politics or voting, but how many dead people will vote Democratic in this election?

@Fiesty, will you and your union types vote more than once?

This First Read is extremely biased. Yesterday it was brought to their attention that the first comments are always by the same people who seem to have their comments already to go. Then today for the first time the beginning commentators changed some, but not their comments. Nice try.

Reading comments from all other news stories (even from MSN) show the majority of commentators are for changing Washington this election cycle, and this is the only one that consistently is against that.

You still have Fiesty in there but it looks like the others changed their name. Just saying....Watch them kick me off.

This is in reply to Chris - you are an idiot. Look what we have now - a former community organizer who is on a left wing agenda that has shredded the constitution and which spawned the Tea Party Movement. At least Sarah Palin was a mayor and a governor of the largest state in the Union. The way the left attached her is unbelievable and abominable. In 2012, the Reps could put up Mickey Mouse and Donald duck and win in a landslide against this left winger. Sarah Palin would make a far better president than the one we currently have. You heard it here first.

It doesn't matter what party you speak of, if it is a politician from Illinois they are corrupt and dishonest. Goes back for as long as I can remember.

First of all, once again, both Ron in Indiana and Feisty Red Head are the first to post on this thread, like all other FR threads! They were called out for this yesterday and on the several FR threads I've seen today, either Ron or Feisty is the first to post. How does this happen without fail on every new articel FR posts?

Second, Feisty stated....

Funny you should mention that Jody... Look what I just found in my in-box:

Last year, Kirk -- who started a "U.S.-China Working Group" in Congress -- was caught on tape bragging about how he told the Chinese government that U.S. budget numbers "should not be believed." And in his decade-long career in Congress, Kirk has voted time and time again to protect tax breaks that encourage multinational corporations to ship American jobs overseas to China, India and other countries. In fact, the day after his "Beijing Fundraiser," Mark Kirk voted to protect those tax breaks

How about citing your source. Simply stating it was in your mail box does not make it credible. Surely, you can cite where this information came from. Not to mention you post a statement like this, without citing it after criticizing Joanna for citing a Real Clear Politics poll and telling her you're not going to take her word for it. Funny, are we supposed to take your word for it Feisty?

safecracker-1205811

I am not familiar with Il politics or voting, but how many dead people will vote Democratic in this election?

@Fiesty, will you and your union types vote more than once?

None, what your talking about use to happen back in the 70s. the unions you hate so much will indorse but the membership will vote as they like. unions built this country but now union is a dirty word. shame on you.

Poor STL Mike... what's the matter? If you ask real nice maybe you too can be first some time! ;0)

Since you asked so nice for sources I'm willing to oblige and give you some!

The only thing I ask is that you reciprocate in the future... Nah... what AM I thinking? lmao

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/09/rep_mark_kirk_on_china_losing_faith_in_the_dollar_96927.html

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.59d40e44d29fb24306de4a8aee8d691e.891

I'm hoping Anderw Breitbart is conservative enough for ya! ;0)

PS: If this isn't enough there Mikey... let me know... there's plenty more I can give ya M'Kay?

Sorry Janet... but can you direct me to where I was responding to YOU?

Didn't think so... if you bothered to read what I wrote you would notice that I directed my response to Jody NOT Janet?

Funny that you have the audacity to question my intelligence... lmao

You know Janet an apologize would be nice... or is that something that isn't included in the right wing play book?

STLMIke

I am starting to believe it is her other personality and they are both one and the same person.

Sad when the only other person who agrees with you is the other login name you have for newsvine.

/pityya

Wishful thinking?

peppy

Yeah, I don't understand how suddenly the races are becoming so close. The Democrats failed miserably in everything they did, so there is no reason or logic to explain how suddenly they are doing a great job just 1 week before the election considering 2 years of 10% unemployment that won't budge when they promised it wouldn't get that high if they passed a $1 Trillion (failed) stimulus package. Or spending a whole year focusing on spending $1 Trillion more on a terrible health reform bill that mandates people to buy insurance from a private business instead of fixing the economy and jobs. Or how they promised transparency while drafting this bill that would change 1 sixth of the economy (I'm still waiting for those healthcare debates on CSPAN by the way). The list goes on and on...

all the sudden your are the voice for americans, Right!!!

lets see HCR 2 main provisions went into effect, no child with a pre-existing condition can be denied coverage, then insurance companies can no longer cap a persons health ins, so cancer patiants will not have to worry about loosing coverage during treatments like my mother.

She died with no health ins. the same as the presidents mother who was a cancer patiant, your nose is far up the republicans ass you can't think straight. do you know anybody who is a cancer patiant, well they would argue with you, because for the first time in our history cancer patiants have a chance dispits the ins companies who don't give a SH*t if you survive or die. yes the government is going to tell them you can't drop people who are sick and may die because their so dam greedy.

so instead of falling in behind the party of NO, the Rich, why not see things with a open mind and understand that we americans are the only industuralizes country in the world that did not provide health care for our citizens.

we americans have the highest healthcare costs. euorpe, canada, japan, england provide health care and there cost are lower.

so god forbid you or your mother, father, sister, brother or children get cancer then, thanks to president Obama you just might have a chance to beat it. so go to the voting both, vote republican and god help us all that HCR is not repealed for the reasons i mentioned. these are not liberal talking points, this is real live and death, i just hope the death is not yours for being so pompus and arrigant.

the stimulas, as you say, it was a falure, but your getting suckered by the republicans, every republicans governer who has trashed it, is collecting like its the best thing since sliced bread. they are fooled you by saying it was a falure but if it was, why are they collecting the millions for there state.

one last thing, i hope you know that the republican party you have your nose so far up there ass, was against the voters rights act, the civil rights act, medicade and medicare, now i ask as a monday morning QB , where would this country do with out these 3 examples.

* Fair taxation that would preserve the middle class and working poor (instead of making the rich richer and the poor poorer per Bush’s tax cuts)

Here's something to clarify the constant harping on tax cuts for the rich:

It's suspected that some random and still unknown student of T. Davis, Professor of Accounting and & Chair Division of Accounting and Business Law said, and I quote:

"Suppose that every day, ten people go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth person (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten people drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four people were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six people – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get their 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth person and the sixth person would each end up being paid to drink their beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth guy, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, they began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill.

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."

END QUOTE

You can see this at: http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp

Just in case anyone wants to refute Beer Econmics I have this as well, proving thatthe rich are paying a greater portion of thier income to taxes using information from:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in11si.xls

Using this data from the IRS, you can use the average income per bracket, and then compare that to the Average Tax paid in by people in that Bracket AFTER DEDUCTIONS. That works out like this:

No adjusted gross income 0.0%
$1 under $5,000 6.1%
$5,000 under $10,000 2.7%
$10,000 under $15,000 2.9%
$15,000 under $20,000 3.8%
$20,000 under $25,000 5.2%
$25,000 under $30,000 6.2%
$30,000 under $40,000 6.8%
$40,000 under $50,000 7.5%
$50,000 under $75,000 8.4%
$75,000 under $100,000 9.2%
$100,000 under $200,000 11.3%
$200,000 under $500,000 16.0%
$500,000 under $1,000,000 21.8%
$1,000,000 under $1,500,000 24.0%
$1,500,000 under $2,000,000 24.6%
$2,000,000 under $5,000,000 21.1%
$5,000,000 under $10,000,000 21.9%
$10,000,000 or more 31.2%

This clearly shows that people making under $100,000 per year are only actually paying less than 9.2% of there income in as Federal Taxes. While on the other hand the rich are paying over 20%, and the ultra rich are paying 30% or higher.

The Rich pay a higher amount in taxes, period. In fact 74.5% of all adjusted income taxes collected are paid by those making 100,000 or more. And 52.0% of all adjusted income taxes collected are paid by those making 200,000 or more.

I've shown proof - where's yours?

Dano-1908264

Jeff,

Please inform me of which school district and what state you were educated in? I want to go slap every English teacher silly that you ever had and ask how you possibly got past 3rd grade with your writing skills!

TYPICAL REPUBLICAN RESPONSE, instead of reading my post and seeing the benifets to the stimulas and HCR you change the subject and talk SH*T, this is why the last republican administration F&&&ed this country over, because of people like you who have there Noses so far up there A** you can't think straight!!!!

thanks and have a good day.

* Ending congressional raiding of Social Security, and turning it into a professionally managed pension plan with safe and guaranteed investments--Also requiring that government employees (including congress) have the same benefits and retirement plans as the rest of the nation

This I totally agree with. As millions of baby boomers approach retirement, the program's annual cash surplus will shrink and then disappear. Then, Social Security will not be able to pay full benefits from its payroll and other tax revenues. It will need to consume ever-growing amounts of general revenue dollars to meet its obligations--money that now pays for everything from environmental programs to highway construction to defense. Eventually, either benefits will have to be slashed or the rest of the government will have to shrink to accommodate Social Security.

The exact timing of this crunch is less important than its inevitability. Whether Social Security begins to spend more on paying benefits than it receives in taxes in 2017 or 2018 or any other specific year means much less than what these deficits will mean to our economy. Our children may be faced with the choice of paying retirement benefits to their parents or paying for programs that help their own children. That future is coming, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

The reason that Social Security's deficits are inevitable is fairly simple. Demographics are more predictable than most events. Millions of baby boomers will begin to retire in 2008, when those born in 1946 reach Social Security's early retirement age of 62. From then until 2025, every year will see another crop of baby boomers reach the 62 year-old threshold. Because the baby boomers have not produced enough children to replace themselves, the number of taxpaying workers will shrink.

Demographic trends do not change rapidly. It takes about 25 years to grow a new taxpayer. We can estimate with surprising accuracy how many people born in a particular year will live to reach retirement. The retirees of 2070 were all born in 2003, and we can see and count them today.

This is critical, because a retiree's Social Security benefits are actually paid from the taxes of those who are still working. The program's finances are based on the relationship between the number of workers paying taxes and the number of retirees receiving benefits.

Back in 1950, as the baby boom was just getting started, each retiree's benefit was divided among 16 workers. Taxes could be kept low. Today, that number has dropped to 3.3 workers per retiree, and by 2025, it will reach--and remain at--about two workers per retiree. Each married couple will have to pay, in addition to their own family's expenses, Social Security retirement benefits for one retiree. In order to pay promised benefits, either taxes of some kind must rise or other government services must be cut.

This future is coming with steady speed. Social Security's annual cash surpluses will begin to fall in 2008, the same year that the first baby boomers reach early retirement age. Over roughly the next 10 years, those Social Security surpluses, about $100 billion a year at their peak, will continue to shrink and then disappear completely. Without those surpluses to reduce the size of the federal deficit, Congress will have to raise taxes to bring in billions of dollars of new revenues, cut programs, or let annual deficits climb.

And then the real problems hit. Somewhere around 2017, on top of replacing Social Security's $100 billion annual surplus, Congress will have to find billions more so that Social Security can pay all of the benefits that it has promised. Within about five years, that additional money will reach $100 billion a year (not counting inflation). From there, the annual demands will reach first $200 billion a year, and soon $300 billion a year.

Then there is Medicare. Together, Social Security and Medicare will consume an estimated 60 percent of income taxes collected by 2040. What's left would have to finance the entire rest of the government.

Without reform, Social Security's future is inevitable, like it or not. We can either prepare now, or dither about what year it will happen.

This Socialistic construct had basis in morality, but was created in the face of Liberty. (Freedom of Choice). Had this been constructed originally as more of a mandatory savings by Americans for retirement in individual personal accounts, this situation outlined above wouldn't be the predicament we are in now.

Sure the liberals don't want to end thier kind hearted moralistic social program, but the bubble is coming and frankly the blame for it lands squarely on thier shoulders.

I for one don't want any more of thier social engineering. I've saved for my retirement.

Dano-1908264

Sorry Jeff but I was truly having a hard time following your post!

P.S. Do you have a nose and anal fetish...you must have used that line about 10 times in one post.

Ok let me make this simple for you so stupid,

HCR ins companies can't deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions

HCR ins can't cap your coverage and drop you

republican governers who were trashing the stimulas were collecting from it like it was the best thing since sliced bread.

i know i'm just a non educated black person and i can't spell with out spell check, but the fact is people in this country are falling for the republicans and there full of SH*t agenda.

So sybr...

The rich who do want the Bush era tax cuts to expire are dingbats, by your argument, Like say, Alan Greenspan, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, etc, etc.

The whole thing about taxes here in the US and much of the world, is a concept called progressive taxation. There are a number of factors why we have this system, including:

1 Prevent a wealthy class system that could subvert the democracy. e.g. the Kochs, the Waltons, etc, etc

2. Prevent the dynastazation of the US, and all that it entails, like maybe feudal Europe.

etc, etc. Note that progressive taxation is a pretty old thing.

At its heart, the US is supposed to be a democracy, where no-one group of peoples may exert undue influence over any other groups (some of the protections are in the Constitution). Looking at the US today, with the influence that Wall Street and the monied interests exert on the politics of this nation, I really think that we have to take a hard critical look (not the Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin sound-bites), and decide what it is that we hold dear - our country, or the wealthy of this country.

Roselle,

Your statement "We didn't work as hard as we did 2 years ago to just hand the keys back to the Party of HELL NO!" seems a little strange. Have you been asleep the last 22 months and not seen that the party of "Tax and Spend" has increased the amount of the national debt by over 3 trillion dollars. And they intend to spend another 3.5 trillion dollars in the next two years. So, how are you going to pay for that?

What I understand you to write is that if you give your credit card to somebody and they spend less than you normally do, then that is OK, but if they spend a lot more like the "Tax and Spend" party has, you might want to reconsider if they should be allowed to continue as they have for the past two years! To that I say "Hell NO!"

Pat.

I don't have any problem with a progressive tax. I'm mearly pointing out that it's not nearly as "unfair" as the extreme left would say that it is. Even with the Bush tax cuts the rich are paying 74.5% of all income taxes that are collected (after deductions). ...Although; I like the concept of a simplfied flat tax (I just haven't read enough about it to make an informed opinion about it).

This isn't a Kingdom. One Monarch isn't tyrannically controlling all the wealth, in fact many of the wealthy are probably employing the people complaining and giving them a decent wage. Most of those wealthy are contributing to charities or public works projects, disaster aid, medical research, etc.. Why is it you and others think their success should be penalized and stolen from them? Didn't they earn it?

No, for the deepest liberals it's only because they think thier Big Brother Socialistic Government needs to morally decide how the rich's money is spent. For them only the masses moral dictatorship over the individuals liberty and morals should prevail. Sorry I'm not thier cattle to be herded under thier own moral agenda. I can make my own moral choices without infringing on thier personal liberty.

I gotta wonder... How exactly would anyone in the US be directly oppressed by the rich like a King/Queen? What billionaire is actually preventing anyone from earning a living? What billionaire is making sure thier new invention, thier sales, thier new service, is squashed so that they don't have the same opportunity in this country to make the money he/she made, that he/she earned with thier hard work and or ingenuity?

The far left's morals (which are sound "Help the Poor") are subverted into STEALING to pay for thier good works. That's wrong and they can't see it. They can't see that they want to legislate thier own brand of morality to the detriment of Liberty arguably the most important principal on which this country is founded.

Hey tough guy STL Mike?

Where'd ya go?

Do you need some more proof to back up my allegations?

Typical... you're proven wrong... so you sneak & sulk back into the darkness?

PS: Janet... How about you hon? I see you peeking.... lol

"Tightening." MSNBC propaganda.

Now THAT is an interesting proposition. I also wonder what would happen and how it would change the tone of the ads....Of course there would still be media coverage and I guess that would be more important. And then it would depend upon what media outlet you rely upon -- Fox News, NPR, etc.

Excellent observation, drive-by!

Arianna Huffington has been saying exactly the same thing for years, insisting that, on balance, political polling was harmful to the democratic (small "d") process.

Then, a few months ago Arianna's Huffington Post went out and purchased Pollster.com. It's now called "Huffpost Pollster" ("Sponsored by MSNBC". I'm not kidding...who could make that up?!!).

Check it out, drive-by!

Ya gotta laugh to keep from crying, eh drive-by?

Can you say "hypocrisy"...?

I knew that you could...

Sure I can, MB. I mean it for ALL of 'em- just make 'em ALL go away, and I bet most of us wouldn't miss them one bit.

Interesting idea. Personally, I think polls have a way of persuading voters to think something they did not initially. If a person keeps seeing a poll saying Americans do not like this or that, do not approve of this or that--those who are less politically informed (not political junkies like us) begin to think there must be something they didn't realize that everyone else knows. It is much like the office grouch entering a room where everyone previously was in a good mood--before long the negativity from the grouch has everyone grumbling.

"Interesting" indeed, Jody-

I'm guessing that's what Arianna Huffington thought as well.

But...Huffington Post still bought Pollster.com.

Hypocrisy.

Pardon me...clarification:

Hypocrisy...from one of the most prominent members of the left-wing media.

Keep that in mind the next time Arianna gives one of her heartfelt, oh-so-sincere monologues about what's ailing our democracy.

drive-by-observer

Feisty- I'm not real familiar with Illinois or municipal rules and laws over there-

Is it illegal for a bank to loan money to a person that was convicted of a crime, or being a suspected mob figure?

DBO, I hope you don't mind. I talked to a girlfriend of my mind who is an attorney. No it's not illegal. On another post I told Candice how angry I got when I woke up sunday to hear a FOX Noise bleached Blonde bimbo lie and say the Feds closed Alexi's bank because of his ties to mobs and Alexi ruined the Bright Start college savings program here. In fact, the Bright Start college savings program before Alexi took office, was one of the worst programs of its kind in the country.

Alexi reformed the program, increasing transparency and offering more investment options for Illinois families. Alexi turned the program around, and in 2009, Money Magazine and Consumer Reports highlighted it as one of the top programs in the country. In June 2010, Kiplinger's named it one of the five best college savings programs in America.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/questionnaires/2749568,ussenateAlexi.article

The failure of Alexi's family's bank as victims of the nation's economic turmoil by the feds the same as others banks big and small; as I've said on here before.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-04-25/news/ct-met-giannoulias-bank-politics-20100423_1_senate-candidate-alexi-giannoulias-white-house-broadway-bank

The Trib is a republican leaning paper and has endorsed Kirk; while the sun times has endorsed Alexi.

When a bank decides whether to approve or deny a loan, it looks at the credit worthiness of the borrower, it looks at the income of the property, the income of the borrower, who the cosigners are, looks at appraisal… It makes a credit decision based on those factors. Banks do not perform criminal background checks on their borrowers.

This is what my girlfriend told me it's a business.

Just think of the sudden rise in unemployment should all the pollsters be knocked out of a job. What a shame and waste. Maybe they should do a poll on the demise of the pollster.

Those campaign managers would go nuts and the media would freak if there were no polls to discuss on a frequent basis. You pick the poll and then look at the numbers. Depending on which one you chose, the results will vary so widely you may even blink once or twice. I deal with statistical evidence and depending on how I cast my net, I can make a survey, which is all a poll is anyhow, say anything I choose to say.

Good one Drive-by. How many folks in this country wait until after the election to install their political bumper stickers. Because they want everyone to think they picked the winners. It's sad, but it happens a lot. And those same folks watch the polls to see how they are leaning so they can have a good chance of voting for the winner. A lot of people are sheep.

Polls are statistical measurements. Statistics are counting numbers that occure over time and then averaged. Then improvements can be implimented to match those numbers. Works well with accounting if you use it correctly...

We'll just have to wait and see which ones come out on top after the elections.

Registare independent or motion for a 3rd party.

Drive by Observer,

There are three types of polls. Those "for" a position, those "against" a position and those "so called independent" polls that profess to be independent.

They all do the same thing as the election gets nearer. They all tend to get nearer to the actual election results. With this countries freedom of speech, you cannot eliminate them, you just have to understand each pollsters bias and use the information you receive with that knowledge.

Be thankful that you have that right!

God Bless America!

"Tightening Race - or just media coverage as usual?"

Bottom line for the media is the bottom line.

Nah! It's a ploy to get you to read the news, just like an avid sports announcer.

"Gosh Mel! How about them Dems! Talk about a last minute surge. They have the momentum now for sure!"

"Yeah Buck, that they do! But they had better make sure they don't fumble the ball before the game ends."

"For sure! They've been know to do that a time or two."

beverley go vote for emmanuel then and let the rest of us decide who will go to DC. If you truly believe in a resurgence3 of the old democratic spirit for the coming election, I got this bridge I need to sell, cheap. Remember Location Location Location.

Its like professional wrestling's commentators... "Linda McMahon now fighting her way back, she goes for the finisher..." Its about drama... Whoever captivates the audience long enough gets the ratings.

I wonder if it could be even more closely tied to wrestling... All the superstars and commentators are social and even friends in the back room, but come out in front of a crowd and its a "fierce rivalry"

Beverly,

You could not be more wrong. The Tea Party movement began with the Americans for Fair Taxation (AFFT) in November, 2002 in Atlanta , GA. It was not Democrat, or Republican then or now. Conservative Yes, but bipartisan.

We are "Mad as Hell" with the politics as usual Congress and want real change. Not the "Tax and Spend" change we have seen in the last two years.

Changes are going to happen. Join in or get out of the way!

God Bless America!

Not exactly Beverly.

The normal practice for the political parties and other partisans is to run sampling favorable to their cause. Normally, within 2 weeks of a major election they become more concerned about accurately so they know where they are for real AND to bolster their accuracy so they are relied on.

This might not be so this year. The tea party contingent is not being checked on. I know - I was polled by Tarrance Group the other day. They are only interested to know if you are working for the news media, working for a political campaign, party registration, your age, your race, conservative, liberal, moderate, how strongly you support the party, do you vote for all, some or most candidates for your party.

They don't know where these people are and if the sample areas are representative of the quantity who will vote in the election.

Current party membership is 35.4% Democrat, 33.8% Republican, and the rest independent and others. Many polls up until now have been using up to 39% democrats and as low as 30% Republicans. Nationally that is just wrong and deceptive. To poll accurately they have to use the current ratio of registered voters in the voting region.

The most responsible for responding to the current trends are Survey USA, Rasmussen, Mason-Dixon, Gallup, and a few others. There are some good democrat and republican pollsters, but they have a tendency to favor their party from just a little to quite a bit. Sometimes they do this to motivate their base, supress their base, or keep their base from being discouraged.

Being behind in a lot of races, I wouldn't put it passed Democrats so pad the mix a little bit to keep their membership from being discouraged.

R.Giles. Great post. As I was reading your thoughtful comment, I was thinking how much good and honest information I received about HCR from AARP--and then you said exactly that. America needs another Walter Cronkhite. There are many good journalists but we do not hear from them enough.

I posted the other day how I watched the Bill Maher show and he had a Tea Party Advocate on the show, she quoted some Stats and cited the CBO as her source, but when the same CBO was cited with stats that didn't substantiate her message then the source became questionable.

During the Healthcare debate the GOP said that AARP was bought off by the Obama adminstration when it came out in support HCR. I don't think reputable source are being listened to any more.

If what is being reported doesn't line up with the message I want, then I dismiss the source and come up with my own like the Heritage Foundation being touted as a preiminent think tank, It fails to mention that it is slanted and biased to a conservative view point.

The point is you can find a source to support you point of view no matter what it is. But I agree that there is a need for our media to non biased and for journalism to be straight calling it like it is.

It's time for the media to lose its sensationalism and go for straight jounalism.

It is, what it is!

Watched a half hour network news broadcast yesterday. Got 10 minutes of what might be considered news (national and international combined), 10 minutes of human interest "news" and 10 minutes of commercials.

If you believe AARP, you'll believe anything. Those people are in bed with every insurance company offering additional benefits to seniors. My father was a member of AARP and a subscriber to Secure Horizons (one of AARP's shills). After 30 days in hospital care, all of AARP's benefits and Secure Horizons' coverage ceased; they literally threw my dad out on the street and I had to get assisted living for him, at my own expense. Nothing but a bunch of rotten liars and crooks!!!!!

Great post RGiles... reminds me of the golden rule 'he who has the gold makes the rules'

Rgiles,

I know how much my medical costs are going up next year. I'm retired and will have trouble in future years with 40% increases in premiums each year.

I'm also facing uncertainty about Social Security and its continued payments.

With taxes increasing, how will you pay all my benefits?

That's so they can go back and vote again on election day - old Democrat tradition (see ACORN).

spider. There was never one case brought against ACORN (when the existed)for voter fraud; voter fraud only exists in the minds of the paranoid who want to believe it does because it fits the right-wing narrative. What do you think of the republican group that ran the ad telling Latinos not to vote? That is voter suppression and is illegal.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30567548/

/blink

I voted yesterday too!

Jody...There was never one case brought against ACORN (when the existed)for voter fraud;

Not one case... Yeah right! Here's a few....

http://www.wlwt.com/r/17718017/detail.html

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_593915.html

http://www.jsonline.com/news/105085874.html

One minute of research and I found three intances where Acron was sued over voter fraud allegations and the last articel is regarding an Acorn employee pleading guilty to voter fraud. Nice try though Jody!

No Tea For Me-2537037

Thank you Beverly, I agree I voted early this past Monday. The majority of people in line said they are fed up with Republicans and their stunts.

You're welcome

I also think with independents now saying they don't want to vote for a Party funded by unknown foreign influence and wealthy donors has a lot to do with it too. Even republicans are on board with that common sense.

Voters do care about secret cash funding elections! 84 % say they have a "right to know" who's bankrolling the ads an overwhelming.
84% of voters polled, including 80% of Republicans and 81% of Independents, believe voters have a right to know who is paying for ads for a particular candidate.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/final%20disclosure%20polling%20memo%20.pdf

Then when you factor in how nuttier the Tea Party gets daily in a time when the country is recovery slowly but surely; people just don't want a group of shrills who have no idea about the needs of the people. Most people are becoming more and more fed up with the GOPTP insensitive proposals now than incumbents.

Fox Noise aka Republican headquarters and the CoC are trying to skew facts by saying President Obama and other Dems hid money. In President Obama case it's not true. His donations can be viewed on the FEC website.

But then again that's what Fox does; lie. no coc ads for dems? come on

OK Miss Beverly, I find your post right up there with those of fiesty. i will disagree with you over your comments regarding foreign donations that you attribute to the Chamber. come on now, you don't actually believe this Democratic political slander, do you?

Now you would also believe the the NPR was justified to fire Juan Williams for his comments on his feelings on Muslims.

Money donated directly to all candidates can be accounted for. It is the money that goes to PACS and other groups. Dems have as many big donors if not more than Republicans. Dems have George Soros Move On Huffington Oprah etc. Big money in Dem party. Really the Dems are out spending the Republicans. Just use facts for once not lies.

See JJ there is the flaw in your argument...

You names contributors where as the new SCOTUS ruling thanks to activist Justice Roberts allows for secret donations...

Tell me JJ are you comfortable with that?

Cause I'm sure the hell not... and I don't care what party does it! Got it?

Paul-where will the government take overs end. Will they next make it mandatory for everyone to have a car? Will they next make it mandatory you go to college? This may sound silly, but think what they are controlling now, right down to what kind of light bulbs you can buy.

mr mike. Please explain how HCR is a government take over? Setting regulations on private industry is not a government take over; insurance is still purchased from private companies. You still have your insurance, I still have mine. What has changed? And don't say costs because my premiums went up every year before it was passed. Incidentally, the mandatory part was a GOP amendment.

The only government aspect was expanding medicaid assistance to the poor.

My insurance premiums have gone up because of Obama care... as have yours. and everyone else.. Yes.. thats change i can believe in...

Why did they go up last year? Or the year before that?

Mr Mike,

What is wrong with having a good education or trade, somethings should be mandatory, It should be mandatory that you wash your A$$, It should be mandatory that you brush your teeth, that you have good personal hygiene, something are just good for you and good for the welfare of the community you live in.

paul-2367106

Some Repubs are even running on a "repeal healthcare reform" platform. Tweeks or even major changes will probably be needed, but to "repeal" and do nothing is not acceptable.

That is why I have massive respect for our President. He did what no other President could do in nearly a century. He fought obstacles and reached out to the obstructionist over and over at times when he knew his Presidency was hinging on the lies from the big Insurance Industry and all the shrills in Congress who lobbied against it; because he cares.

The President knew the impact lack of insurance had on the economy and the health of the economy.

It's not perfect but neither was the civil rights law at first. I do wish LT. Choi wouldn't give up Hope about DADT either like the African American community didn't for over 200+ years. The President is following the constitution so tat it can be repealed legally.

I'm sticking with Barney Frank who is gay and has explained why it must go this route.

why not paul -- vote HCR out by NOT providing any funding at all. Starve it.

The govt will buy a car for all as a necessity before long! In my town 60% get free or reduced cost housing, free phones, checks to pay utilities, free food stamps (which they sell), free medical care already , tax "refund" (Earned Income Credit)and they sit at home and take all they can; we workers pay taxes to support lazy people. This rate of subsidizing people can not continue. There will be more people on dole than working. Then what happens- FRANCE!

Sick of bickering: You don't seem to be sick of baiting. I'm not biting.

I wonder why that is?

I wonder why you felt compelled to come to a thread about 'tightening races' and decide to do some race baiting trolling?

STTS!

Hell, I'M colored.

(I'm white)

BFD, SIckOf...

Hooray! Feisty sees the irony in my post! You are ovbiously brighter than some people here say you are :-)

BTW.... DBO... i am pretty sure the NAACP would NOT come to your defense :-P

This, folks, is what passes for sanity with Baggers. If they had any idea of history (which they and Beck profess authority on) they'd know that the term "colored" was (and in many areas of the country, still is) the way that many referred to non-whites at the time the NAACP came into existence. I presume that a different acronym that includes modern vernacular (African American, etc.) would have been used if the NAACP was formed today. But that fact is lost on these dim bulbs. These are the same half wits that tell us Simple Sarah is qualified to be president or that O'Donnell is smart enough to be senator. Please remember these are the folks that peaked prior to Middle School so chances are they are still struggling with the whole tooth fairy, reality thing. God Bless America.

I am a lifetime member of the NAACP and we would come to your defense and anyones defense who is being submitted to an injustice.

On side note Sick Of.....

Look at the make up of the Senate our chief legislative body how diverse is it. Does there seem to be a true representation of our nation?

Why no Hispanic Senators Why no Black Senators dont mention Burris he was appointed.

I wonder why?

Women are more than 50% of the population, and they certainly do not make up 50% of the congress. Why is that?

Why has a woman never been elected President? Other countries, even third world countries, have had women in the highest office for many years.

I believe we are moving in the right direction for both circumstances. More women and more minorities are running for these offices and are getting elected.

I think that both circumstances are not because of bias, but rather the number of both that are running for office.

Hey, I'm on the bandwagon...why no Native American Senators?

Good lord, enough of race baiting. Heck, I am one of this country's smallest minority groups and I don't complain about not having more HUNGARIAN-AMERICAN legislators.

We really need to have the gov stop this questioning at the end of any statement asking for ethnic answers. mayber this would help to end race issues.

SickO,

You need to watch the old Cary Grant movie "Gentlemans Agreement"

Making racial statements in your argument only means ......YOU ARE WRONG!

If you have to mention race or party affiliation in your arguments .......YOU ARE WRONG!

I do not agree with your racist, bigoted statements at all, even though some of what you said is correct. Because you use racial and bigoted statements......YOU ARE WRONG!

When you learn and understand that first you should be an American, not a Native American, or African American, or Hispanic American, or Christian American will this country learn to live together without racial or religious prejudice.

Make your arguments without political, religious, gender, or racial bias and people will hear your words and believe you.

God Bless America!

Mad in CT,

You disparage people who disagree with any party that spends more than a trillion dollars a year more than we collect in taxes (1.7 trillion this year).

What is wrong with living within our means?

How will you be able to pay for my medical insurance in the future if you believe that we are on the right track now? (I'm retired, and disabled so you pick up the tab for my medical insurance)

Read my earlier post on making politicall, racially, or bigoted statements above.

God Bless America!

Let's see, Illinois has two former Governors serving prison terms and maybe

a third one on the way. And that's just governors! Talk about culture of

corruption. Can we trust there will be a clean election in that state?

And you all Illini would be the first to make fun of the hayseeds and yahoos

out there yet some how those unwashed masses manage a large part of

the time to put much better class of politico into office.

P A T H E T I C.

IL 1960 bought and paid for by Daddy Kennedy and that gave election to JFK. IL is and akways had been corrupt. No way Rep will win as many dead will vote and others will vote more than once. Too many people have multiple identities. CORRUPT IL. ( our President's home1)

Rambo: McFart is running an ad here in AZ, attacking the Dem incumbent Giffords: Cue danger music "What Obama has done to America is STAGGERING, but he couldn't do it alone! Gabrielle Giffords has helped him! Government takeover of health care, failed stimulus, raising your taxes..." (can't recall the rest of the lies). Then his signature closing picture wearing his US Navy hat with the voiceover "character matters" with that vacant look on his mug.

Pity me...I have Rand Paul running for U.S. Senator in my state! Please pray that this goofball does not get elected!

But it is, after all, Kentucky (sigh).

You have my sympathies Suzy! ;0)

Dick Starling

I know I won't change anyone's mind for one of the reasons you stated- they have their minds made up- the other reason is that half of them are too stupid to talk to. I'm just too frustrated with dumb Americans to let them slide- I can't stop them from dragging my country down to their level but I can let them know not everyone is as dumb as they are.

Hey Dick

Why did you feel compelled to post your thoughts? Not being funny just want to know.

What so "Ignorance is bliss"????

Your argument is frankly.... moronic.

By your thinking everyone should stick their head in the sand like many of the Germans did while Hitler rose to power.

People need to discuss ideologies more! The left needs to hear why the right believes what they do and vice versa the right needs to hear the left. The more discourse, the more opportunity for listening, the more listening, the more understanding, the more understanding and the less radicalism you see.

Discourse counters mankind’s natural inclination to set themselves up as their own all-powerful, all-knowing, island in the sea of humanity.

The only problem in having this discourse is when individuals come to the table determined to be “right” rather than to “understand”. Those people tend to attack others and assign motives without trying to understand their fellow human being. When they make these huge leaps to characterize others they don’t gain anything, instead they become the people they hate.

ED...you have to admit that Billy has run a pretty good campaign. Outside of the Houston area no one really knows anything about his "downfalls" unless you do your due diligence. I thought Rick Perry would crucify him for some of the stunts he pulled as mayor. Maybe I have just not watched enough TV ads to see them but it has been a fairly clean race. White has done more negative ads than Perry. This is coming from a conservative.

I can admit that - but speaking as a native Houstonian, I am, you're correct, more intimately familiar with all the aspects of White's politics compared to citizens in the rest of the state.

I'll admit here and now I plan on handing my vote to Perry. I know what to expect from him and I know what to expect from White; I'll gladly risk another four years of Perry before letting White run amok. Just because one can open new public parks does not mean one is qualified to be governor, even in a state with a split executive branch.

SickOfTheBickering

You will NEVER see the NAACP come to the defense of a white person but they are johnny-on-the-spot when an AA needs them. I wonder if any other 'COLORED' people in our nation resent the attention that the NAACP gives the AA's. Latinos, Native Americans, Asians... are they not considered 'COLORED' people? If so they sure don't seem to receive the attention of the NAACP that AA's receive.

Shirely Sherrod spoke before the NAACP ABOUT HELPING WHITE FARMERS.

Its mission is "to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination".^[4] Its name, retained in accordance with tradition, is one of the last surviving uses of the term colored people.

DON'T be snookered by Fox News, Briebart, and Tea Party

SCnurse, what is a me-me-ber?

Dems are outspending the Republicans. George Soros and friends??

Adults should know you can't spend $1.3 trillion you don't have year after year without bankrupting the country. They should also know that Keyensian economic theory has NEVER worked. They should also know that raising taxes in a recession is suicide. They should also know that food stamps and unemploument checks do not generate jobs. They should also know that jobs were more important than health care reform, particularly since it wasn't even reform.

The democrats inherited 4.6% unemployment and a booming economy when they took over congress, Jan 2007. In less than two years they totally destroyed it and it has flatlined ever since. The only reason the economy is improving now is because a republican house will stop Obama and the progressive movement in it's tracks and business know's it's coming.

For Valhalla Phil

Adults should know...

You forgot to mentrion Obama came into office with a $1.8 trillion deficit, two wars not paid for, a Medicare subsidy, not paid for...

Yes we should know but where was the silent right when all this was going on during the Bush era...sweeping his mess under the carpet?

ANd what is the deficit as of today? messiah Obama has outdone Bush. What Bush did in 8 years, Obama has outdone in two. Great comparison there.

EMT1 -

Make sure you align a president's budgets with the fiscal calendar so that you give credit to whom it is due.

Here is a link to a CATO Institute article - CATO is a right-leaning conservative institution.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11094

The article is refreshing - it shows there are some Republicans left that don't fall for the BS that their constituents spout.

The 2009-2010 budget, note that it's Obama's first, was 200 billion less than Bush's last budget. Actually quite an accomplishment that he was able to lower the deficit despite falling tax revenues, Bush tax cuts, unpaid bills passed by Republicans (Medicaid Part D), and two wars leftover from previous administration.

The more important point is that the federal debt rose more in the 8 year's that Bush was in office than in the entire history of the United States and all the president's before him!

WhichPartySpends: You are a liar, a brainwashed Soros mind meld:

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011 (for which they didn't even proffer a budget). In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets..

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

Best chuckle of the day, Al.

Thanks....I needed a good laugh today!!!!!

"See, making up crap and seeing if it can stick to the wall can be fun :-)."

I am sure the liars named Jack Conway and Alan Grayson feel the same way.

Sorry I clicked on the thumbs up when I meant to reply. You think that's funny, a free market, constitutionalist is something akin to Ahmadinejad. You are a sad representation of what the Democrats have become, name calling, Soros mind melds, wandering around like zombies or blog bullies spouting the party line of totalitarian so-called Democrats. Wake up! Join the revolution! Shake off the shackles of the socialist Obama-dinejad.