Just like your mom once I get a hold of her. 8D

Who has control of the Congress? We the People - the Congress will be divided, one house to the Republicans and other to the Democrats. It's a bicameral legislature with two houses known as the House of Representatives and the Senate.

We have control, and it was demonstrated on 11/2/10.

And, of course, that misstatement PROVES that the previous administration and global recession and the Wall Street gamblers had nothing to do with the national debt and the current state of the economy. Fact is, the Republican Party really hasn't been fiscally conservative for a few decades. They just pay lip service to this notion and pass ill-advised tax cuts to parade come election time. I can hardly contain myself, waiting to hear and see all the solutions to jobs and the economy that they have been keeping a secret these last two years in their long - contrived effort to increase the "red seats" in Congress at the expense of potentially helpful and creative non-partisan legislation.

You make it sound like Dubya is evil reincarnate. Yep, he was a stinker of a President. What about ALL the Presidents prior to him. Every President throughput history has left a debt for the new guy. If there was a few who left a surplus, would someone please name them?

Obama sure is going to leave a huge debt that our children's children will be paying for years down the road and plus some, not to mention all the other affects. That just means we need to decrease spending. Just like every other American needs to let go of that credit card, Congress needs to spend less.

clinton built a stash that could've lasted for the next ten years, but then bush spent it all to hell with the war. it wasn't our war to fight and he was "only following his gut."

amen to that

@rennrai: ...what are you trying to say here? That you dislike explosions or something?

You are right Time4aPurge - she just doesn't get it. The whole reason for the anti-Democrat (rather than pro-Republican) vote was because they did NOT take action to create jobs. Instead, they decided that what was important was to pursue their agenda (Health Care Reform, Cap and Trade, etc.) rather than listen to what people were telling them to do. And, there can be no doubt that the exact same thing will happen two years from now if the Republicans do not listen or if the Democrats try to stand in the way. The people are much smarter than the politicians give us credit for.

Yeah, good point, would love to see a country where all policies were just decided by the majority voice. Housewives dictating foreign policy...who needs economists after all? Oh wait, that's the tea party's manifesto...

renrai

I don't know what stash that Clinton built up???? Please enlighten us as to this huge stash.

Why don't you get off your lazy azz and see for yourself ... there was a 230 million dollar surplus when Dumbya took over ... minus the iraq war which was nothing more than a power play, and we'd be even this very day ... The GOP is freaking CLUELESS !~~

@JPA--Actuall , according to the Bookings Institution it was $127B.....I don't mine talking to a liberal Dem, but can you not over inflate the facts, or under inflate, like the current admin does! The Current National Debt is $13,720,257,004, 490.17 and unemployment is sitting between 9.5-10% depending on who you ask. I am sorry but at this point in time, dems can longer blame Bush! He was only the passenger in that car that got driven into the ditch! Dems controlled the House and Senate!

You better thank your lucky stars that she did such a good job of dealing with promoters of hate and an obstructive opposition - the total no vote by the republicans which indicates they were not thinking independently but following the dictum of those whose only thought was to win an election. The rest of us could eat cake.

Now let us see if any of them can behave like representatives of the people in each district rather than like ignorant sheep.

JPA

You must be a frickin idiot. Read his post and read mine you bonehead. He claimed Clinton built up a stash of money that would last 10 years. If you didn't have your head so far up your 4th point of contact you might realize that there really was no surplus. If there were then it would have or should have been used to pay down the National Debt!!!!! Was that the case????? No so there actually was no surplus because the debt went up under Clinton just like it went up under Presidents before and after him.

If you had half a clue you would also realize that the 2001 budget that went through was not approved by Bush but by Clinton and that budget alone used up any surplus he saved while President. By the way Genius he didn't have a surplus, the Republican led House created that.

Sit on your couch bonehead and drink your kool aid because you have been relegated to the irrelevant league right along with Pelosi and the rest of the House Dems.

Right wingers previously have floated this theory that the Democratic congress, which took office in January of 2007, is responsible for the recession which was underway as of December of the same year. Economic trends and policies take a bit more time than that to develop. Not even the Heritage Foundation buys that argument. See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/15/virginia-foxx/foxx-blames-recession-democratic-congressional-tak/

Actually, if you use the Bureau of Labor stats which includes high school and college grads entering the job market for the first time who DON'T have jobs (they would be unemplyed, right?) unemployment exceeds 20%.

the only jobs created were gov. jobs which are paid from taxes...no private jobs are created to pay for the old gov. jobs, so how do they expect to pay for the new ones?

maybe they will create the oppertunity ; Lower Taxes ,Less Regulation. etc . so busineses will invest here in the USA

That sounds pretty right! Especially since it was just Halloween, she wouldn't need to change her costume.

...I thought that was O'Donnell's concession speech? :p

Classic comment!! LOL

Exactly as I suspected! The medical profession is a primary beneficiary of Obamacare. They avoided anything like the Minerva Medica project that would do basic research to define outcome costs and then to attack those costs. Instead, the medical profession can continue their habit of long-term revenue streams from on-going healthcare solutions. The people want and deserve fixes to medical problems not dependence on medical products for years or decades.

Simply moving money around will not improve the health of the nation.

What is the reform that you see anyway?

The only good parts I saw were the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions and no-cap coverage. ANYONE, could fall into those circumstances and insurance companies can easily buy risk coverage to cover their risk. But that should not have cost a penny of taxpayer money and could have been passed in a 3 or 4 page bill.

Magnets,

First of all, I don't believe that's what the MD from Maryland was saying. Second, and factually, the medical establishment fought tooth-and-nail to defeat the Medical Reform Act (I'll avoid using what I feel is the derogatory term "Obamacare" if you don't mind) because they felt it wasn't in their best economic interest. And the same goes for the insurance companies. You think they'd have spent all those lobbying and media dollars, using outrageous lies and deception (think Failin' Flailin' Pailin's "death panels") if they thought it was in their best economic interests? Of course not.

I completely agree with your statement about required coverage of pre-existing conditions. Also, if it helps the some 25 - 30 million persons in the US without healthcare coverage, I'm a big fan. And by the way, the Healthcare Reform Act wasn't about the delivery of medical services. It was about insurance availability and healthcare records, etc., designed to reduce the cost of providing such medical services. Saying that the Act doesn't provide medical services to people is like saying Blue Cross/Blue Shield doesn't.

omg..what world have you been living?

MDCMD; You mean that Obamacare written by big pharma and corporate insurance giants, to the tune of nearly 1 trillion dollars? That health care bill that will add to the 3-4 trillion dollars wars we've had over the last 10 years...both Democrats and Republicans have spent us into oblivion. Endless wars, record debt and unemployment. What was that American Dream again??

MDCMD; Yes sir, you might want to take your blood-pressure to see if you are still alive...but apparently your brain functions is questionable!!

glad im not a patient of yours did you really get thru school maybe you cheated your way thru no brains and still a doctor

i agree with you that health care reform is needed, but i have to disagree with what obama and the rest of the liberals were proposing would work. you cant tax the middle and upper class to pay for what the lower class isnt willing to work for. plus we already have that, its called medicaid, and we already know how well that is working out. im tired of seeing people who arent even citizens of this country get free health care. John Mccain favored welfare reform, medicaid reform, and tort reform which would greatly decrease the cost of health care! and does it not say that the purpose of the government is to "promote the general welfare of the public?" not provide. health care is a service, not a right, no one can have a right to a service. i look forward to the GOP leadership for the next 2 years.

Note the vicious personal attacks on anyone who holds a contrasting political view. Speaks volumes about the character of the writers.

Name me a President in the past 35 years who actually accomplished something for our country that wasn't born out of circumstance or obfuscation of the truth.

Exactly! Liberals just don't get it. Congress passes budgets. Clinton tried his best to stop those budgets and when he lost congrerss then and only then did he move to the middle and accept the budget. He left nothing. The republican congress produced the surplus. For God's sake, face reality. I have to also say that too many republicans lost their way and spent much too much after that. The reason is because the people elected mini democrats. Finally, the people see what democrats and mini democrats have drivin this country into a ditch. Hopefully physically responsible republicans and conserative democrats have gotten the message. The American people have to stop looking to government to be their mommy and daddy. No one is entitled to what someone else worked for and saved for. It is time that both parties stop buying some in the electorate with the money of other people. Wealth distribution has been tried over and over again and has failed over and over. Why do we think it would be any different here? This country became great and the most free and prosperous nation in the world not by entitlements but, hard work. The government's job is to make sure everyone has a fair shot at the American dream. Then, it is up to the individual. All the entitlements have done nothing to help those out of poverty. It has ensured that they remain there so their votes will always be there and given to the highest bidder. Nearly every city is run by democrats. How has that been working for the poor? Are they better off now? How did those housing projects work out? How did welfare work out when requiring fathers not live with their children? How has the drug problem and crime in cities improved? How has the school system in cities educated our youth? It is a disaster. Fewer children are graduating, literacy has gone down. Thanks to the people who offered "help" the poor are much worse off now than they were in the past and it continues to get worse. It is time to stop giving so much help and allow the human spirit a chance to grow. When will we look at what has been done and reallize hasn't worked. The system is broken and more liberal answers are not the answer. It will take time but, we need to find something new.

I remember lil Bush trying to pass a defense budget, that congress rejected TWICE. Then a few months later a couple of planes flew into two buildings and then congress handed him a blank check. I think about the time I am ready to be on my deathbed, the truth will come out. Either the government planned the 9/11 attacks, or worse, they knew about the "terrorists" plots on 9/11 and did nothing so we would have OUR version of Pearl Harbor. I'd sure like to have seen what was so important in that Building 7, that they had to finish it off with explosives. Was it something the FBI found, or maybe the SEC was going to bust someone? Like a tootsieroll, the world may never know.

Michael your complete ignorance is astonishing. So you think that the government planned 911 and as HUGE as that plan would have been no one has stepped up to make millions off the book. Dumb ass is the only word that applies to you. So using that logic grate leader planned the under ware bomber failure so he could look like a hero and he planned the latest shipment so it could be found and his party would win the election. It's okay the Valium should kick in and you can rest your feeble mind soon.

wasnt clintons surpluss simply for the one years budget. not the national debt. which wasnt paid down with the surplus.

he was the only president that didnt know the definition of ' IS " lol

JD,

I think you're referring to W's ability to keep two, count 'em, two wars off the books. That was the accounting trick. The surpluses built during Clinton's presidency, and a republican-controlled Congress, were surpluses that were the result of a booming economy. Cast blame or attribute credit to either body (I think it's both), but those are the facts.

Naw, FirstTimer, the gimmick that clinton used has to due with the way the budget is split, there are private and public budgets, the public budget is between government agencies, the private is what is set before Congress. What Billy did was back load the public side and front loading the private side by shifting money from one side to the other. The end result was that there was still a deficit in total, the private side was reduced the public side increased.

No administration has run a surplus since Social Security was instituted. It got worse when Medicare came to be. It might not be so bad, but our Congress in the infinite stupidity began raiding the funds attributed to SS and Medicare and leaving IOUs that the future generations must pay. Not one of these brain thrusts realized the aging of the population, meaning that at some point the number of people paying into the entitlement programs would exceed the number drawing from the program, creating a deficit. What could have been can be no more, they lost all interest that would have been paid into the lock boxes for SS or Medicare.

How is that different from the past two years? Or the eight before that?

Look at the bright side - no one's lassoed anyone just yet. No one's dragging anyone through the streets by their neck. We've yet to see some sort of bizarre Mad Max-esque post-Apocalyptic world come to fruition.

glw, want some cheese to go with your Whine!

Joe,

The fact is, that; Boehner said it himself....

voters are now putting their expectations on Republicans to fix the country's problems.

I honestly just don't think ANYTHING, will get accomplished now....

BTW - I like Cheddar......*>)

Put forward the conservative principles that you were elected on. Cut spending, cut taxes, reduce the size of the federal government, privatize, and do not fund Cap and Trade and cancel Obama care. Send it to the Senate and get them on record as to where they stand. If it gets to grate leader let him veto. The can opener is out and in two years if your are against the PEOPLE they WILL open another can of whoop ass. There is room for compromise in some area not in other areas. Odd isn't it that the party that stood on principle (that be the party of no) won 60+ seats in the House 6 at this time seats in the Senate AND 21 state legislatures. The PEOPLE have spoken time to LISTEN and RESPOND.

GlW, shortly the majority will make proposals, those proposals will fly through the House and go to the Senate. Many of the more liberal members of the senate will vote against any proposal coming from the majority in the House. That will be the death knell for the far left, they will be seen as obstructionists when the other more moderate members of the senate (and those up for re-election in 2012) vote in favor of the first three proposal set forth by the house majority. After that, there will be an effort on the part of the White House to regain control of the democrats, but its already too late. Obama is a curse on any campaign. He will be hard pressed to save himself.

glw news flash. The American People didnt Vote the Repubs in . Just Voted Obama Out/

More vile, sexist commentary. Again, a reflection on the writer.

I think the political landscape has changed a little. Many more people are paying much closer attention now.

workingforaliving, do you work for someone who does generate more then 250000 in revenue a year? If you do, and the tax increase goes into effect, you could be out of a job.

To: Bagman

I, as a Nevadan, wish it were true about Harry Reid but alas, his promises (lies) to the minoritys has helped to keep him a Senator for another six years. Mrs. Angle couldn't have been any worse than Mr. Reid and his hunger for power. He's not there to help Nevada; look how many years he's had to help us and we are the hardest hit for unemployment. He's Obama's lap dog. Pres. Obama made three trips to Las Vegas in support of Reid....I think he wanted to keep his YES man.

Check the dictionary.

Cryin it's big fat freelunching butt off!!!!

Speaking of smoking a fat one, startin a little early this mornin ain't ya? Check your facts my friend before ya spout MSNBS rhetoric. You have nothing right in your post, nothing! While yer at it, try gettin a job and workin for a living. Free lunch program is for school.

Nothing, @jed? Really? While I don't agree with the tone of @ISH's post, you might want to do a little fact-checking before you start displaying your ignorance for all to see. War in Iraq? Yep, Bush. Bank bailouts? Yep, Bush. Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac bailouts? Yep, Bush.

And the "get a job" rhetoric is old and tired - trying using some grown-up arguments.

Left Wing Nut Job

Bank Bailouts Bush! You are right now go check the status of the money and you will find that almost all of that money has been paid back and in fact the Banks will be paying a little extra. I know we won't see it but maybe just maybe it will be used to pay down the National Debt.

Fannie Freddie Bailouts Bush! WRONG Try Barney and friends McCain and Bush tried to get a reign on Fannie and Freddie and the Dems based on Barney Franks word, kept the money flowing.

You might want to read a few more pages of facts on those subjects before you jump on someone else's post.

Aslo, Clinton was the one who first reported the WMD's in Iraq. Remember when he blew up a aspirin factory in Baghdad because he thought it was where they were producing chemicals? That information was passed to the Bush administration.

Clinton also cut the intelligence community to the bone, there were fewer boots on the ground, fewer analysts to process data. That was the legacy that Bush took on, but you never heard him complain about it, like the whinner in the White House now.

Those are two facts that you can check.

Stop, Think

Are you a Vet? Do you use any of the Veteran's facilities. Do you know that to get a regular appointment it takes 90 days. If it is an emergency they tell you to go to an emergency room. Does that sound like the health care that you or everyone else wants on a regular basis?

By the time 90 days rolls around you will hopefully not need to see a doctor or if it was really something it might have spread to the rest of your body or become more advanced than if you had been seen in say a week from the time you called.

If you don't know what you are talking about then don't talk. If you choose to continue, please use a better example.

You are assuming that emergency care is handled the same as nonemergency care.

This 90 days you speak of may have happened but you are stating an instance that I have no documentation about.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14560

Hope this article helps. I have three friends who have served in Iraq as marines. One died, the other came back without his legs and the last with PTSD. Both have praised the care they received.

The VA sets the standard for medical care in America.

http://www.vacareers.va.gov/vacareers_Careers_Edge_Quality.cfm

Also, I gave other examples. Politicians use gov't run healthcare ... why is that?

Another, why is socialised medicine good for 450 million Europeans and not 300 million Americans? Size matters not. Every country, no matter how big it is, can devise a system where everyone can get basic healthcare before the emergency room.

And finally, yes, I want all Americans to be treated as our soldiers are who fight and die for this country everyday. They should not get any less than we do!

Stop,Think...how close to the VA do those honorable men live. The closest VA hospital to our hometown is more then 4 hours away. When those who have been released from the VA hospitals return home, they have to travel 4 hours each way to have the artifical limbs adjusted. Normally, they also have a two hour wait to see a doctor once they arrive, despite having an "appointment". What is so very down right stupid is that there is a hospital right here in town that could take care of the problem, but the VA would not approve of the outside treatment.

The way we treat our wounded Vets is deplorable.

And the way we treat our everyday citizens isn't?

Post links and provide proof; give them to your congressman or congresswoman. These shortfalls can be remedied with good leadership. Republican or democrat, it doesn't matter to me, one of these parties has to step forward and put America in the same league as the rest of the modern western world.

General consensus among veterans is that the VA is doing a good job. Even nonpartisan committees and privately funded research groups praise the VA. Is it perfect? No. But it is the best alternative to a starting model for gov't run healthcare. I am not going to post another link to support this claim as the above posts are my evidence.

Even privately run healthcare has its horror stories. People who cannot receive care for hours are left in emergency rooms unattended because of overwhelming demand. Cancer patients wait for months for treatments that can save there lives. Seniors wait to turn 67 so they can finally fall under Medicare so they can receive low cost treatment for health problems such as heart valve replacement surgery.

3 out of 5 bankrupties in America are related to medical issues! http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/06/new_study_shows_medical_bills.html

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-cause-most-bankruptcies/

And I ask again, why do politicans use gov't healthcare?

Evidence, evidence, evidence. Give me evidence that says privately run healthcare is best for EVERYONE - not just the wealthy.

I am sorry Stop,Think I have to agree with TJM07. I live within 45 minutes of two VA facilities and am a disabled Vet and have to wait sometimes longer than 90 days for appointments. I basically have to plan all of my health care needs a year in advance in order to obtain the appointments I need on time. The VA system shines where they want it to shine, the vets coming back from the war are taken care of because they are in the limelight right now, but the vets of past and old are left wondering when their great health care is coming. As for the Politicians using government health care, it is a health care policy just like the one you get from your employer. They have prescription co pays and deductible and the works. I know because my parents are covered under the Government Health Care. Finally I wonder how much you really know when you state that the economy is tied to health care and education. Some of the greatest economic minds have stated that the economy is tied to the spending habits of this nations citizens. We dedicate television time to talk about the peoples spending but hey I am sure that you know something those over educated and worked economists don't know. I have to agree that you really must come to this with something more than what you have provided. Why don't you try out the VA sometime?

Now for socialized medicine. Although I try very hard to leave this topic alone I really must comment. You did not mention that socialized medicine considerable raises taxes. Most of the nations that you speak of pay 40% and up in taxes annually. You are talking about a considerable amount of money for someone who makes 30,000 dollars a year. But you probably don't fit in that category so me let me raise it a little bit. 65,000 a year @ 40% leaves you with 39,000 dollars bring home without a 401k. Now the average house payment for a middle class person 1,100 equals 13,200 dollars leaving you with 25,800. Let's round off the average utilities because those vary everywhere (electric, water, and gas) 4,200 taking you to 21,600. Oh wait I forgot State tax and/or property tax (the States still need there money to survive). In Texas we only have property tax, 5,500 leaving 16,100. Now how about that car payment 5520 leaving 10,580. Now from this wonderful small total you have your food, clothing, entertainment, auto gas, vacations, household and auto maintenance, little nick knacks and household items that you pick up here and there all on 881.00 dollars a month. Got kids your costs just went up and you 881 just shrunk very quickly. These are really numbers and they don't lie!

Socialized medicine sounds great on paper, but your employer is not going to give you a raise simply because of an increase in taxes. And they are certainly not going to give you a raise because they are getting back the money of providing health care to their employees. Fantasy is not reality and the reality is that in the US people do want to live in poverty and once they make middle class they don't want to go back. Instituting socialized medicine will just move the middle class of this nation into the poverty class of this nation.

Mmm, 40% maybe for the high earners but not for someone making 30,000 dollars a year. Here's a nice link for you to get the facts about tax rates around the world.

http://www.taxrates.cc/

Lower income will receive a lower income tax rate. Even in Sweden, the highest tax state in Europe, its an average of 31.52% with the maximum being almost 60%. High if you are wealthy, true, this is why the wealthiest Americans are against it but people who make less than $82,000 a year the taxes will be about the same.

Stop Think,

This is the first remark you've made that I can agree with.

LOL... very funny, indeed. That's a very good joke. :P