Typical right-wing nutjob rant.

Long on insults, short on substance, devoid of logic.

Apparently Thomas doesn't like to face facts (like most nancy and reid followers) only count bills passed even if the bills cost trillions and don't accomplish a thing except reward illegal aliens and foreign governments that do not have our best interests as their top priorities. But then again if their leader (Obama) is not a U S citizen, then why should they care about other U S citizens?

Hey everyone, we got us a real live "birther" here.

Who can take someone named Bubba seriously, seriously. Obama, one and done and is a lame duck unless a newer and smarter brand of conservatives say okay. I'm right down the middle. And Obama is well educated and smart. And he, if he wants to be re-elected, will dump his relationship with the far left hypocrites and become more of a centrist. He has no choice; but it's a smart move. He will claim he brought the parties together. The big question and what I'm waiting to see is the "new" GOP's elected in Nov. better do something positive. I'm GOP, but am sick and tired of both sides. I just wish term limits were imposed, as that would end tons of back room deals and pork.

Obama and Bush are like Day and Night. Obama is intelligent and honest.

Apparently you are uninformed if you believe that the START treaty is a fair and just treaty. Oh right, if Obama said it is okay, the savior must be right

I will surely be glad to explain my position, point by point, if you are of a mind to listen. I find your side to be the dangerous and intimidating one.

credence1, I just want to know where Obama's liberals and progressives think they are going...toward what?

Dissertation and emotional rhetoric not necessary. Thanks.

L Hartwood,

A direction better than the direction we had last time a Republican scoundrel was in power. The direction we are taking is way better than when we declared an fantastically expensive war on the basis of a deception at best flimsy evidence, all the while cutting taxes to the richest Americans.

Even Apes governing US will do a better job than ever entrusting America's fate to Corporate welfarist Republican scoundrels.

@ L Hartwood, it sounds like you're describing the past three Rebublican Administrations. You are aware that the last Democratic President, Clinton actually reduced the size of the deficit, balanced the budget, grew the middle an economic upgrade form the poorer class? That was after Reagan just about annihlated the middle class. Then after all his hard work, there comes Dubya to destroy it all and leave us so far in a black hole President Obama is struggling to get out of. Even with the Party of No blocking every attempt at progress. The only thing they are interested in is giving LARGE OVERBLOWN contracts to the Military Industrial Complex, Big Oil, Prison Industrial Complex...You get it. When it comes to spending which directly helps the people and the American Economy they dither and sit on their hands like petulant children. Is that what you call governing? You are misguided!

Youre the emotional one L. Hartwood, I will keep this a brief as possible and will elaborate at your request.

1. We need a view of the world post Teddy Roosevelt acknowleging that we are in a technological state that includes the use of nuclear fission as a weapon. Instead on concentrating on who has the largest battleship, maybe we better get 21st century and figure out among responsible nations how we are going to avert blowing our arses off from the planet...... It is not 1939 and we are not in Kansas anymore, your nostalgia is out of place in the real world.

2. You had better hope that the modification to the free enterprise/capitalist systems that the progressives work toward is successful, we are not going to give the a handful a carte blanche to exploit the many. The resulting failure to do this could be disasterous for both you and your precious system. The rightwinger fails to realize that tending to the abuses of the capitalist system is not socialist. If you disagree then you will be the first to give up your Social Security, Medicare, etc.

That is my idea of where we are going.....

J Smith, I'm not interested in scapegoats from the past. I was inquiring about the direction Obama liberals and progressives are headed toward now. A simple question...Based on their own recent actions (bankrupt-type spending, transformation to government control, health care, lame-duck bills like DADT and START, immigration lawsuits against States, pushing omnibus pork, etc.) where are they going?

Apparently you expected the last Administration to turn cheek to Sadam's mass-murdering terrorism and his bloody invasions of neighboring countries. Apparantly 9-11 wasn't enough to get your hackles up. Yet you say nothing about Obama's similar policies continuing to support the war in Pakistan and Afganistan where young American soldiers are dying right now. Go figure.

Only a socialist would begrudge someone of their own hard-earned money. What do you care how wealthy someone is? It's their money, not yours! It is the rich who pay most of the tax in this country. How much tax on them is enough?...when they stop hiring, or move their business to another country where tax is less and union wages don't break them? When it is no longer viable to spend 8 years and $400,000 getting a medical degree because you can't recoup the time/costs with a healthy income? About half of the people in this country don't pay tax, yet they take entitlements from the rich through tax without thinking twice. The rich provide jobs. And the rich voluntarily give the most as the biggest charitable donars. I worked my ars off, without parents, from the slums of the city, with 3 thankless jobs, all so I could live my American dream. I'll be damned if I'm going to surrender that to some lazy ars tattoo-pierced dope smoker who is intent on collecting unemployment and food stamps. Wake up J. Smith.

SHARING THE FACTS, I am not interested in a recap of the past or laying blame on scapegoats. I am inquiring about what direction Obama is leading this country?

As for your comment on the deficit...Obama's deficit spending is a record. Like no other president, ever. Our children and grandchildren will be paying for Obama's spending for decades...if they survive it before having to learn Chineese.

As for balancing the budget....Obama doesn't even have a budget. No joke. No budget.

As for the "party of no"....What part about the November elections don't you understand?...the "no" part, or the part where it is the American people saying no? Yes means spending money we don't have, and cramming socialistic entitlements down Amercia's throat against their will. It is the left democrats saying "no"...no to what the American people want and no to the proposals the Rep have. It is Obama, Pelosi, and Reid behind closed doors doing whatever they want.

As for spending helping the American economy?...Huh? Spend what? There is no money to spend!!!!

Again, after two years now we have a track record. So exactly where is Obama leading this country?

credence1, your opinions on a couple of issues don't answer the question either. We have a track record of almost two years now. So where is Obama leading this country? Where are we headed?

There is nothing "nastalgic" about North Korea, China, and Iran proliferating nuclear weapons while we dumb down. That is the reality of the here and now, regarless of how nastalgic it seems. In fact defense experts say that the START treaty is a green light to war mongering countries for nuclear proliferation...their chance to gain some ground. It would be nice if we didn't have to flex our muscles, or worry about showing ignorant weakness. But this isn't a nice world, and other countries hate us, just waiting for the chance to pounce. Miliary might has it's purpose. Right now we can barely support the "little" battles we have going on now.

When capitalism dies, so does America...along with individual liberties, exceptionalism, prosperity, and the American Dream. Without capitalism there will be no entity left to support the entitlements and socialistic programs. Where will the money come from? What will the incentive to be productive be? People will once again become enslaved to the government, their taxes, their programs, and their directives, dependent on their entitlements...one of the reasons American settlers left England in the first place. Bash that if you want, but please do it with reference to the Constitution and Bill of Rights...the very foundation of what made America what it is. Socialism doesn't work (look at other countries). So if Capitalism and Socialism aren't it, what does that leave? Wake up people.

BTW Credence, you can have your Social Security and Medicare. They are the two biggest government rip-offs we have. I worked extra hard to afford my own medical plan. It makes Medicare look like a joke...My doctors won't even take Medicare patients. And all the money I put into Social Security doesn't amount to beans, if any is left. Investing my money myself has resulted in a real retirement income. I suppose if I was a lazy liberal who was enabled and dependent on entitlements, I would feel like you about how wonderful SS and Medicare are. But I made my American Dream the good old fashioned way. I earned it.

I can write a novel on the issues i take with the rightwinger. I told you that I can and would elaborate if you can address something specific.

What about North Korea? The president and intelligent progressives determine that a regional solution with China getting involved is a key to reining in its rogue ambitions. What do you suggest we do, declare war on North Korea? You rightwingers are nothing but rooting-tooting cowboys with guns that shoot blanks. If we cannot find a man hiding in a hole in Afghanistan do you think we have the resources for a major military confrotation? Sabre rattling is not the answer, diplomacy is. You people don't get the message do you? So you want to confront China militarily now, huh. Having no treaty is sure formula for having no influence nor control on the proliferation, what is your brilliant alternative? You're pure Teddy Roosevelt, alright. You rightwingers get this paronoid delusion that the whole world is out to get you, perhaps you need to place yourselves on a psychiatrist's sofa. The days of Pax Americana is over, world peace will be obtained by cooperation with other nations that also have a vested interest in avoiding nuclear confrontation, the ultimate zero sum game.

I told you that we agree that Capitalism is the basis of the American economy, but its abuses must and will be curbed. That exceptionalism stuff is bull crap, you really believe all that hype you were fed in grade school, the 'city on the hill' stuff. You might be willing to give up anything that you think is socialistic, but many of us regard the New Deal of the 1930's as a done deal and only the most anachronistic rightwing type would think of undoing what it accomplished. This is a civilized society and we are not returning to your Dickensian vision of beggars in the street. Where does the bill of rights talk about the Enrons the corporations reorganizing and cheating people out their pensions that they spent a lifetime paying into. You're a lapdog of the corporation and the private sector excess and I for one will not abide with it. Believe, it rightwinger, when you say ying, I say yang just as fervently. Like I told you before without fairness for both capital and labor, those adversely affected after being fed endless bromides by people of your type will lose patience and knock down the cookie jar, and will all start over. Don't think that it can't happen here.

Your rightwing vision of America and my vision is different, just like I will turn my nose at candidates that you would favor, but that is America, isn't it? You speak to the millions of recipients of pensions, social security, medicare and the like and you call them all lazy? Do you think that I pay into these programs over a lifetime to receive nothing in return? Where does that arrogance come from, are you going to work until you are 90? People like you talk but never really are prepared to walk the talk, isn't that right?

Happy holidays.....

Well that's nice credence1, but you still can't answer the question (I'll put it in bold for you this time)....Given Obama's track record over the last two years, where is he leading our country? What direction are we headed?

"Gun-slinging and sabre rattling?" Obama is the one who sent warships to the North Korean border after they bombed South Korea and killed American marines. Obama is the one continuing to support the war in Pakistan and Afganistan where soldiers are dying right now. All your rhetoric is just typical left-wing hypocrisy.

"Diplomacy?" Obama bows, apologies, handshakes, and meets with terrorist and dictators as they accellerate their nuclear weapon programs like never before, plot to wipe out entire countries/races like Israel, openly test their weapons against agreement, and support terror against America. We show weakness waiting for another 9-11 as we dumb our military down - and you sit on your hands hoping dimplomacy works where it never has. Obama has brought us so far away from world peace that the war mongering countries are laughing as they build their nuclear arsenals and plot their terrorist attacks. We can't even defend our own borders from illegal's...Obama sues any State trying to proctect themselves. Wake up!

"Exceptionalism is bull crap?" Not. Exceptionalism is driven by Capitalism. Capitalism provides incentive. With incentive, great and unusual things can be achieved. In your left-wing socialistic utopia filled with entitlements, there is no incentive to achieve anything. Why work?...The government provides for you...they pay you not to work...unemployment, food stamps, health care, housing, etc. They enable you to become dependent on them...so you won't have individual liberties and exceptionalism. Wake up!

"Dickensian vision of beggers in the street?" You mean like your unprecedented unemployment rate under Obama? Wake up!

"Bill of Rights?" The Bill of Rights doesn't give Americans the right to all of your socialist entitlements and big government nannyships. What Enron did was illegal, and people are in prison for it. I don't see Charley Wrangle (left-wing tax evasion), Barney Frank (left wing bank/housing rip-off), and your other cronies in prison.

"Fairness?" You want fairness without doing equal share. You want a hand-out from somone who has more than you, on the back of his labor and prosperity. You want entitlements paid by the rich to support your own inability to be prosperous. What's fair about taking one man's money and not another man's money? A doctor who came from the slums spent 8 years getting his education and owes $400,000 in loans, he works 16-hour days to save lives. He finds himself providing service to people with no insurance and no job, but who can apparantly afford the cigarettes, booze, tatoos, fast-food, and narcotics that made them sick. And he finds out Medicare won't even pay him for it. And when he's all done, he is penalized by paying more tax to support the very people and socialistic programs that undermine him. You say Capitalism is evil...I say your Socialism is evil and will eventually kill America. But you know that because you see what's happening to socialistic countries over sea.

Yes, my American Dream is much different than yours. Mine does not include depending on big government for entitlements that I have no right to. It does not include spending money I don't have. It does not include weakness, political correctness, or enabling others to not be productive. It includes hard work, earning my own way, individual liberties, exceptionalism, relying on our country's founding principles, enforcing the law, and keeping what is mine and giving to others what I can. You know...those very things that made this great country what it is....and the very things you want to undermine.

And I am asking you for the second time to be more specific and I will address your questions. Progressives are intelligent enough not to evade with generalities and platitudes.

The President sent ships to the Korean Pennisula to encourage S Korea and discourage N. Korea from further hostilities. If I recall, we do have some sort of alliance with S. Korea, do we not? So, I ask you what is your brilliant solution to all this, and don't tell me like your rightwing buddies always say 'to nuke them all and let God sort them out'. So instead of critcizing Obama and the Democrats, what would you do besides railing against those trying to do something to deal with crises short of starting WWIII. Short of attacking Iran, what is your idea to how to prevent this? When you decide to step out of the 20th century, or is it the 19th, and look around you will see that there are plenty of members of the nuclear club. Israel, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran. Again, what would you do? It is sort of tough to tell others that they cannot go nuclear when we have 2000 warheads, isn't it. The point is that we cannot hope to live in a world where we have to be prepared to fight every and anybody, we have bases in close to 100 countries. This is draining the treasury. You can keep your beligerancy and death wish to yourself. I am satisfied with Obama's performance in foreign policy for the most part even though you are not. I just a soon see him drop this fools errand in the Middle East and southwest Asia, but of course you rightwingers would complain about that too. This isn't Star Trek, we neither have infinite power nor resources to chase after all your bogeymen.

You rightwingers operate under hypnosis, did I say that capitalism was evil? I also told you before that capitalism is find but without restraint is dangerous. Did you hear me, L. Hartwood? Of course, since you live in the 19th century no point of talking to you about history that hasn't happened for you yet. What about the sweat shops, child labor, environmental pollution, insider trading, just to mention a few things. Allowing the pursuit of profit which is a fundemental tenent of capitalism and not as a society giving due consideration to factors other than the profit motive is reckless. This basic concept goes over the head of the rightwinger every time. I will take my left wing utopia over your rightwing fascism any day.

Your fourth paragraph is just more stereotypes of people you rehash from Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. All these people structurally unemployed are lazy freeloaders, huh? Aren't you the arrogant one, you better hope that you don't find yourself out on the street without a job or prospect, lets see you pull yourself up by your bootstraps then.

As for you view on entitlements, government pensions, social security etc., they are and were paid into by the recipients. I did not pay in to listen to you spout rightwing dogma as to why I should not get what I paid for. Would you deny the military their pensions? You people think that Thurston Howell and inbreeding, resentful rightwingers are the only ones worthy of the benefits of society based on nothing but your rhetoric.

Nobody is really against the Horatio Alger things you speak of, fundamentally. I am saying that there are too many hard working people playing by the rules that are getting screwed.

It was a simple question. Perhaps so simple that you're unable to spin the answer in a way that doesn't blatently expose where Obama, and your liberal ideals, are taking us. So simple that you write a novel on a few topics, fire back similar questions, spew rhetoric, and call names, but not once answering the question yourself. Go figure.

I just have to shake my head at the hypocrisy. In typical liberal fashion you bash me as a "rightwing rooting tooting cowboy with guns" and "sabre rattling". In the next breath you excuse Obama sending warships to Korea as a way to discourage N. Korea. Well, here's a newsflash...Obama could've relayed that discouragement with a phone call. Instead, he decided to strap on his gun, and rattle his sabre...Just like the rightwing root-tooting cowboy you hate. Go figure. Obama continues to send troops to the middle east war, and they continue to die. So much for your military diplomacy. Iran, Pakistan, China, and N. Korea proliferate their nuclear weapons like never before, while you sit on your hands in the name of treaties, sanctions, and ignorant hopes of "world peace". Apparently 9-11 wasn't enough to make you realize the "bogeymen" are real, and they must be dealt with. It is your Obama, who rejects the American people's wishes, works behind closed doors, hires a Czar for anything that won't muster our government's checks and balances, who must answer your questions.

Liberals like yourself like to use the illegal and unethical abuses of Capitalism, and "right wing fascism", as a scapegoat to rid this country of Capitalsim all together. That is a misguided mistake. Liberal leftwing Presidents, Congresses, Judges, and people like you are just as responsible (and guilty) for allowing those unethical and illegal actions to take place under Capitalism. This is the 20th Century credence1. Look over seas...Your left wing utopia of socialism doesn't work.

Of course you think my fourth paragraph is stereotype and media brainwash. Of course you spin it by putting your words in my mouth. After all, you're the one who thinks American exceptionalism is "bull crap". You have no desire to be exceptional, or include exceptionalism as one of your individual liberties. You can only grasp the concept of government control, entitlements, and a population unabled by, and indebted to, it's own government. You want to force everyone on an equal playing field, even though everyone is not, nor deserves to be, equal.

You completely miss my point on entitlements, and in fact make it. You should most certainly get out what you pay in. But you are not! You are being ripped off! Social Security only gives you back a portion of what you put in, especially compared to investing the money yourself. Much of it goes to governement debt and waste. The program will have a $0 balance by the time my children are old enough to utilize what they've contributed. Medicare is rejected by most physicians and health care organizations in my area, because it simply doesn't provide the treatments, care, or payment necessary. You contributed absolutely nothing to the new Obamacare health care plan. It is pure deficit spending...money we don't have. Any taxes or fines you pay will go toward another person's plan...even if you are healthy and don't need care...and they smoke, drink, and eat gallons of Ben & Jerry's on the couch. The governement will own you...what you eat, what care you get, etc. etc. Entitlements like Unemployment aren't paid into by you. Your employer does (you know, those evil rich people you want to keep taxing). The liberal socialistic black hole is deep.

Yep, plenty of hard-working people like me playing by the rules. And frankly, I'm tired of watching what I work for be taken by the government and given to others who are more gifted, talented, and able than myself, but who are unabled by liberal socialistic government entitlements. Without them, I could afford to give some of my own money to those who need it. I am also thankful for my Capitalistic employer, who provides me an opportunity to work, health insurance, and a way to achieve my American Dream. He would probably provide more, to many more, if the government got out of his way or even gave him some incentive to.

Do you actually think Russia is actively planning a nuclear attack on the US, and that the first chance they get, they'll start shooting off missiles ans start a nuclear war that hey themselves would be consumed by?

Do you actually think that?

Was it a mistake when Regan did it? If you remember he started all of this nuclear reduction in the first place.

hypopolak...What naïveté pray tell? Let me make this very clear, nuclear warheads should never been invented! They may have been intended to stop the so called enemy however only harms the innocent. The same for Biological Warfare. These terms shouldn’t even be. One has to be extremely mean-spirited to want to harm and maim others to use this technology in this manner in the first place. Currently in South Africa they are finally prosecuting Dr Death who pioneered many biological warfare under the apartheid Gov. The sole purpose was to stop the growth of Blacks..This isn't Black whining here folks. These are known facts of the government: Revealed by scientists in the administration. Dr Wouton Basson known as Dr Death sold these to USA, even had a lab in LA. It was an explosion in that lab that outed this rascal here and of course some very good investigative journalism. When Senator Obama entered the Senate, one of the first Bills he wrote was to reduce Nuclear proliferation over the next 10years. He got the support of a Republican during his travels to Europe to obtain more info. THAT'S WHY HE WON the Nobel Peace Prize. Not for what he had expressed as a wish in the early days of his Presidency but because of his work as a young Freshman Senator. Alfred Nobel before his death many times regretted his discovery of atomic energy and nuclear possibilities. Sweden saw that Prez Obama as President could finally finish the work he started...THANKS NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER PRESIDENT OBAMA. The world is very grateful for your insight and your follow through, thanks.

These old clowns yearn for the nostalgia of the Cold War..when they used fear, hysteria and lies to rob this country blind! Not anymore. We aren't going back!

SHARING THE FACTS, reducing nuclear proliferation is great...if everyone actually does it.

But don't be ignorant. Nuclear weapons are being increasingly proliferated in countries like North Korea and Iran. Those countries are laughing as we dumb ourselves down and they sharpen their venom toward us. I have no reservations about Russia helping them, treaty or not. The START treaty works in everyone's favor but our own. Wake up. Ridding ourselves of nuclear weapons won't change the fact other countries would jump at the chance to use theirs on us.

L., we are not "ridding" ourselves of nuclear weapons.

Why does the right need to resort to lying so often?

Mark Thomas, why is it a lie when the right says it, but not when President Obama himself says it?

"Ridding the world of nuclear weapons" - Obama's own exact words.

The START treaty is an attempt to eliminate nuclear weapons, starting with limitation, reduction, and removal.

Real leadership would be addressing nuclear proliferation with countries like North Korea, China, and Iran.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Generals-Diplomats-Warn-START/2010/12/21/id/380560

Thanks for exhibiting the Conservative trademark technique of taking a sentence--or in this case a sentence fragment--out of context and twisting it to whatever meaning you choose. Your war on the language of legitimate political discussion is noted and rejected.

In perfect context, Obama's own words of "ridding the world of nuclear weapons" can be found in numerous speaches, interviews, promises, meetings, resolutions, and so on.

It is not unlike Liberals to reject the facts.

How many times will 1,550 nuclear warheads destroy the world, L. Hartwood? Hint; During the Kennedy Administration we only had 400 warheads and that was enough to destroy the world several times over.

The only excuse for "needing" all that weaponry is wanting to make sure we get the cockroaches, too. This treaty only gets us a tiny fraction of the way to "ridding the world of nuclear weapons".

BTW, that phrase has been used in terms of an ideal, a dream, since the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty. No President has EVER used it as expression of a desire to unilaterally disarm and leave the United States at the whim of other nuclear powers. Pretending otherwise is dishonest.

You make my point John B...Even if the treaty reduced our nuclear weapons to 400 warheads, it would be irrelevant - and the treaty doesn't even do that.

It is a show of weakness. Other countries are laughing as they openly proliferate their nuclear capabilities like never before. Obama's diplomicy policies ain't work'n. Wake up.

You should read....

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Generals-Diplomats-Warn-START/2010/12/21/id/380560

BTW, that phrase has been used in terms of an ideal, a dream, since the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty. No President has EVER used it as expression of a desire to unilaterally disarm and leave the United States at the whim of other nuclear powers. Pretending otherwise is dishonest.

"Ridding the world of nuclear weapons" are Obama's own exact words, not mine. So talk to him about being dishonest. You exemplify the radical libralism this country is sick of...When Obama says something it means one thing, yet when someone repeats what he says word-for-word, they are right-wing liers. Go figure.

All any country need is one or two nuclear weapons. It's not how much you have, but who uses it first.

Declare victory and move on hartwood, you've proven your ignorance and inflexibility to anyone with eyes to see.

Yep. National Security is where I draw the line and become "inflexible".

It is you who ignorantly rejects the warnings from over 30 former defense and foreign plolicy government officials and experts who say the Bill is a threat to our National Security.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Generals-Diplomats-Warn-START/2010/12/21/id/380560

...All while liberals like you and your precious Obama can't even protect your own borders, and in fact sues any State trying.

So a few dozen neocons are still willing to exhibit their willingness to support war in any way, shape, and form...big deal. On the other side of the issue you'll find;

• Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, Gen. Kevin Chilton, Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, Gen. James Cartwright;
• Former President George H.W. Bush;
• All living former Secretaries of State, including: Condoleezza Rice, Colin L. Powell, James A. Baker III, George P. Schultz, and Henry A. Kissinger;
• Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, James Schlesinger, Stephen Hadley, Sam Nunn, John Warner.

You're not just being inflexible, you're being reflexively blind to reality.

"Neocons"..."Support war in any way"..."Big deal"...?? That is exactly the type of emotional, twisted rhetoric that the left uses to justify their opposing views.

To warn of nuclear defense reduction, while other countries continue to proliferate theirs against us, does not make a neocon or a war monger. It puts the best interest of our National Security first, making a statement of strength, not weakness.

The "reality" is that your neolib globalist approach to war and nuclear proliferation doesn't work. In fact not only can we not adequately defend our own border, but Obama sues any state trying. And not only are countries like North Korea, China, and Iran proliferating their nuclear weapons with the intent to exterminate humans rather than defend themselves, but Obama does nothing about it. Good faith and treaties take a back seat to "reality". It is your own reflexive ignorance and inflexibility that jeopordizes and undermines the exact freedom that so many already died to give you.

"Get a life and wake up pull your head out of your perverbial a***" Yeah, after you do it first, rightwinger! Are you daft in the head, man. What happened in November, 2008? The majority of the American electorate is stupid and you are the sage of the universe. Your trophy is not on the wall, but in it

rbt 99...Idiots, those esteemed Congress Persons aren't Rinos they are all Strong Democrats who have served this country well. That's why they overwhelmingly won their seats to provide us more wonderful and necessary service to their constituents and these United States. Your Rinos we'll take. It's the bigots on the Far Right we despise! Most Americans are tired of seeing their tax dollars given to the Rich Military Complexes...All they ask for is fair and equitable distribution of tax dollars. Not jus to the uber rich in overblown contracts!!!

Sharing the Facts, thanks for Sharing the Facts.....

Emotional conjecture isn't fact. rbt99's point obviously hit home.

SHARING THE FACTS complains about fair and equitable distribution of tax dollars...but he's apparently oblivious to Obama's all-time record deficit spending in the Trillions, and the fact the rich pay most of the tax in the first place.

LH, the top 20% of Americans pays 70% of Federal Income Tax, but controls 85% of the nation's wealth. Explain to me how they're overtaxed please.

Hartwood, give us a break will ya? Your winning about the rich paying all taxes is BS, it's the playbook response of the right. The rich have the means to write off more than most people make, thus not paying the taxes they should. It's the middle class and the small business people in this country who pay the freight.

John B, you make my point. 20% paying 70% of the tax is not "fair and equitable". It penalizes the most prosperous and most successful (who also contribute the most to charity). How much tax on them is enough? At what point do they take their prosperity to another country? At what point can we no longer subsidize entitlements on their backs? Are they an end-all solution?...To what end? Why should less of their money be more of yours? What makes you think you deserve it?

And for the record, I did not say they were "overtaxed". That's just typical Liberal twisting...putting your words in my mouth.

GNP producers, job creators, employers, and our most charitable givers need tax incentives, not tax penalties. They need a reason to keep working hard and providing opportunities for us. Otherwise they might as well sign up for unemployment, food stamps, and all the other free entitlements the other half is taking from them.

bobr, no doubt the middle class and small business are the backbone of our country. That's where I fall. But I could not do it without the opportunities the upper class and big business provides me. Like any American, I have the ability to climb the ladder and become more wealthy or I can decide to suck nanny's hind tit like so many are increasingly doing. I choose to make my own way as middle class. You choose to suck nanny's hind tit by getting the rich, who's money is theirs, to give it to you. You think, based on the mere fact the rich have more money, that they should pay more, to you. I say their money is theirs since they worked for it, and they shouldn't pay any more of it than anyone else. I am thankful for their charity to the poor, and the opportunities they provide me to pursue. They don't have to offer me a job, pay for my health care plan, or contribute to my retirement. But they do.

Nice job missing the point, Hartwood. 85% of wealth, 70% of taxes. How 'bout they pay their fair share? You did a great job illustrating that Conservatism is about feeding the rich, though.

And when you work your butt off to get to that point then you can too. Why do you think the rich should have to pay more? If a single person makes $33,000 they pay a little over $4,000 in taxes, if they make 10 times that amount $330,000 they pay 24 times the amount of taxes or $94,000. Do you only consider this fair because they have and you don't.

If your assertions are correct that the top 20% of Americans paid 70% of the taxes then 60 million people paid $1.75 trillion in taxes. Leaving 240 million people to pay to pay $750 million. I can definitely see where you think they are under taxed. Hey why don't we just make them pay all $2.5 trillion so we don't have to pay anything. And while we're at it let's also them an additional dollar an hour that can be given back to everybody else so we make more. Oh then there's the "they make more than me so they can my bills" tax. And don't forget the "Poor little Johnny needs a Pudding Pop" tax because they can afford it.

Where does your sense of entitlement end exactly?

John B, about half the people in this country don't even pay taxes. Many simply choose not to work and suck off nanny's hind tit of entitlements. Last I checked it was the tax from the rich feeding them, and the government enabling them from being productive.

I am not surprised you didn't answer my questions...We all know where this direction of socialism ends up...eventually the rich have no more money to take, the country goes broke from providing entitlements they can't afford, the poor become dependent on government entitlements, and all hell breaks loose when it comes to a head. History tends to repeat itself.

I did answer your questions. You just didn't like the answers. The Conservative narrative in your brain, and bobs, has sucked all the oxygen away from your thought processes.

You didn't answer any of my questions. Why? Because they expose the idiocy of your liberal anti-capitalistic ideals.

John B, since you avoid answering my questions, ask yourself...What are these taxes on the rich for in the first place? To cover Obama's recent record deficit spending, to fund his increased government takeovers, and his dream of a one world currency where the American economy lowers itself so everyone is equal? You bet. And anyone infatuated with socialistic entitlements loves it. Bye bye individual liberties, exceptionalism, incentive, productivity, and working for the American dream. Way to go John. Good luck when nanny's hind tit goes dry.

85% of the wealth, 70% of the taxes.

There's your answer, waaaaay up the thread. You clearly think it's fair for the rest of us to pay taxes far in excess of our ability to pay while the rich get a sweetheart deal. There's nothing else to say.

Although you continue to avoid my questions, you do exemplify my point...

You blatently believe those who earn good money should not be wealthy, and those who don't earn good money should be wealthy. You believe in punishing the successful and prosperous, while rewarding the unsuccessful and less prosperous. You admit you are paying for entitlements you don't have the ability to afford, and therefore someone else should pay for them. Quite simply, you believe in the socialistic concept of redistribution of wealth...taking one man's hard-earned money and handing it to someone else who wants it (what I call stealing). You believe the wealthy should subsidize this country's growing socialistic government entitlement programs, as those who are not wealthy continue to be enabled not to be productive by those same government programs, never to become wealthy, only sucking nanny's hind tit until they are owned.

John B, you aren't fooling anyone...

If you were sincerely concerned about paying tax, then you would support cutting spending. After all, that's where the tax goes in the first place...toward big government socialistic entitlements for those who pay no tax. It is this spending that is costing the middle class. Not the lack of tax, not the wealthy, and not the poor. The only way you are going to keep more of your own hard-earned money, and have the opportunity to earn more of it, is to stop spending so much of it.

"Fairness"?...About 50% of the population pays nothing in tax. $0. Zip. Zilch. The bottom 40% of income earners actually have a negative tax contribution - That is, they make money from the tax code!

The top 1% of earners pay about 20% of our tax. The top 5% pay about 35%. That is as unfair and disproportionate as it gets. Again, at what point is enough tax on the rich enough? When do these people finally decide to take their business to another country with less tax, stop hiring, stop providing benefits and charity, or simply get taxed to a point where the cost of doing business isn't viable anymore? Give me a number? How many entitlements will this number support before our country goes broke?

Wake up John B! Shifting of the tax burden to a small segment of high-income taxpayers is economically dangerous. The beneficiaries of government services are increasing fast, and share little or none of the tax burden to pay for them. As they become more numerous, the liberal socialists put more pressure on Congress for more services. Meanwhile, those who bear most of the burden are being squeezed more and more, shrinking their number. The result is a growing group of government beneficiaries clamoring for more of a shrinking group's wealth. Exactly why we see this socialism failing over seas.

This is your brain on Fox News. It's filled with stereotypes, misconceptions, and outright lies.

You don't know me. I'm no Socialist, I'm a Capitalist. I run a business with over 200 employees and the plan for 2011 is to add 65 more. I don't do it for nothing, I expect to be rewarded. We aren't going to just hand money to these new employees, either. They'll be paid a competitive market rate.

That said the American economy is weak and pathetic BECAUSE the middle class has taken a beating over the last 30 years.

The following chart tells the story.

It shows inflation-adjusted GDP per capita and median family income from 1947 (the earliest year for which the income data are available) to 2007. To facilitate comparison of the over-time trends, each is indexed to its 1973 level. Since the mid-to-late 1970s, growth of income at the median has been slow — very slow — relative to growth of the economy. The current decade, with no improvement at all in median income, is especially striking.

The dashed line in the next chart shows what median income would have looked like had it risen in sync with per capita GDP. The difference is huge: in 2007, the median family’s income would have been $91,000 instead of $61,000.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/gdp-per-capita.html

That money has gone almost entirely to the very wealthy. Even the Wall Street Journal recognizes this fact.

We found only families within the top 1% experienced very large gains relative to the average since 1980 and that upper middle class families (the next 4% below the top 1%) experienced only modest gains.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116849172911973577.html

That isn't coincidence, it's a direct result and GOAL of Conservative policies--to enrich the already wealthy and hope the goodness of their hearts leads them to allow the rest of us to live comfortably. How's that working out? IT ISN'T!! As a result the middle class, once the engine of a mighty economy, is now too strapped to pull us out of the doldrums.

Thinks about it. One of the narratives that Conservatism feeds us constantly is the one that says the wealthy don't have enough money to run the government. You've just told me this yourself. At the same time we're expected to believe they're the ones who have enough wealth to support an entire economy. You can't have it both ways.

A higher proportion of Federal taxation is carried by the wealthy now because THEY HAVE MORE MONEY.

A remarkable study (Norton & Ariely, 2010) reveals that Americans have no idea that the wealth distribution (defined for them in terms of "net worth") is as concentrated as it is. When shown three pie charts representing possible wealth distributions, 90% or more of the 5,522 respondents -- whatever their gender, age, income level, or party affiliation -- thought that the American wealth distribution most resembled one in which the top 20% has about 60% of the wealth. In fact, of course, the top 20% control about 85% of the wealth (refer back to Table 1 and Figure 1 in this document for a more detailed breakdown of the numbers).

Even more striking, they did not come close on the amount of wealth held by the bottom 40% of the population. It's a number I haven't even mentioned so far, and it's shocking: the lowest two quintiles hold just 0.3% of the wealth in the United States. Most people in the survey guessed the figure to be between 8% and 10%, and two dozen academic economists got it wrong too, by guessing about 2% -- seven times too high. Those surveyed did have it about right for what the 20% in the middle have; it's at the top and the bottom that they don't have any idea of what's going on.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Your Fox News analysis totally ignores that most income for the top 1% comes in the form of capital gains, which is taxed WELL BELOW the income tax rate for average earners. In spite of your willful rejection of the concept that people should pay taxes in proportion to their wealth, and your insistence that the rich are being treated unfairly, our tax code has been moving in exactly the opposite direction.

The changes in progressivity of the income distribution since 1960 have been most marked at the very top of the income distribution, which as Table 1 illustrated, accounts for a substantial share of total income. In an earlier paper (Piketty andSaez, 2003), we document the evolution of the incomes of those at the very top of the income distribution. Figure 2 displays the total share of income received by the top 0.1 percent of the income distribution and its composition. Two important facts stand out. First, the share of income going to the top0.1 percent of the income distribution has grown tremendously since the late 1970s:the share of total income received by the top 0.1 percent was around 2.5 of total income in the 1970s and reached a peak above 9 percent of total income in 2000. In fact, most of the overall increase in the inequality of income has been driven by the very top of the income distribution. The U.S. Bureau of the Census reports, using a somewhat different definition of income than ours, that the top quintile of the income distribution received 43–44 percent of all income in the 1970s, but this share had increased to about 50 percent by 2001. Piketty and Saez (2003) show that most of the relative income gains for the top quintile have been concentrated within the top 1 percent—and especially the top 0.1 percent—with relatively modest gains in the top decile excluding the top percentile (P90–95 and P95–99).

http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf

So you can continue to worship the Forbes 400 as feudal lords all you wish. I favor a traditional American economy that's based in the middle class.

Your presumptions are ridiculous and your biased emotions ruin your message.

For the record, I am middle-class. I am employed by a small business of 25 employees. My employer makes a very good income. Unfortunately his expenses and liabilities are very high and they offset that income. He has built the business by putting his income back into it. He is barely making payroll. Any increase on tax for him will no longer make the business viable. So by increasing his taxes, 25 middle income employees will lose our jobs. As stakeholders, the business books and wages are transparent for us, so it is real. The writing is on the wall. My area is already seeing 20% unemployment.

It is clear you believe in the redistrubution of wealth...taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the less wealthy. That is Socialism, not Capitalism. It is hardly a "traditional American economy". You only flatter yourself.

It is no surprise you are trying to justify tax increases on the wealthy by an income inequity chart. You're not about to show tax inequity. Go figure.

Regardless, your chart does not tell the whole story (of course). GDP per capita vs. mean family income is a lot more complex than simply an inequity chart. Government employees and government businesses weigh in for the wealthy incomes. Since that's money subsidized by the middle class, it has a compounding negative effect on your chart. Millions of immigrants effect the stagnant lower income data as they boost poverty with lower incomes, lowering the mean family income. Millions of increasing divorces break dual family incomes into seperate family incomes, lowering the mean. Because of entitlements there is less motivation for the poor to become wealthy and grow. Any raises in income compound slower for the poor than for the weallthy (3% of $20,000 is much less than 3% of $200,000). A doctor is charted with a big income, with disregard for his huge debt expenses to pay back his education and liability insurance. Inflation, workforce participation, family size, etc. etc. Indeed, much more to that chart. But again, this is about who is paying the tax.

Your socialist ideals intend to lower the wealthy to levels of the poor, by taxing them. You incentivise the poor not to work by giving them handouts from the wealthy, and endless entitlement benefits paid by the wealthy. You discourage productivity by the wealthy through increased tax penalties. Eventually nanny's hind tit goes dry, because the wealthy can no longer support the big government entitlement spending. Then the violence and revolutions begin as we've seen over seas.

My capitalist ideals raise the poor to levels of the wealthy, by the wealthy providing them jobs, benefits, and an opportunity. They encourage productivity through tax incentives. Reduce big government spending. Reduce entitlements. Remove unnecessary government control. It works. After all, the wealthy were once poor too.

It is not the rich keeping the middle class and poor down. It is our own government...a progressive socialist trending government enabling them not to work, removing their opportunities, and controling every aspect of their individualism.

Americans are not poor. Most have big screen TV's, a mode of transportation, and can afford tattoos, piercings, cigarettes, and booze. Unlike other people, even the poorest have a cullmination of free entitlements that make for a good life. Just because some have satellite, Nike's, take Disney vacations, or drive SUV's does not mean everyone deserves those same things. Working toward the American Dream is what America is all about. Not everyone achieves gold status.

You keep avoiding the question. What is enough tax on the wealthy? To what end does the debt and entitlements stop being the wealthy's responsibility?

The answer is obvious. If you have 85% of the money you should pay 85% of the tax. If you have some rationale as to why that isn't fair bring it on. It has to be more entertaining than your constant parroting of "Socialist-Socialist-Socialist."

This is beginning to remind me of something...http://wuzzle.org/cave/mpwit.html

So you won't answer the question of how much is enough tax on the wealthy, or to what end is the deficit spending and entitlements the responsibility of the wealthy. You won't address the inequity of who is really paying the tax in this country. No surprise there.

Instead you're suggesting, what I assume is, a flat tax system??

Fine. But a flat tax leaves much to be desired if "fairness" is your concern. If 85% of the money pays 85% of the tax, then fairness says 85% of the tax benefits must go back to where 85% of the money came from (the wealthy who paid it). However, in your hypocritical socialistic utopia, you won't let that happen. That tax money will instead go toward big government deficit spending entitlement programs for those who are not wealthy (and probably paid no tax). The less wealthy's flat tax can't possibly pay for their own entitlements. Again you take one man's hard-earned money and give it to another, causing an inequitable and unfair tax benefit system.

A flat tax means what you want imposed on others is also imposed on you. With the lower 50% of our population paying $0 (zero) tax, and about 40% of them actually making money on the tax code, this would mean an increase in tax for the poorest. No matter their low incomes, they would have to pay tax. In fairness (your term), they would only get back in entitlements what their portion of taxes afforded. Say good bye to your socialist-economic engineering of the tax code for the poor.

Speaking of socialist-economic engineering of the tax code, a flat tax could spell trouble for the middle-class by removing write-offs and tax credits. Ubiquitous fairness problems with home mortgage deductions, child tax credits, capital gains, foreclosures, etc. would have to be addressed. It appears a flat tax would be way too simplistic for the complexities of the economy.

For a flat tax to work, a balanced budget is necessary. Obama not only deficit spends to oblivion, but he doesn't even have a budget. Kind of hard to determine a flat tax when you have no idea, or can't keep up with, spending.

Of course another issue is an entire country riding on the coat tails of a small group of the wealthy. Wealth is a relative term, and when the wealthy's investments, stocks, and business deals collapse, those depending on the wealthy's tax revenues are left with nanny's hind tit dry - no more entitlements. With a government they can no longer suck from, and enabled from being productive by that same government, our country is done. Over. The poor depend entirely on the top 1% who have 35% of the wealth, or the top 20% who have 50% of the wealth. I work hard, take risks, and suffer the consequences because I prefer to rely on myself, thank you.

Another point is that the wealthy pay more than income tax. They contribute huge taxes in the form of FICA payroll and Federal unemployment tax. So in all "fairness", a flat tax would include all tax from each dollar. And there is a critical point for each business on what that cumulative tax can be before their business is no longer viable. In other words, a flat tax that works for the middle class or low income, may not work for the wealthy who support them with jobs, benefits, and opportunities, and who take on a lot more expenses, liabilities, and risks.

Don't forget that people with incomes above $200,000 already pay an additional 10% of their income to charity. This is on their own good will - on top of their income tax and other taxes. I suspect for many, a flat tax would no longer allow, or incentivize, their charity.

Taking one man's money and giving it to another is stealing. It is his money. You should not covet what they neighbor has.

John B, you will not change my mind. You feed my embers. All I need to do is look at where liberal socialistic views like yours and your beloved Obama have taken us...away from conservativism and capitalism that made this country. All I need to do is look where we are headed...liberalism and socialism that will be the end of the American Dream. The proof is in the pudding, and history repeats itself. You are undermining everything this country, and those who died for it, gave you.

As for "parroting"...your hypocrisy is nauseating..."Fox news-Fox news-Fox news...Conservative-Conservative-Conservative."

Move on.

Yes, I've noticed I won't change your mind. I knew that from the beginning. This debate wasn't meant to change your mind, it was to expose the hollowness of the Conservative narrative and the stubbornness with which you serve your "betters" in society.

You've continued to say nothing new and refused to back up any of your arguments with anything but rhetoric. I've backed up my statements with fact and countered you repeatedly, making my case from multiple directions.

In your mind taxes are stealing and stealing from the rich is more wrong than anything. You have no time for the extensive evidence that wealth is rapidly being redistributed to the top 2% of the population at the expense of everyone else. You exhibit a feudal mindset that is the goal of Conservatism. You believe that the most fortunate are in that position because they deserve it and those who experience misfortune must deserve that as well.

You have bought the narrative that has allowed the unique social compact that is America to be broken. Traditionally Capitalists are allowed to do pretty much as they please in this country as long as they have some responsibility to society in return. That's been replaced by an amoral point of view that says wealth is the only thing of import and Capitalists have no responsibility except to the shareholders.

In that world you are nothing but a replaceable cog in a wheel, an overpriced one. The job of the Capitalist becomes finding someone to do the job cheaper than you. Incomes are driven down by any means necessary. That means looking the other way when illegals are hired. It means importing talent that will fill skilled jobs more cheaply, even when there are American citizens who will do the work. It means exporting jobs overseas as quickly as possible. It means destroying the economy for anyone but themselves. It means destroying the things that make America special.

I'm not a Socialist, your constant repetition doesn't make it so. I believe in a society that allows people to rise to their own, individual, maximum potential. I believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work. I believe that every job which needs done deserves respect. I believe in the United States and I will fight to the end in order to prevent it being turned into another Malaysia or Indonesia, filled with poverty, sweatshops, and desperation. I believe the last 30 years of Conservative economic orthodoxy have brought us to the edge of ruin. I believe we need to return to policies that allowed a thriving middle class to be an economic engine of a like unseen in history. Your twisting of scripture ("you should not covet what your neighbor has") insults my Christian sensibilities as well.

I've laid out my arguments in detail. You've repeatedly called me a Socialist and insisted that taxation is stealing. Your opinion means nothing to me. Other readers can decide what this argument means to them.

Outstanding synopsis John - you really NEED to post this again on a more current thread!

It's brilliant and worthy of repeating! Over and Over again... :o)

John B. - superb. If anything, I'd add to your post the observation that the underlying subject over which this debate is conducted is "the economy." That's such a sweeping term encompassing so much. But the question to be put to the Libertarians and ultra-right conservatives about "the economy" is: WHO is "the economy" for?

In ancient Greece, and in its latter days the Roman Empire, the answer would have been, for the landed aristocrats, the large merchants, and in particular, the slave owners. EVERYONE else was simply a small element in the overall institution of "the economy" and in fact barely ever did more than work themselves to death for the enlargement of power and wealth of a few.

It is something of a fiction today that all Americans somehow participate in, and benefit from, "the economy." More and more, under right-wing ideologies, the direction of a social organization that serves "the economy" is toward replicating those ancient times.

Conservatives now look back at the Republican administrations of Reagan, G.H.W. Bush and G.W. Bush, and claim that the principles and policies of those times are more in line with present ideals in their view. Well, folk, let's take a look at that. Here's an article I posted on the 'Vine a while back about just that topic:

Conservatives attacking the Barack Obama Administration claim that "blaming Bush" for the present economic crisis is evading responsbility - and to some extent, the critics are correct: This problem was the product of Ronald Reagan's Administration.

Conservatives who do blame any other President for the economic collapse of 2008 point to President Bill Clinton's effort to get two major Federal agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie mac, to major more financing available for lower-income buyers. However, it is incorrect to say that that initiative was the trigger for the present global economic crisis.

The "GLBA," an acronym for Pres. Clinton's initiative, had an effect on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which took over the risky mortgages from the banks - and while this led to a large number of foreclosures and affected relative housing prices, it was not a specific cause of the financial collapse of 2008. THAT began with Lehman Brothers and was related to speculative "derivatives" based partly on the real estate market but also came from other financing improprieties and false reporting of assets and risks. It was a "domino effect" long in the building.

The global economic distress we find ourselves in today is the end game of a process launched by Ronald Reagan's "free market reforms" of the early 1980's. Reagan "deregulated" interstate commerce, transportation, banking, finance, insurance, and energy.

Almost immediately thereafter, in a foreshadowing of the results that would follow in EVERY deregulated industry, one after another, the trucking industry suffered major problems, as did rail transportation. Owner-operators were ruined - those that did survive found themselves no longer in a reasonably-decent income bracket. The "drive to the bottom" had begun (check Steven Brill's "Sweatshops on Wheels" for the grisly details).

Soon thereafter came the savings and loan crisis, caused by precisely the same kind of unethical, dishonest operations that deregulation had made possible in the banking and finance sectors. That was followed by the energy sector - delay of about 10 years in implementation of some of the "reforms," began taking place in the late 1990's. This was the foundation of the Enron scandal, as well as the manipulation of energy resources that just about turned out the lights in California and sent consumer energy prices soaring all over the nation.

Helping drive some of these earlier collapses was another factor of the Reagan "reforms" - changes in tax laws that encouraged investors to engage in day trading and rapid turnover of stock investments for short-term capital gains. Basically, Reagan converted capital investment from a long-term asset marketplace to an arbitrage marketplace.

In so doing, he set up the massive division between workplace and executive suite, with base wages for executives soaring to many hundreds of times the median employee wage, and stimulating executives to focus on short-term quarterly results that justified huge, bloated bonuses (a problem still afflicting business today).

The result was the Great American Sell-Off, as business were broken up, employees replaced with long-term "temporary" workers, and massive outsourcing or wholesale movement of American industry overseas. (NAFTA, under Clinton, just made matters worse, but the movement had been long underway.) This new environment of course spurred the kinds of false accounting that undid Enron, Worldcom, and many other companies.

While the dotcom and telecom boom of the 1990's fueled an over-inflated marketplace, Clinton's Administration did very little to exercise retraint on out-of-control practices in banking, finance, and securities. As the "bubble" burst in 2000 and 2001, he was gone, laying that particular problem in George W. Bush's lap. And that was entirely the wrong lap to cradle major issues of the distressed markets, for Bush sought to out-Reagan Reagan.

Deregulation? Already done - but Bush could, and did, choose to entirely suppress what little regulatory authority remained.

In the economic distress following the dotcom collapse and then the 9/11 attacks, Bush in 2002 chose to use the Federal Reserve as a tool for economic stimulus. Then Fed chairman Hank Greenspan was perfectly willing to go along with a series of interest rate cuts intended to use debt as a means of prodding consumer spending. Bush himself went on speaking tours urging Americans to spend, spend, spend.

As a short-term tool, steering money out of savings and capital investment and into sales of housing, luxury goods and stocks was not too bad an idea. But it was unsustainable - and because of the Reagan reforms (compounded by the GLBA), too tempting. By 2004, the Bush tactic needed to be reined in, but was not. By 2006, the collapse had actually begun, with job losses starting to happen again, early defaults on some mortgages, and a steady decline in the consumer spending that had kept the entire squirrel cage turning. By 2008, the economy, burdened by debt and unable to supply any more money to fuel spending, fell in on itself.

Bush's massive deficits, indifference to appropriate market oversight, and frankly general incompetence in office, ultimately caused the problems that today Obama is attempting to resolve. But they were born in the Reagan reforms.

John A. Great post. No ne man in office takes all the responsibility of the situation we are in. Nor could any one man fix this situation in two years. I am not an Obama fan nor do I think he will go down as one the greatest presidents ever (not the issue here I know and I am not getting into that debate just stating my stance for this argument), but I do think he has taken some undo critcism for not fixing this situation already.

One of the main you left of all this is the instability that many of these practices caused. Consumers who had money did not want to spend it during these times because they never knew what the next month would bring and still don't. With things such as adjustable rate mortgages, futures trading of oil driving up the price of gas and the seemingly constant rise in the cost of utilities, people held on to all the money they had for fear it would not be enough.

This in turn led to a greater downturn in the economy. To answer your question; The economy should serve every person, business and entity who spends or makes money that that particular economy serves. To achieve that workers must strive to be a better employee and should be compensated accordingly, while a business must strive to make a profit to continue to operate, this means making a better product cheaper than the next guy. If they cannot do this then they fail.

We need a certain amount of regulation and oversight, that is a given. However, what we should not have is government stepping in to bail out a failing business. No matter how large or small a business must be able to support itself without the government doing it for them. If you try to teach your child to do something for themselves but continue to do it for them, they will truly learn to support themselves. This is the approach that must be taken.

Bob, interesting comments.

You reminded me of some points that have been forgotten or ignored that are pertinent here. In the post I made, there was a reasonable summary of Bush's early economic policies responding to the recession of 2001. I didn't, however, state strongly enough that the conversion from a long-term capital investment economic platform to one emphasizing short-term gains also meant extraction of value for immediate disposable income or stock market speculation, and highly-leveraged debt. Not only did that process destroy a lot of American capital investment and deprive the financial system of lqiuidity (in the form of savings, bonds, and related instruments), it also created the high-risk environment that collapsed in 2008.

It was a policy that led to disaster. Quite probably, even more aggressive regulation may not have been able to completely mitigate the ultimate disaster, thanks to the policy of building an economy on the hollow foundation of debt.

As for the bailouts, we differ in philosophy. I think that the Bush-prompted TARP was over-generous and should have had some pretty large strings attached, including reining in boated executive pay and bonuses. Obama tried belatedly to impose some limits, but by the the banks and financial institutions were well enough to quickly avoid those restrictions. Nonetheless, preventing the entire capital marketplace from collapse was one of the several early steps that prevented a far more serious meltdown than happened.

The same goes for the bailouts of Chrysler and GM. Most fok forget that this was Chruysler's second government resuce - the first was done by Ronald Reagan in 1981. both then and later, the rationale was the same - the auto manufacturing industry is one of the few remaining major sectors whose strength and survival radiates throughout the entire economy. The bailouts were not done because Chrysler and GM have buddies in high places - but rather because of the many thousands of businesses, and hundreds of thousands of jobs, that would have been ruined along with the automakers. That particular stand of dominos would then knock over many, many times more businesses and cost many more times jobs, as the next tier of firms serving those directly affected by the industry's collapse were themselves either ruined or badly hurt.

Some claim that if there had been no bailout, someone would have bought GM. That's a wrong view on two points - first, who will be the first to stand up and bet their life savings on an unknown, and second, why? With GM shuttered, Honda, Toyota, Volkswagen and BMW suddenly are America's sorta auto industry and global market share is wide open.

The entire American economy was too much at risk to take a "tough love" position in this case. This wasn't a socialistic action - it was simply a practical one.

Bobthebuilder, you had an excellent post with some valid observations. The one way that I depart from your post (other than I do support President Obama, but that is a different subject) is when a government bailout can be necessary.

I agree that there should be no government bailouts or loan guarantees of a single company if the specific industry of that company and the economy, as a whole, are doing well. The economy was not really well for Chrysler's first loans.

Unfortunately, with the recent GM and Chrysler interventions, the economy was in the tank and the US automobile industry was also in the tank. While GM brought on a lot of the problem itself through mismanagement, their demise would not only have affected GM, it would have rippled throughout the economy with devastating effects on an economy already down and high unemployment rate. It was the right thing to do at the time and we are actually going to make a profit on it.

A country's economy is much too complex and conditions much too variable to say that this or that should never be done. In certain situations, supply side policies need to be applied, others call for demand side, sometimes nothing should be done other times much needs to be done. Your simile with a child does not hold up, not even with a child. Sometimes, you have to help the child, not all of the time but sometimes, action is called for.

I agree that the bail out of GM was necessary to reduce the effects of the economic crisis. And luckily, in this case the funds were used appropriately, the jobs were saved (most anyway) and it appears (at least for now) GM is on the upswing. However, I do think that more should have been done and not financially. The biggest problem was the big banks who had run their businesses poorly and then came running for a bail out, spent that unwisely and came running for more.

Actually we do not disagree all that much on TARP. While I do not agree or like the idea of the bail outs, I am smart enough to see that they were necessary. We would not have survived all those businesses going down at one time. The difference is that I do not think the government should have the authority to tell a business what they can and can't pay any employee in bonus money. That being said, I do think they have a say in how the money they provide is spent. Much a bank does when you apply for a loan. If they renig on that contract then they have to liquidate to pay back what was loaned and if they can't survive then they are done.

Do I think that during "normal times" when we aren't risking the entire the economy and other businesses and sectors are healthy, that we should provide a bail out for any single business? No, absolutely not. That was my point with that statement. I understand that these are extraordinary times and call for extraordinary measures.

The main point of my argument is that until both business and government can create some stability, things will not get any better. The government must provide an economic stability that will enable U.S. companies to be competitive in the world market, that will keep them here. The businesses then must in turn create a stable workforce. Then and only then, when people will feel more confident that if they plan something today it will be the same tomorrow, will they start spending money again.

John B, mock me as you will. The recent November elections, and the rise of a grassroots movement, speak paramount to my ideals which are nothing more than a reiteration of the same conservative principles that made this country great. They are shared by a growing majority of Americans who are fed up with where your liberal socialism is taking us. While you call these same conservative ideals "hollow" and "stubborn", the rest of Americans are beginning to wake up and see the light. And if you don't too, soon we will all be a victim of your ignorance.

You look for something "new" from me. Yet I am not a Progressive. Like most other Americans, I look toward lower taxes, less government control, fewer entitlements, controlled spending, balanced budgets, a strong military, secure borders, exceptionalism, capitalism, individual liberties, enforcing laws, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the good old American Dream. Nothing "new" there. You know...those exact American principles you and your fearless leader undermine.

You've presented no facts. You've avoided my simple questions. You're simply caught up in drawing lines in the sand and trying to impress readers with typical emotional rhetoric. You're all over the board. You asked for my rationale on your tax argument. I laid out some basic points, which you quickly evade with more emotional conjecture and rhetoric. The truth is, no matter how many times I ask you, you simply refuse to acknowledge where your socialistic leadership is taking us. One need to only look to history to see, and it ain't pretty.

Your comments about what I think are presumptuous. They only serve to justify your own mind. Stealing is a simple concept...Taking something from one man by force and giving it to another. Just because you have two big-screen TV's and your neighbor only has a radio, that doesn't mean he can come in your house and take one of your TV's. That's against the law. If he asks you for one, or you decide to give him one, that is fine. We need tax, and I am not against tax. However, the amount taken from hard-working Americans, and the type of socialistic big government programs that money is being used for, is stealing. In fact it is worse than stealing...At our current deficit my children each owe the government over $20,000. They don't even have anything to take...they aren't even out of elementary school yet! They have no chance of living the Amercian Dream. Ask yourself where those tax dollars went? After only two years, your beloved administration's congressional spending has been more in one session than 100 prior congresses combined! Your administration's salary is 3 times that of the average American who they serve ($175K vs. $50K). The average governement employee makes 50% more than the average American ($75K vs. $50K). All while those in the miliary protecting their very jobs make on average $22K. Stealing?...You bet. Wake up.

You would like to think I deny that the wealth is distributed to the top % of population. When in fact that is my point...They are paying the tax! They support all these social programs for everyone else. It is you who exhibits a "feudal mindset" of Socialism. It is you who refuses to recognize how socialism is unabling the poor. The poor have no reason to work, be successful, take risk, or pounce on opportunity. No reason to be productive or inginuitive. No reason to dream of becoming wealthy too. They are content sucking nanny's hind tit of entitlements. They have the wealthy to support them. Your idea is to redistribute wealth by lowering the wealthy through tax, and surrounding the poor with entitlements. When lifting the poor is what you should be doing, by incentivizing the wealthy to give them opportunity. By removing their dependence on entitlements.

You're darn right I believe those who are successful deserve to be. They were once poor too. They refused to be unabled, and instead took risk, and made their own opportunity. We are not all equally capable. Some make it, some don't. Some are wealthy, some aren't. But your socialism has made America a haven for those who don't even try. Their "misfortune" is wanting what someone else has, and the government giving them free entitlements to have it. In other words, their "misfortune" is a making of their own socialistic government. Your socialistic approach hides behind, and exploits, those who are truly incapable and misfortuned. We could help them better, with less, simply by seperating the wheat from the chaff.

What's "broken" America isn't Capitalism. It's years of a progressive liberal movement away from its traditional conservative principles and socialism. It is this same u-turn back to those traditional conservative principles that have you kicking and screaming. Why? Because they do not include unconscionable deficit spending, rights to free health care, big governement control, government take over of private business, student loans, and banks, Czars who over rule our branches of government checks and balances, censored speach, gun control, jeopordizing National Security in the name of political correctness...you get the idea...Those aren't Conservative moves.

Your view of Capitalists as villains, who take no responsibility and who only care about money, is exemplary of your myopic socialism. No one contributes to society, spreads their wealth, or provides opportunity more than Capitalists. Socialists take. On the contrary, it is the Socialists and Liberals who have slowly molded Capitalism into what it is today. The Progressives. They have forced Capitalism into finding ways to avoid big government control, and holding on to their money so the government doesn't take it. They have exacerbated class warfare and inequity. Wake up.

You villainize the Capitalist for hiring cheap labor, when it is the Socialist's programs, unions, taxes, regulations, government control, and global political correctness that forces him to. Otherwise he loses his business to over-seas competition. While Capitalists provide jobs, health care, retirement, and opportunity, you claim they are driving down incomes, all while the costs of your government controlled socialism gives them incentive to take their business to another country.

Illegal immigrants? Are you serious? It is pure liberal socialism that allows these illegals into the country in the first place. Amnesty...Obama's lawsuits against states trying to protect their own borders...it is not the Conservatives or Capitalists allowing that. It is the Conservatives and Capitalists paying for the illegal's entitlements! In typical liberal fashion, you simply have a failure to take responsibility, and instead use the Capitalist as a scapegoat.

I am on the same page with you regarding your vision of "society"...fair day's work, etc. And that is why I asked you the questions...Given the track record of your leader over the last two years, where is Obama taking us? At the rate we are going in his direction, can we achieve any of your visions of society...We are getting in deeper and deeper by the second. We can only return to a thriving middle-class economic engine when the government gets the hell out of the way and socialism takes a back seat to conservatism. Capitalism works. History shows socialism does not. We must return to our traditional principles, values, morals, and exceptionalism that made us great. It's going to hurt. We can do it. We must. Otherwise it's oblivion. The first step is for you and your followers here to realize their own side of the line in the sand is just as much, or more, responsible for where we are. The progressive movement toward socialism started way before the Bush or Reagan era, and is hardly the Conservative Capitalists fault.

L Hartman, here is a book you need to read, "Wealth and Democracy' by Kevin Phillips. It talks about all of the booms and busts of unfettered capitalism. It illustrates what happened to the Dutch and Britain as they went from world economic leaders to second rate economies due to unfettered capitalism. It also illustrates how from 1817 - 1929, every 14 - 22 years there was a severe recession or depression in the US economy. It also illustrates that from the end of the Great Depression until 1974, there were only mild downturns that could not even be called recessions. Since 1974, the cycle of booms and severe busts has once again occurred with only a 6 year span between the last two recessions, the last of which was almost a depression.

Now, what happened in the 1930s that created an almost 50 year span of steady growth with no recession? What happened just before 1974 that started the cycle up again? What happened from 1980 - 2008 that has accelerated the cycles and created deeper and deeper recessions? John has fully answered your questions, you just did not like or accept his answers but now it is your turn to answer mine. Can you answer the last 3 questions . . . without repeating yourself (i.e. not repeating anything in your previous posts that is not pertinent to the questions asked)?

While you're reading up on source material, you might want to check out: 'The Gilded Age', 'Railroad Speculation', 'Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO)', 'synthetic-CDOs', 'Credit Default Swaps', 'Mortgage Originator', 'Mortgage Bonds', 'Union Busting', 'Current Illegal Immigrant Deportation Statistics', 'Current Illegal Immigrant Hiring Practices and Enforcement Statistics', 'Current and Historical Income Gap', 'Actual Taxes Paid as a Percentage of Income', . . . (did I miss any?).

John B, I can continue to respond to your presumptuous conjecture and rhetoric until the cows come home.

Please put some substance into this discussion, get to the point, and help me understand your ideals. Maybe then we can be productive.

What about Capitalism scorns you?

What are your solutions?

How do you intend to reach those solutions?

Exactly what principles of Conservatism scorn you?

What principles do you intend to replace them with?

You say you’re not a socialist, so what other type of economic-based system do you support?

If redistributing wealth is your answer, how do you intend to do that?

If increased taxation is your answer, how much and on whom, and what will the tax go toward?

How do you intend to lift up the poor and make them more wealthy?

Do you believe there can ever be equality among classes of people, equitable incomes, tax, and benefits? How?

Is Obama listening to the people (example: health care), or does he continue to grind his axe and pound a square peg in a round hole?

Finally, given Obama’s track record over the last two years, what direction is he taking us? It is toward responsible spending, a balanced budget, less government control, more individualism and privatization, less dependence on entitlements, lower taxes, more jobs, less illegal immigration, increased National Security, exceptionalism from globalism, freedom of censorship, anti-gun control, and toward the principles of our Constitution and Bill of Rights?

"What about Capitalism scorns you?"

Nothing. I've stated that multiple times. The fact that you won't even move beyond that makes further discussion moot. I've already stated that the only reason I continued to engage with you is to illustrate that you're incapable or unwilling to even acknowledge that there's a point of view other than your own perch in Beckistan.

I'll have better luck trying to teach the dog Algrebra. siasd.

Matthew, reciting reads back and forth doesn't address the direction this administration is taking.

To answer your questions, the New Deal created a monster. It did not solve the problem - here we sit trying to fix it today by spending ourselves into oblivion.

All it did was establish an endless, ever-growing system of welfare, entitlements, and government control that liberals and socialists continue to extended today - to no end - with total disregard for spending. Example: $billions for government health care that, under the Bill of Rights, we have no right to in the first place, can not afford, and the majority don't want. The original intention of the New Deal has been exploited as a tool for progressive socialism, and it is driving this country into the ground. We can no longer support its ideology, not only financially, but socially. Again, wake up to the message the people of this country sent in November...less spending, less government control, repeal of entitlements, and revamping of welfare programs that the New Deal represents. The war on poverty has always justified expanding government. It has been big business for government. And here we sit, with the same old class warfare/poverty problems, and a government controlling us so big we no longer recognize it. You could argue that, relatively speaking, the poor are better off today than they were in 1930, but the New Deal hasn't fixed the problem. And in the socialistic efforts trying, we are about to all lose everything. Turning the wheel of progressive socialism back isn't easy. It hurts. But we have no alternative - it has spent ourselves and our children into oblivion - to a point that jeopordizes our very own national security.

"What about Capitalism scorns you?"

Nothing.

Really?....

"I believe the last 30 years of Conservative economic orthodoxy have brought us to the edge of ruin." - John B.

"The job of the Capitalist becomes finding someone to do the job cheaper than you. Incomes are driven down by any means necessary. That means looking the other way when illegals are hired. It means importing talent that will fill skilled jobs more cheaply, even when there are American citizens who will do the work. It means exporting jobs overseas as quickly as possible. It means destroying the economy for anyone but themselves. It means destroying the things that make America special." - John B.

"That's been replaced by an amoral point of view that says wealth is the only thing of import and Capitalists have no responsibility except to the shareholders." - John B.

John B, anyone can complain, generate emotional rhetoric, post presumptuous conjecture, and point fingers at scapegoats while refusing to recognize the failings of their own convictions. I have given you every opportunity to provide solutions to the issues, and explain the answer.

You talk out of both sides of your mouth. No substance. Won't answer simple questions.

Forget it, John, this guy is denser than lead or he is a paid troll who can do nothing but recite the socialism meme he has been directed to post. Didn't even come close to addressing the questions I asked (wait for it, he'll claim he did when all he did was mention the New Deal and segued into his socialism meme again), just repeated what he's said in every single post without regard to relevance.

Thanks for the good discussion, bobthe builder.

bobthe builder, just to be clear, the first paragraph was about L. Hartman. Your posts were actually good discussion.

So true, Matthew. He can't even tell the difference between Capitalism and Conservatism.

bob the builder, excellent comments and I look forward to seeing more of your thoughts in the future.

Matthew, I assumed you were referring to the New Deal beginning about 1930, along with the next 50 years of Democratic control that forged the progressive movement - a movement toward social programs, bigger government, and anti-conservative, anti-capitalist ideals. I believe that was, in fact, "relevant" to your questions, and socialism is exactly the "meme". If I was barking up the wrong tree, I appologize. But please explain what you meant. I can not read minds. I am not a Harvard scholar. I am a basic middle-class working American. The personal attacks, accusations, and name-calling are unbecoming, although I am learning it to be typical left-wing scapegoat strategy.

The questions begs...With over a half-century of dominating Progressive movement, and with the most Progressive President ever holding office for two years now, why is our country quickly plunging to the brink of economic, political, and social disaster, divided like never before? If your socialistic ideals are working so great, why the "no more" message from the majority of Americans on the November elections? Why do the liberal Progressives need support from minorities (Acorn, etc.), fight for amnesty (sue states trying to protect their borders - Illegal Alien vote), avoiding government's own branches of checks and balances (President-appointed Czars bypassing due process), passing bills against American wishes (health care), etc...all votes from those dependent on big government...the very government that enables them...the very government which has run this country into the ground?

That is why I have asked over and over...given Obama's track record the last two years, what direction is he leading us? I don't care where you think we've been. I want to know where we are headed. None of you have answered.

You speak of "unfettered Capitalism", yet refuse to answer my questions which ask for your solution, and how you intend to reach them. Instead you avoid all my simple questions, with distraction, digression, rhetoric, and insults. To me, that says something.

Good luck guys. We are on the brink of finding out exactly where your ideals have led us. Happy New Year. LH.

lh, first of all you're assuming that Economics has been dominated by Liberal thought. That's far from the case. Economic policy has been dominated by Conservatives since at least 1980. Preeminent Supply Side advocate Alan Greenspan and his accolytes have pretty much run the Fed throughout that period...an independent body not under the guise of the White House. One of the guiding principles of Clinton Administration triangulation was to be economically conservative.

For the last 2 years many parts of the President's agenda have blocked by Conservatives in Congress, but to the extent they've been enacted they're working;

Expectations are for a continuation of the economic recovery that began in mid-2009. The manufacturing sector continues to outpace the non-manufacturing sector and has greater expectations for growth in terms of revenue, say the nation's purchasing and supply management executives in their December 2010 Semiannual Economic Forecast. The overall forecast projects optimism about the U.S. economy for 2011. The manufacturing sector, overall, is positive about prospects in 2011 with revenues expected to increase in 16 of 18 industries, while the non-manufacturing sector appears slightly less positive about the year ahead, with 12 of 18 industries expecting higher revenues. Business investment, a major driver in the U.S. economy, will increase substantially in the manufacturing sector, while investment in the non-manufacturing sector will increase at a lower level.

http://www.ism.ws/about/MediaRoom/newsreleasedetail.cfm?ItemNumber=20976

The economy has been recovering for nearly 2 years but Conservatives deny that because it's politically useful. To the extent it could do better they stop it because it's important to their war on the middle class.

John A, that is myopic and ignorant.

Since the 1930's, when the Progressives began ramming socialism into our economics, liberals have dominated congressional control of our economic spending and inequity. I don't remember the exact numbers, but in the last 38 Congresses the House has been under liberal control something like 32 times, the Senate about 30 times, and the Presidency about 21 times. Control in the House, Senate, and Presidency has happened 17 times for the liberals and only twice for the conservatives. Those numbers tell a very revealing story of exactly who's ideals have put us where we are today. True conservative principles, those which established this country's exceptionism in the first place, have been bent to an unrecognizable state, never to return (why our Constitutional principles, laws, etc. are becoming more and more distorted and why it's called progressivism).

Your idea that Obama's agenda has been blocked by Conservatives in Congress over the last two years is almost laughable. Liberal Democrats have controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency! They have rammed through their agenda the whole time, from health care to unimaginable deficit spending, to lame duck bills one after another. The American people are furious!

Spending John, spending. You can manufacture and sell tons of goods, but when you overspend them it doesn't matter. Of course Conservatives say "no" to spending money we don't have....That is the way the real world works. Maybe if Obama surrounded himself with advisors who actually worked in the private sector, rather than just educates from Harvard Business School, his deficit spending policy wouldn't be so out of touch with reality and the middle-class working American.

Recovery? Ignorance is an understatement. I predict we are never going to "recover" from Obama's socialist spending. Ever. If we survive, we will not be the same powerful, exceptional, free America we once were. We will all be slaves to government, with fewer individual liberties, opportunities, and American Dreams. Perhaps even speaking Chineese or Middle-Eastern tongue. Right now, my children owe the government over $20,000 each, and they aren't even in 7th grade yet! Your socialistic ideals, big governement, and endless entitlements have spent our country into oblivion. The middle class continues to be effected the most, as they try to pay for it. Wake up John.

And you my friend are a Rush Limbaugh back end worshipping zombie who was sent here by him.

Fooler - unlike the right wingers posting here, who rarely post content and engage in genuine discussion of issue (if the shoe fits ...), many of us on the "liberal" side have ideas, study the topics, and offer factual material. And we aren't puppets of a particular movement, such as MoveOn, unlike the dittoheads from Faux Noise.

Yeah John A, we're all idiots. You know what's best for us.

Speaking of "ideas", and since you're so edumacated with facts and all, what we need to do to get out of this mess? If you haven't noticed, your "liberal" ideals ain't work'n and America is pissed.

Thanks for brightening my day.

That may be the funniest post I've seen in weeks.

Re-tard,,,wow ! Do you ever pull your head out for a breath of frest air ?

Just a wee observation here .... there is no Soviet Union now. It collapsed under its own weight in 1991. The treaty is with Russia.

Every former secretary of state, every former president want this treaty bad.

Why didn't you mention them ?

More than 30 former defense or foreign policy government officials and related experts expressed their professional judgment that President Barack Obama’s START treaty is not consistent with the national security interests of the United States, and it should be rejected by the U.S. Senate.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Generals-Diplomats-Warn-START/2010/12/21/id/380560

John Bolton wants to ramp up the apparatus of nuclear war. Big shock there.

John B, how are your ignorant anti-nuke proliferation ideals working out with North Korea, Iran, and China?

The START treaty has nothing to do with North Korea, Iran, or China other than the fact that a good working relationship with Russia helps us deal with both North Korea and Iran. If you can't win the argument throw new topics out to try and divert attention, eh LH?

You make my point John B. Treaties like START have no effect on countries like North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, or China, who are much more intent on using their nukes than Russia...Not for defense, but to wipe out races and civilizations, including mine.

Diplomacy treaties only work with countries who believe in diplomacy treaties (or in this case a country we think believes in them). For other countries (mentioned above) they are an opportunity for nuclear proliferation, (which they are blatenly taking advantage of), a display of weakness, and a chance to build good working nuclear proliferation relationships with countries like Russia.

You're only fooling yourself that I divert attention, when in fact I hit the nail on the head. Forget the START treaty for a moment - it's been around for decades and it hasn't helped any relationships with Russia concerning anti-proliferation for those countries above...They are proliferating nukes more than ever. So where's Obama's treaty for those countries? Ignorance is bliss.

So does that mean we should drop a free trade agreement with South Korea if we don't have one with Malaysia? Does it mean that the Right to Work law in Iowa is useless because there is none in Missouri? Your all or nothing approach is ridiculous and faulty.

Not at all. What's ridiculous and faulty are your presumptuous "all or nothing" analogies. Typical liberal conjecture.

Get to the heart of it...your anti-proliferation treaties don't work with the countries who pose the most nuclear threat. And while your beloved Obama signs the START treaty with a diplomatic country, and we dumb our defense and national security down, the real threats proliferate their nukes and plan horrible things, laughing at our ignorance the whole time.