According to today’s WSJ page C4, 2010 was a very good year for those people that had their retirement funds in stock market index mutual funds. The S&P 500 index of large cap stocks was up 12.8%. However, the best returns were in mid-caps and small-caps with the S&P MidCap 400 index up 24.9% and the S&P SmallCap 600 index up 25.0%. International stock mutual funds were up also with the Dow Jones Global (excluding the U.S.) index up 10.1%.

I bring this up because of an article in yesterday’s local newspaper that highlighted that, starting on January 1, 2011, an average of 10,000 baby boomers will turn 65 every day for the next 18 years. Anyone 45 and younger should ask themselves if there will be any money left for Social Security and Medicare after the boomers collect their benefits. My guess is that anyone 45 and younger better start learning how to save and invest wisely because they are going to need to provide for themselves in retirement much more than the baby boomers will have to because the entitlement programs will have run out of most of their money.

Yes, definitely glad Chuck Berry is resting. I'm sure he'll come back with great shows sometime this year. It's in his blood to entertain and he is the King.

Joeinalbany proclaims: "My guess is that anyone 45 and younger better start learning how to save and invest wisely because they are going to need to provide for themselves in retirement much more than the baby boomers will have to because the entitlement programs will have run out of most of their money."

===================================================================

I hear that statement often Joe, what I don't hear is where these people are supposed to come up with all this money to save for retirement, you make it sound as though everyone is making more money than they know what to do with, the fact is Joe due to nothing more than greed and a lack of Patriotism of businesses in America the vast majority of working people barely make enough to make the monthly "have to pay" bills, like rent, utilities, food and so forth, stuff that you may take for granted. The American worker has been stripped of any disposable income that could have been invested for retirement so you fat cats could get fatter Joe, so save your "holier than thou" "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" sermon Joe, since cats of your caliber have stolen the very "bootstraps" from the working mans boots, American businesses have lost all integrity and morals, their greed has bankrupt our country, and it was not accidental it was a systematic treasonous act backed by the best Government money can buy. Have a great day.

I am embarrassed that Mr.Issa is from my State. Instead of representing the needs of our State and of our Nation, he is going off on a "Witch Hunt" to "get" our President. He will waste his time and ours on this hate quest of our President. Unemployment and starving and sick people are not important to this Buffoon, only his ego. I apologize to the people of my State and to our Nation for having a fool like this represent us.

Chiming in here...

So, where is my social security money going because it continues to be deducted from my paychecks every 2 weeks. It isn't as if I can now re-direct my social secuirty deduction to the 401k of my choice. What Joeinalbany doesn't understand is that you are asking most Americans to redirect money to "2" retirement options :

1. Social Security - no way out of this one

2. 401k /IRA - most of us are doing that anyway

If the Social Security will not be there when we retire, then we're screwed because there is only so much money to go around.

The 'real' fix is really back to VP. Gore's "lockbox", where the Social Security funds cannot be touched by our friends ( or fiends) in Washington, who have never seen a dollar that they haven't wanted to use or invest in our behalf.

w Bush, Pablo:

I agree with both of you. . Nice posts to start the new year.

Pablo-FL: So, where is my social security money going because it continues to be deducted from my paychecks every 2 weeks.

It's being immediately sent out to the current retirees. The reality of it is is that you are working for them. That's how Ponzi schemes work.

Pablo-Fl: The 'real' fix is really back to VP. Gore's "lockbox", where the Social Security funds cannot be touched by our friends ( or fiends) in Washington, who have never seen a dollar that they haven't wanted to use or invest in our behalf

Gore's "lockbox" approach will not work. If it was implemented, the funds needed to support the current set of retirees would not be sufficient, and that would require that the federal government either cut other programs, or borrow more money, or cut/eliminate the SS benefit. In each of these cases, Americans would finally realize the SS system for the Ponzi scheme it is.

Fiscal conservatives have warned about the collapse of SS for quite some time, only to be ignored by the Washington elites. Now with the 10,000 baby boomers retiring each DAY for the next 18 YEARS, we'll see the reality of how broke the system is.

Anyone 45 and younger should ask themselves if there will be any money left for Social Security and Medicare after the boomers collect their benefits.

Actually, one might also question whether us boomers will collect all of our scheduled Social Security benefits. The Social Security Trust Fund -- which was supposed to amass a cash surplus big enough to pay off the boomers -- is actually nothing but an accounting trick. The trust fund is not filled with real assets like gold bullion or cash. In fact, the "surplus" in the trust fund is composed entirely of U.S. government debt instruments (i.e. IOUs) and as such represents a liability to the government as a whole. So as the large wave of boomers retire, the Social Security Trust Fund will need to go to the Treasury and cash in the pile of IOUs the trust fund is sitting on. And as that dynamic plays out, inquiring minds might want to ask: where will the Treausry get the cash? Just askin'.

California Tom: I am embarrassed that Mr.Issa is from my State

That's odd. Didn't you say a while back you were not from California?

In the case you've just moved back, I'm certain that Rep. Issa is also embarrassed that you are from his state. The majority of people in California have elected people that do not understand any type of fiscal restraint, keep loading up the producers of the state with more taxes and more regulation, keep increasing the pay and benefits of their political leaders, and keep allowing more and more illegal immigrants safe haven in their cities. All this has broke the fiscal backs of the producers in the California, and they have either left the state, or joined the welfare rolls of the state. We see the results, California, along with Illinois, Michigan and New York are the states with the most debt, debt created by the liberals in that state, to the point there is no possible way those states can pay their bills.

And now you have Jerry Brown as your governor. What a trip that's going to be for you Golden Staters. A trip to continued financial ruin.

Bill Fairfax, VA: And as that dynamic plays out, inquiring minds might want to ask: where will the Treausry get the cash? Just askin'.

Two options. 1) Higher taxes, and/or 2) Borrow more money. Option 2 seems to not be the way many of the new freshman in the House want to operate. They're not too keen on Option 1 either. One other option is to have more people working and paying into the system, but with the new Obama entitlements such as ObamaCare, and the all the new regulations being implemented by the EPA on businesses, that certainly won't help the employment situation.

Think maybe there are few people out their rethinking that Bush's plan to privatize a portion of their SS contributions maybe wasn't such a bad idea? That essentially was the real 'lockbox' Gore was talking about.

Are you really intending to attempt to blame Social Security for amassing a surplus which it was required by law to then loan to the government?

SS is owed 2 Trillion dollars, by the very government that required it loan that money to it. The fact that the government was willing to give itself the "right" to raid the SS surplus, rather than raise its own operating funds through corporate and income taxes along with tariffs, is hardly something that be held against SS now that the money must be repaid to SS.

This isn't some complicated accounting trick, folks. A program which is running at a surplus should not be lumped into a discussion about entitlement programs like Medicaid and Medicare which are economic disasters.

Morning Joanna - Happy New Year.

Think maybe there are few people out their rethinking that Bush's plan to privatize a portion of their SS contributions maybe wasn't such a bad idea? That essentially was the real 'lockbox' Gore was talking about.

Yeah...AWESOME lock-box, that whole Wall Street thing! Remember how that plan worked out WAY BACK in our nation's history...LIKE 2007 ?!? Conservatives make me giggle...

Have people so quickly forgotten what happened to 401 K when the economic meltdown happened? People who put a lot of money into 401Ks and were just at retirement age LOST most of what they put in over the years. Fortunately, the government backs social security and so they were able to at least have that money. It is great for people to invest on their own, and if they are fortunate, perhaps they can decline social security money. But if the stock market flops, or if a pension fund fails, private investments offer NO guarantees....every one of them states so. The FDIC was instituted for this reason as well.

Happy New Year to you too JG.

Who said anything about Wall Street?

You realize of course you would not have had to invest any of your privatized SS contributions in any stocks or corporate bonds, correct? You could have purchased fully guaranteed risk free Certificated of Deposits.

kate: Fortunately, the government backs social security

Really? With what?

JoAnnaSmith1

Joanna, let me give you some Illinois history on our debt problems, our 2 former governers Ryan and Blago are the root of our financial mess, Ryan spent like a drunken salor and blago refused to raise Illinois income tax rates while faced with rising debt. just so you don't blame liberal programs Ryan a republican with a majorty in both houses in Springfield passed spending after spending bills along with fee increases, for example, drivers licences fees went up from 48 dollars to 72 dollars while Ryan was Governer along with spending billion on land for a thrid Air Port the airlines have said they will not fly to. Blago refused to raise income tax's 1% to cover budget short falls when he had the votes, Illinois has one of the lowest income tax rates in the country. Cook County has the highert Sales tax rates.

Bushs Plan to privatize a portion of their SS contributions would have been a disastor given the problems with the market,

Obamacare will never come close to the hugh unfunded mandates from the Bush years, Medicade part D, 6 trillion toward the deficets over the next 8 years, 2 unfunded wars, but to you this is all forgotten but the Bills are still there. all you want to focus on is Obama, instead of the Whole picture, this is why reading your post are like reading the Funny papers. I guess it was Ok with you for Bush to pass unfunded mandates but Not the democrats.

This is a no brainer! Since we don't care where the president is born, the GOP pick it has to be Lady GaGa!

"WHO'S THE TOP GOP HOPEFUL FOR 2012?"

My money's on Oscar, THE GROUCH................

JoAnna -

Good memory, but California's still my State even though I'm not living there at present. Out of State work assignment.

But, the reason California is in such a financial straight is because our (now ex Governor, thank God) Mr. Schwarzenegger, our Republican movie star, took us into bankruptcy. No head for business or management skills. Thanks Republicans for ruining our State.

Jeff: Bushs Plan to privatize a portion of their SS contributions would have been a disastor given the problems with the market,

What said you had to invest any privatized portion of your SS funds into the market?

Jeff: Obamacare will never come close to the hugh unfunded mandates from the Bush years

What we'll see real soon now is hearings in the House, and what those hearings will get is a parade of governors, both Democratic and Republican, explaining how what they will need to do to fund ObamaCare and other health care costs mandated by the federal government to their states. Lets hope the citizens of those states like the idea of going without many of the state services they've gotten used to to service the health care costs that they have been mandated to pay.

It's going to be a real eye-opener.

And Jeff, most anyone that knows about Illinois politics knows about the "Combine" where the terms "Democrats" and "Republicans" are just another name for crooks. The citizens of Illinois are responsible for who they elected, and the crooks they elected. Now you and they will be paying the price.

You could have purchased fully guaranteed risk free Certificates of Deposits (re: privatization of SS)

Never heard that from the Bush Administration. It was all about "Let people invest their own money in the stock market, 401k's (ie...the stock market!), etc. and maybe they can do better than the gov't." Reason that never flew was because, even conservatives knew that 80+% of the public couldn't even do as well on the stock market as the "money under the mattress" plan (ie...0% interest).

It's called "Social SECURITY" because you can't touch it before retirement. If it was just a passbook savings account (or invested in the stock market, or in CD's, or money under the mattress) it offers NO security...

...as for the "10,000 people/day for the next 18 yrs." thing - nothing but the usual right-wing fear mongering. The stimulus, as well as the HCR and other legislation enacted by the most competent congress in the last 40 years, extended SS's solvency from 2019 (where Bush left it) to 2047. Yeah, we'll hafta do more by then, but stop pretending OBAMA didn't already fix it to the tune of almost 30 more years...

JG: Never heard that from the Bush Administration. It was all about "Let people invest their own money in the stock market, 401k's (ie...the stock market!), etc. and maybe they can do better than the gov't." Reason that never flew was because, even conservatives knew that 80+% of the public couldn't even do as well on the stock market as the "money under the mattress" plan (ie...0% interest).

Well, looks like you heard wrong. You do realize, in your 401K/IRA plan, you can have your plan managers place a portion of your money, or if you so chose all of it, in cash.

It's called "Social SECURITY" because you can't touch it before retirement. If it was just a passbook savings account (or invested in the stock market, or in CD's, or money under the mattress) it offers NO security...

And just like with your 401K/IRA, you would not be able to touch YOUR portion of the privtized SS funds before retirement.

One other nice thing of privatized SS funds. You could will them to your family. With the current SS system, if you die before the 62/65 retirement age, your family gets nothing.

One thing is for sure, we don't have to wait for obama to fail...He did that in record time...If you think he will get back into office as President, think again...The last thing we need is a man who is more concerned with his pleasures then with the Country, and people that put him into office... NO THANKS!!! I trip with him at the helm is one trip to many...My dog could have done a better job, he doesn't cow-tow to anyone...That of course is my opinion....

So now we're going to take the Conservative argument for privatizing SS, namely "you can invest that money on your own and do better" and couple it with excusing losses by saying "hey, no one said you HAD TO invest that money."

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Judy - best president in your's or my lifetime!

If you think he will get back into office as President, think again...

yes I do - not only in 2012, but then Michelle in 2016 & 2020!

Does Any Body know where Joannasmith1 is from ?

she talks about every state that is broke , but refuses to inlighten us on where she is from, its like she is living on the moon and is able to critisize everybody and no body knows where she is from.

if anybody knows where she is from please post and Joanna you better hope you do live on the moon because all the crap you talk about chicago, you better hope where ever your from is not in debt.

Does Any Body know where Joannasmith1 is from ?

You don't really want me to answer that do you Jeff? lol

That of course is my opinion....

Funny thing Judy - your opinion sounds a WHOLE lot like what's chanted day in & day out on Faux & Freaks!

John B, Des Moines, IA

So now we're going to take the Conservative argument for privatizing SS, namely "you can invest that money on your own and do better" and couple it with excusing losses by saying "hey, no one said you HAD TO invest that money."

Hypocrisy at its finest.

----------------------------

Well John, I guess you're just used to someone else doing everything for you, and that's good enough for you.

Most others do understand the implications, the potential risks, and possible rewards for their actions, and are able to accept the results of their actions, both good and bad. Some would call that 'Taking personal responsibility'.

Jeff: Does Any Body know where Joannasmith1 is from?

I do! ;-)

JoAnnaSmith1

Well jonna since you don't want to answer, then your home state is the moon.

I would rather live in chicago than the moon.

So Joanna you living on the moon would explain alot,

there is no oxygen for you to have a educated thought, you live there all alone, you bed down on moon rocks every night. you pay no tax, no welfare programs, No wonder your a tea party member.

whats it like bounding to the corner store.

Nobody wanted him to fail, he did that all by himself. The man had zero executive experience,as a matter of fact,he had NO legitimate work experience whatsoever.

You guys played him up as a "genius",but he wont reveal his college grades,he said he would bring about "meaningful change",the only thing that changed was an almost doubling of the unemployment rate and a plummeting of America"s reputation worldwide.

You want to keep beating the race card even though 97% of black voters voted for him,what would you have said if 75% of white voters voted for McCain?

His drop in popularity has nothing to do with the color of his skin,it's about his lack of ability.

California Tom's assessment of the troubles in California being the fault of Schwarzenegger is insane.

In California, the Democrats are the Party of NO. The liberals have continuously shot down any attempt to fix the financial mess because of their insistence on catering to the illegals and unions.

And for the next 2 years, the Democrats will be the Party of No in Congress. The gridlock will be due to the Democrats this time. We will see how the lefties react to this once the ball starts rolling.

"I hear that statement often Joe, what I don't hear is where these people are supposed to come up with all this money to save for retirement,"

W, get back to me with that question when the mall parking lots are not filled with $40,000 brand new SUV's (with $4/gallon gas predicted for 2011), and when not most every 14 year old kid has the latest web-surfing Iphone, and when not most every home has a $150 a month cable TV bill and then you can whine to me all you want about where "people are supposed to come up with all this money to save for retirement,"

Until then, I'm not buying it.

jeff- Well jonna since you don't want to answer, then your home state is the moon.

And Jeff, you'd be impressed at the great internet service you get up here!

Ron-336003

You want to keep beating the race card even though 97% of black voters voted for him,what would you have said if 75% of white voters voted for McCain?

this is just plain stupid, Ron, Clinton was elected twice with 95% support of blacks voters, John kennedy won with about the same percentage, if all it took to elected a black president by having every regestered black voter, vote for him, man Jessie jackson would have been president, but he was not. the reason why i said your post was stuipd is that black make up only 12% of the population. i know you think we are all over the place but we are not. if every black person, there children, dead parents, dead grandparent all voted for his and NO whites voted for him, he would loose badly.

the Reason why he won is because he got almost 50% of white votes, not to mention the hispainc vote.

See who can 12% of the population elect a president. Just plain stupid.

Not eveyone has a 40 K SUV, the lastest technology and cable. That is part of the problem with people is they always think eveyone else has it better. There is one thing you are right about we are a consumer nation that would rather buy up the lastest and greatest than save for retirment. So what about those of us who aren't squandering and just trying to make it? I'm sure glad the wall street execs got bonuses worth more than my salary, but don't whine about how everyone has all this stuff, its just not true.

BEV says:

Joe in Albany fails to point out he is repeating a Fox Noise and GOP/TEA BAGGER'S LIE.

Social Security reform is a pernicious right wing lie.

Social Security is not broken.

Despite all of the right-wing rhetoric, Social Security is not going bankrupt. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security can pay every nickel owed to every eligible American for the next 29 years and after that about 80 percent of benefits.

____________________________

Bev, you say that like your proud of it.

I don't know about you Bev, but, if I were 33 and you told me that, after paying into Social Security for likely 40+ years, when I turned 62, 29 years from now, you would only give me 80% of my benefits, I'd say you were running a deadbeat bankrupt program

If fixing that 20% has been obstructed by the right wing for 29 years, you should be upset about the deadbeat bankrupt program. Of course, 80% isn't quite bankrupt, but it sure would be better than retiring during a year the stock markets were down if we privatized social security!

Pablo,

Your SS taxes are paying for someone else to be on SS right now. When the program started back in the 1930s there were over 150 workers paying for each person on social security. Today, well last year, 2010, there were 2.9 workers for each person on social security. 1 of 2 things is going to have to happen to keep social security. 1-raise the social security taxes on people working to keep paying for the baby boomers. 2-reform the system-make it a pay into, get out system. I know Bev in Chicago and others keeps saying that there is plenty of money for 29 years to get full benefits, then 80% of benefits after that--why should be have to settle for 80% of the benefits in 29 years.

Besides, look at the numbers. The more people retire, the fewer workers there are for each retiree. And many of those people about to retire have NOT put in as much to SS as we are putting in today. They were putting less than 6.2% in for many years, in fact, in 1990 is when the individual had to start placing 6.2% into Social Security taxes. Today our SS/Medicare taxes are almost 8% of our salaries. Will we get it back, who knows. But I wouldn't expect full benefits like the baby boomers are getting.

"Actually, one might also question whether us boomers will collect all of our scheduled Social Security benefits. The Social Security Trust Fund -- which was supposed to amass a cash surplus big enough to pay off the boomers -- is actually nothing but an accounting trick."

________________________

You got that one right, Bill. When your employer sends the cash withheld from your paycheck plus their matching share in to the federal govt, Barry's Treasury Dept immediately confiscates it and wastes it on today's federal govt spending programs. To make up the difference little Timmy gives the Social security "Trust Fund" a govt IOU in the form of a special issue U.S. Treasury bond.

The theory is that when cash is needed to redeem these IOU's in order to send monthly checks to SS beneficiaries the govt will have the cash to do so. This is a promise from a govt that is borrowing $1 out of every $3 it spends today. Personally, my retirement planning calcs presume nothing coming in from Social Security. Anything I get is party money.

Bev,

I rarely agree with Joe-in-Albany on any issues; but I would say that his assessments are correct on the SS entitlement. With the rate of older people retiring and jobs being shipped overseas. Younger folks will be the bearer of these boomers because we simply are not making enough money to cover our elders. I'm 32 and don't plan on SS being solvent when I get to that golden retirement age. SS entitlement is a good program, but when it was set up, you only expected to live 5 more years.... now you are expected to live 15 more years and the government is still covering you in the same way. Well, even if I wasnt a mathematician, I can tell you that something don't add up. Retirement age either needs to be increased or each individual's entitlement needs to be decreased. We need to speak the truth to the American people and stop playing politics with something so simple and straight forward.

"Of course, 80% isn't quite bankrupt, but it sure would be better than retiring during a year the stock markets were down if we privatized social security!"

_______________________________

Have I got a deal for you!!!!!

You lend me $100,000 to invest in the stock market today and in 29 years I'll pay you back $80,000.

Deal??

BigBear62
The more people retire, the fewer workers there are for each retiree.
Maybe if some of the CEO's paid their taxes it would be more money in the pool for those who are entitled to SS.

Joe in Albany

Bev, you say that like your proud of it.

I don't know about you Bev, but, if I were 33 and you told me that, after paying into Social Security for likely 40+ years, when I turned 62, 29 years from now, you would only give me 80% of my benefits, I'd say you were running a deadbeat bankrupt program

I know 80% is a whole lot better than gambling away money one to greedy fat cats on Wall Street.

Joe, that would be a great deal for me if you invested in some enrons and fords, but that's the problem with privatized ss isn't it? there is no 80% guarantee. 80% is a whole lot better than gambling away money to the greedy fat cats on wall street indeed.

The best part is, for all that money we would be giving us, they wouldn't pay anymore taxes on it, they wouldn't help stimulate the economy and people like Joe would still be whining we should be pulling our selves up by our bootstraps!

We need to speak the truth to the American people and stop playing politics with something so simple and straight forward.

Tunde, you remind me of something I was told by an older co-worker when I was about 30:

"If you're 18 and not a liberal, you don't have a heart. If you're 45 and not a conservative, you don't have a brain."

"I know 80% is a whole lot better than gambling away money one to greedy fat cats on Wall Street."

____________________

Bev, what does your touting paying into SS for 40+ years and getting an 80% benefit for your "investment" have to do with "greedy fat cats on Wall Street."

What you are touting as a "good deal" is nothing more than a legal Ponzi scheme being run by the U.S. govt. It has NOTHING to do with Wall St. (Which, BTW, has provided a nice retirement nest egg for me.)

Byl

Joe, that would be a great deal for me if you invested in some enrons and fords, but that's the problem with privatized ss isn't it? there is no 80% guarantee. 80% is a whole lot better than gambling away money to the greedy fat cats on wall street indeed.

--------------------------

Do you recall that entering into any SS privatization program was optional?

It doesn't matter what age you are if you vote TP you don't have a brain or a heart.

"Joe, that would be a great deal for me if you invested in some enrons and fords,"

______________________

So, you think lending me $100,000 today and my returning to you $80,000 in 29 years is a good deal for you if I were to lose the $100K you loaned to me??

You have now proved my theory that Liberalism is a mental illness that only gets worse as time goes on, thus the term "progressive".

BTW, Enron is long gone, and according to today's WSJ Year-end Review of Markets and Finance, Ford's (the ONLY US automaker that didn't need Barry's UAW bailout $$) stock price was up 67.9% for the year.

I'll take your $100K anytime!!!

I agree with Joe in Albany, JoAnna, and Big Bear. Special thanks to that idiot Democrat Lyndon Johnson for raiding the funds and lumping them in the general fund. I, for one, am not expecting to get a dime from SS yet I continue to pay my 6.2% out of my paycheck. Ponzi scheme is right! My last check $145 was withheld for SS. Thats close to $300 a month, almost $4000 a year. I can come up with so many better ways to deal with that money than the government flushing it down the toilet.

The liberals on these posts have WAAAAAAYYYYY too much faith in the government to be there for them every step of the way. I am tired of the government and its ever expanding reach into my life. The government does not know what is best for me and my family. I pay taxes for roads, schools, protection, etc. I do not want to pax taxes for healthcare, war on poverty (which was such an awesome program we now have even more poor since it pays to just pump out more kids to collect more money. Then the kids grow up in poverty and they collect as adults, and round and round we go!!), and food stamps and subsidized housing for illegals.

What a joke!

Joanna, I could almost (though not entirely) have believed you were a logical conservative with some $$ sense. Until you said that a 401K was untouchable until retirement. This highlights the fact that you really don't know what you're talking about. For what it's worth, I also was under the impression (i.e., I read/heard) that the Bush plan for privatization was private investment. While that leaves open simple saving, that is not what was endorsed by the Bush administration. Rather, it was VERY clear that privatization meant investment. It would have made the economy soar briefly and things would have been very different right now. In fact, a good amount MORE money would have been involved in the latest crash on Wall Street. It might have been slightly delayed, but it would have happened and the bottom would have been much deeper.

By the way, Social Security is NOT an entitlement. It is pay in/pay out. And you are NOT guaranteed to collect it (judicial precedent). Nor is anyone REQUIRED to collect it. If you don't need it and feel that the budget needs to be balanced, then DON'T collect it.

I think a good number of so-called "conservatives" need to get some reading done, get some definitions straight, and their fingers unclenched around that dollar bill (my pwweeschusss) before they open their mouths (or type). Between the ignorance and the hypocrisy...

So Joe, you can talk in circles. Good for you.

If my investment of 100,000 was gone and I still got an 80% return that would be good. If my investment was 100% or over and I didn't get a return it would be bad. See how that works?

You proved my point that conservatives don't actually listen they just cookie cutter what ever point they are trying to make into the discussion. Thanks for not actually having a discussion but just talking in circles to prove nothing.

AZChzhd

The liberals on these posts have WAAAAAAYYYYY too much faith in the government to be there for them every step of the way. I am tired of the government and its ever expanding reach into my life

There's Somalia which does not have a government .You could learn to live in and love it there..
I see the haters are out in full force today.

Repost:
They're Entitled to Their Prerogatives

The GOP/Tea bagger Party, the usual suspects, should not let elitist arrogance, ignorance, and injustice guide them. If the GOP/Tea bagger Party thinks 63 seats affords an elitist arrogance, they will only demonstrate that which they accuse President Obama of so frequently. Similarly, wanting to repeal major parts of the Constitution, the HEALTH CARE LAW, and progress the President has made means they are, ignorant and not listening to the people.

It is unjust to give America to the top 2% in America. Who is it that caused 98% to lose their jobs, homes, insurance and even loved ones? For 8 years Republicans, voted for that which benefited their contributors and ultra rich cronies.

Still we hear from the GOP/Tea bagger Party and weak kneed conservative Democrats the same rhetorical talking points and threats despite what the people say. Republican the GOP/Tea bagger pledged a repeal of Obamacare would occur before the president's State of the Union address.

Entitlements

Republican certainly are concerned about Entitlements.

Does that mean they'll give up their government insurancre? Or will McCain who gets Social Security relinquish his entitlement?

Americans care about creating jobs, not cutting spending
In its poll, Bloomberg asked respondents whether they supported or opposed specific proposals to reduce the deficit. Among the results:

[snippet]

Which of the following do you see as the most important issue facing the country right now? (Read list. Rotate.) Sorted.

50 Unemployment and jobs
25 The federal deficit and government spending
9 Health care
7 The war in Afghanistan
5 Immigration
1 Other (VOL) (specify:)
3 Not sure

Reduce Medicare benefits - 15% support, 82% oppose
Reduce Medicaid benefits - 26% support, 72% oppose
Impose tax on Wall Street profits - 70% support, 24% oppose
The thing to notice here is that the only measures with widespread support were the ones that asked the wealthy to pay more -- and the Wall Street profits tax idea was off-the-charts.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/13/928589/-Americans-care-about-creating-jobs,-not-cutting-spending

THANK YOU President Obama for signing the 9-11 bill during your Hawaiian vacation

President Obama signed the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. Finally, health coverage will be given to the workers who helped clear the rubble and search for human remains after the terrorist of 9-11. A printed copy of the bill flew with a White House staffer from Washington to the Hawaiian island of Oahu, so Obama could sign it from his vacation rental in Kailua.

BTW: Over in soprano land (NJ)Governor lasagna(Gov. Chris Christie) had the nerve to be outraged when his state inquired about his vacation and why he did nothing about the snow?

Gov. Chris Christie said…"If someone is snowed into their house, that's not our responsibility," said during his first press conference upon returning from Florida Thursday. "

Um, Gov. Chris Christie you flipped the script. Displeasure is right wing stooges getting upset when First lady Michele Obama paid for her own trip she took to Spain.

2011 will be filled with glee for the right wing and the fiction they call facts.

Republicans have adopted country singer Carrie Underwood's "Undo It" as "the refrain for their planned attack against legislation that grew out of the 111th Congress." Perhaps identifying with the lyrics "you made me cry," Republicans are already set "to distinguish themselves quickly from the House that was run by Speaker Nancy Pelosi."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/us/politics/03repubs.html?_r=2

Here come the keystone cops!!!

PS: Congratulations to 84-year-old rock and roll legend Chuck Berry for returning to the show. Berry slumped over an accompanist's keyboard before being helped offstage and taken off stage. He was taken off stage to be checked by paramedics
He returned to thank the waiting fans, who hoped the show to continue, but Chuck Berry left the stage -- using a bit of his signature "duck walk". Rock on Chuck that's obviously the way to go!!!

He loves performing.

Joanna, I could almost (though not entirely) have believed you were a logical conservative with some $$ sense. Until you said that a 401K was untouchable until retirement

Sorry I didn't quote the prospectus and all the laws and regulations associated with 401Ks for you ghostdragon, but it is true, you can access your 401K, with associated substantial penalties, before you reach the age of 59.5.

Rather, it was VERY clear that privatization meant investment.

And "investment" could be a Certificate of Deposit, no? Guaranteed, and just to be clear because we know you're a detail kind of a guy, by up to $100,000 by the FDIC.

I think a good number of so-called "conservatives" need to get some reading done, get some definitions straight, and their fingers unclenched around that dollar bill (my pwweeschusss) before they open their mouths (or type). Between the ignorance and the hypocrisy...

You might want to take your own advise.

Beverly...you say I am a hater for progressive policies and that is true. But what are you?? I have never seen you NOT hate on the Tea Party and conservatives, as evidenced by your constant drivel about "teabaggers."

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. If you are going to accuse someone of something, you better damn well not do it yourself.

Bev,

I would bet they are all paying their share, considering they don't have to pay after $106,000 per year.

The program needs to be reformed, it needs to be a get out what you pay in system. If you do the math, it won't add up. Less than 3 workers providing a $1000 a month for each retired person. That alone is $334 a worker per month to support 1 retired person. Ya'll just don't get it, or you don't know how to do simple math, here is a statement that everyone should adhere to;

The statement issued by the Social Security Administration to all participants states the following:

Social Security is the largest source of income for most elderly Americans today, but Social Security was never intended to be your only source of income when you retire. You also will need other savings, investments, pensions or retirement accounts to make sure you have enough money to live comfortably when you retire.

BigBear62
The more people retire, the fewer workers there are for each retiree.
Maybe if some of the CEO's paid their taxes it would be more money in the pool for those who are entitled to SS.

Bev...do you not read the whole posts? Government has a purpose. I said what I believe the purpose is, and what isnt. Nowhere did I say I want no government. Stick to reading what is actually written and try not to sensationalize it with lies.

The liberals have suddenly become penny pinchers now since that is the "in" thing? If that is the case...and you truly mean it...then you guys should have no qualms about the fiscal conservatism the tea party will bring to the table real soon. But that wont happen. Why? Because with the liberals, its all about cutting as long as its not mine.

w bush & others - SS was never meant as a retirement income, just a supplement. $$$ are taken out of your paycheck so all you see is a line saying how much and you can't spend it.

401k's are also taken directly out of ones paycheck so you can't immediately spend it either. you have to live off of your take home pay.

Got more month left than $$$ get a second job or spend less money. MSNmoney has a variety of articles on saving techniques. A 401k is one of them since you don't have the money in your hand to spend.

The beauty of 401k's is if your employer has a employer match program it is "free money" for you until withdrawal. Also your $$$ are compounded over time so that $1 today is worth more tomorrow, and even more next year. There are numerous articles on the internet concerning 401k's and IRA's + Roth plans.

Seems that the most successful premise of savings is to pay yourself first in a manner where it is not easily accessible to spend.

"So Joe, you can talk in circles. Good for you.

If my investment of 100,000 was gone and I still got an 80% return that would be good. If my investment was 100% or over and I didn't get a return it would be bad. See how that works?"

________________________

HUH?!? I know the Liberalism-aflicted mind is mentally illl and it's probably just due to a genetic defect, but, you have just crossed the line over into the Down syndrome zone. (My apologies to Down syndrome children)

Like I said, I'll take your $100K anytime.

BTW, with morons like you out there, I can understand how Democrats get elected!!!

johnb - I can understand the desire to privatise since the politicians (R & D alike) since LBJ have chosen to drain the SS trust fund of cash and replace it with IOU's and expanded $$ coverage of programs not origininally meant when SS was enacted. If the politicians hadn't done this I think SS would still be a viable option as a supplemental retirement income.

Seems like when a politician, any politician sees a pile of cash they just have to spend and spend some more like a drunken sailor! However, the drunken sailor is smart as he only spends his own money.

My goodness Navy: You sure have a lot to say starting this new year. All posts are excellent!! Personally, I like your post saying that the "constitutional conservatives" want to change the Constitution. How dumb is that!

My sense is the Tea Partiers are so into conservative ideology, they have no interest in compromise or finding common ground solutions. As George Will said this weekend, opposing to raise the national debt ceiling is "suicidal". I'm already sensing voters remorse...and day one of the 112 congress has yet to begin.

Well said. The Right Wingers exemplify Extremism at it's worst and that is par with Radicals and Terrorists we are at war with.

The Extreme Right Wing of our country are no different than the terrorists that seek out to destroy US with bombs and propaganda. The extreme Right Wingers will gladly adopt the style of extremism that goes along with "Martyrdom". If Rand Paul tellls someone to commit social suicide, they will gladly do it shouting, "FOR CAPITALISM!!!!!!"

SMDH.

Excellent thoughts, US Navy. It is beyond my comprehension how the republican party with its plans to continue allowing American jobs be shipped overseas can be so short sighted as to not recognize that we may end up with the rich getting richer but as a country we will relinguish our economic superiority. Yet their words are posted here everyday by conservatives defending the GOPTP policies as good for America.

Ron, Louis: Thank you for the kind words. This is probably going to be one of the most important Congresses in the History of this country. They will be setting the path on where we go from here. Will the republican/tea party now govern or continue with their
Obstructionism"? Time will tell, but I do believe that people are watching them now and expect them to do what they claimed during the November elections. Create Jobs here in the US and not China, India, etc, reduce government spending and get this economy moving forward faster. The economy is moving forward, albeit slowly but is is moving. The DOW closed 12/31/2010 at 11,557 up from the 8777 on 21/31/2008. We jsut saw a very strong retail Christmas season, people spending money means that confidence is increasing, unemployment is also down but not far enough to impact unemployment numbers. Most economist say that the Tax Cut deal will make things improve faster and better than previously projected. All this is good news for our President. Look for the republicans to try an derail the gains made in the next 2 years.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

The 111^th Congress will go gown in History as one of the most productive in the short history of this nation. Unfortunately, it will also go down in history as the most "Obstructionist" Congress ever with record breaking filibusters. Over 400 Bills still being blocked by the republican/tea party.

Excellent

As I've said before we can't emphasize the progress of the 111th congress enough; rather than whine about what we didn't get.

Even Chief Justice Roberts Calls for End to Senate Obstruction of Judges.

Self-styled deficit hawk Paul Ryan is a flim-flammers. His road map is a destructive path. Wall Street has been trying to steal SS for years.

Ryan's voucherization of Medicare, however, would control costs not by restraining insurance companies or health-care corporations but by keeping the value of the voucher below the increase in health care costs, thus shifting increasing out-of-pocket costs onto seniors themselves. Conservatives say this means government won't be rationing care to seniors. With vouchers, seniors will forced to ration care on their own.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/149333/10_ways_right-wingers_will_try_to_wreck_any_economic_recovery/?page=2

Paul Krugman is either stubborn or stupid. Given his career, I will let those who read his rants makes their own decisions as to which is which.

Once again, the Keynseian economics to which he ascribes almost magical powers to heal declining economies has proven to exacerbate the problems it is meant to address. Still he insists it will work if enough bankrupting borrowing is done.

As an added feature, he consistently tries to whip up class envy in a country that eschews any such nonsense. Many people want more than they have, but they seek to earn what they want, not steal from those who already have things they desire. Oh, there is a small cadre of those on the left who join him in his efforts, but they never seem to learn that, in this country, the overwhelming majority recognize the opportunities presented to all, and, therefore, do not resent those who have taken advantage of those opportunities to become wealthy. Given those opportunities, they also do not resent the 6600, (Nancy Pelosi's number, I should add), families who pass on wealth to their heirs.

This is the innate morality of the average American. It is a direct result of the belief that we control our own destinies, that we can achieve whatever we desire; that, in fact, a child born to a woman whose faithless husband abandons her when that child is less than two years old can actually grow up to be President.

Given that knowledge, it is unclear to me why the leftist elite continually try to convince us that we should see ourselves as an outraged peasantry, with them as our benevolent masters, seeking only our welfare.

Thank you very much, but we can take care of ourselves.

The Republican agenda is nothing more than a road map that leads to the elimination of all Middle Class wealth, well not elimination, redistribution would be more accurate, a declaration of class warfare, which ironically are the two terms Republicans use quite effectively to beat Democrats over the head with. The Republicans are once again banking on the voting American public's inability to recognize who their true enemy is, they hope most are not paying attention, and they are correct.

NoJo, nobo nj:

Paul Krugman Ph. D from MIT, economic adviser to Ronald Regan, taught at MIT, Yale and is a professor at Princeton, over 20 books on economics, 200+ acknowledge articles, a much respected lecturer and a Nobel Prize winner (2008) in Economics. What are your credentials?? I will take his opinion over your rants any day. As I have said last year, in my opinion you are a fraud.

The Doctor is in and still believes that she is smarter than a prize winning economists.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing with him but she says “Paul Krugman is either stubborn or stupid. Given his career, I will let those who read his rants makes their own decisions as to which is which.” which is meant to imply he is not too bright.

Sounds to me like jealousy because even with a PhD in economics she can’t get any respect … I wonder why???

You forgot "economic advisor to Enron, a position he was forced to resign in accordance with New York Times protocols, but which did not preclude his writing a number of articles extolling the virtues of said company up to and including the day that particular house of cards collapsed, as a result of which many people lost their shirts'.

By identifying himself as a former economic advisor to that company, he lent even more credibility to articles that were little more than sales pitches for Enron stock.

The fact that there are those who give that man any credit at all is proof that you can, in fact, fool some of the people all of the time.

By the way, I notice that neither USNVR nor Dennis bothered to refute any of the points I made, but instead, as usual, responded with an ad hominem attack.

You wonder why you have so little credibility?

Voters chose to reward the "obstructionists" with 63 additional seats and control of the House, and 6 additional Senate seats in last November's midterms.

They also sent 53 Democratic House incumbents (since 1970, the average number of losing incumbents for both parties COMBINED was only 17.3) home for good.

Obviously, the electorate was pleased with the obstruction of the Obama agenda, and...voted for more, not less, of it in the 112th Congress.

Unsurprisingly, you didn't get the voters' message, US Navy...

But, I think President Obama might have.

You beat me to it, USN.

And an outstanding post to start the year.

You did not get an answer because quite simply, you say nothing that warrants my time. When you do I will be the first to let you know.

Navy - your comments about the new House rules in particular is very important. The rules represent a republican subterfuge that will disable actual debate and positive efforts to introduce useful legislation.

However, in the Senate the rules are NOT the same. Tax or spending bills originating in the House can be amended in any way the Senate chooses. It is possible that Senators will alter some of the GOP/TP efforts to gut or cripple programs and departments while giving more tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy - and then discover gridlock is setting in.

Another possibility is that some of those measure manage to pass and Obama vetoes them. Naturally, at some point government will indeed grind to a halt, and the GOP strategists may be wishing that the public blames the President.

Sen. Lindsay Graham Sunday voiced a warning that he intends to do his uttermost to unroll the past 2 years or shut things down in the effort. But voters are watching - and they know who to blame.

Mixed Bag - The election was mainly a response to economic conditions, and not a clear "mandate" to adopt any ultra-right-wing Tea Party positions. The figures cited show the Health Insurance Reform act was far, far down the list of identified voter concerns.

Voter displeasure also with Congressional infighting and partisanship was higher than even health care issues. So now when the GOP/TP brings on gridlock and bitter partisan disputes, who will suffer? The GOP/TP representatives, that's who. President Obama certainly did get the message - and he's already acted on it.

njnbnj: By the way, I notice that neither USNVR nor Dennis bothered to refute any of the points I made,

Navy Guy: You did not get an answer because quite simply, you say nothing that warrants my time

Which means navy didn't have an answer he could copy-and-paste from thinkprogress or thedailykos that would address your question. Navy is not so much a free-thinker, he just parrots what others say.

The 111^th Congress will go gown in History as one of the most productive in the short history of this nation

While it is true that the 111th was jamming through legislation as fast as Mr. Haney could dream up another way of charging Mr. Douglas, one important factor that Navy and others overlook, but the voters did not in Nov, is that a significant portion of what the 111th passed was not what the people wanted.That is why so many Dems are now sitting at home instead of heading back to Washington. What does it matter how many bills you pass, if the crap you are passing doesn't sit well with the voters and fails to right the ship, its a hollow meaningless accomplishment. One that we will now have to spend considerable time fixing.Hopefully the Repubs can heed the call. If not, they will be sitting at home with the Dems and Obama after the 2012 elections.

John A.

Thank you for the follow up and I agree with yoiur analysis. Shutting the government down if they do not get what they want seems to be their talking point this week.

John A.-

The electorate tossed out 53 incumbent Democratic House members...and only two freshman GOP Congressmen lost their seats.

In the Senate, 2 incumbent Democrats lost while there were 0 GOP Senate incumbent losses, and Democrats lost all of their open seats (including President Obama's former Illinois Senate seat) while Republicans retained all of theirs.

Presumably John, if voters were displeased primarily with economic conditions and Congressional infighting...then, I guess you would have to agree that the voters correctly assigned the responsibility for that to the Democrats.

The 111^th Congress will go gown in History as one of the most productive in the short history of this nation. Unfortunately, it will also go down in history as the most “Obstructionist” Congress ever with record breaking filibusters

I wonder if the record number of filibusters had anything to do with the record amount of partisan big government legislation that was introduced.

BTW - I thought Democrats cared about the rights and the voice of the minority? They certainly seem very concerned when they are the minority party.

Last year 1.6 Million jobs went overseas while 1.2 Million were created here in the United States. What is wrong with that picture?

What is wrong with the picture is that Obama has created a much less favorable business environment here than the leaders overseas and business has migrated to the more favorable environment. Geez- even animals with brains the size of walnuts will migrate to a more favorable environment. Why do you and Obama not understand what antelope, crocs, wildebeests, lions, etc. instinctively understand?

Need an example?

Obama is systematically crippling our energy industry - the Gulf, the east coast, more parts in Alaska, the states coal industry, etc. Where are those jobs going and who's fault is that. Meanwhile China is buying all the coal (and other energy) it can get it's hands on. We are being cut back by Obama's EPA (had to circumvent the legislative process because the American people do not want cap & trade, higher energy cost that kill jobs, more regulations that kill jobs, etc) so in Cowlitz Washington that are trying to approve a coal export terminal to ship our energy to China so they can fuel the new jobs being created there!

Oh yea, about Obama's Global Warming crap, how does this help? Doesn't it in fact make it worse since to shipping the coal to China instead of using it here creates more CO2 - the ships burn fossil fuel right?

Or does Obama think he is going to create green jobs by putting a stupid wind turbine on a coal freighters?

You guys just don't get it.

The nation tried the radical leftist agenda for four years and watched it destroy the economy and take 4.6% unemployment and turn it into 9.8%. Please, ignore Nov 2, that will make it so much easier to flush the rest of the radicals out in 2012.

Krugman is indeed an idiot. If you are impressed with PhD's, you are as well. Do you even know what it takes to get one? Ever since Gore won the Nobel it has it's glitter has turned to tarnish. Obama's win made it a complete joke. Liberals graduating from liberal colleges with liberal PhD's getting liberal prizes from a liberal organization and I'm supposed to be impressed? Give me a break.

The bottom line is what works. Trillion dollar deficits year after year doesn't work. A record 20 months of near 10% unemployment doesn't work. Blaming Bush four years after he left office doesn't work. You don't need a PhD to figure that out.

Phil - you always trot out that misleading old chestnut about the economic crisis and unemployment being Obama's faout and cite that 4.6% figure. The economic collapse took place on Bush's watch, consequent to Bush's incompetence and flawed policies, it started shortly before the 2006 election and was in full roar by 2008. When Bush left office the unemployment rate was 8% and rising.

Your wishful attempt at repeating propaganda can't change the fact that Obama's policies have kept the economic crisis from turning into full-blown Depression, that he has managed to bring back some of the lost jobs, that he preserved entire communities from economic disaster, and that he has done wonders restoring America's badlytattered international reputation caused by an arrogant and ignorant Republic leadership.

OK no jo, time to stop with the BS. I challenge you - brilliant economist that you are - to show one single government economy IN THE ENTIRE WORLD, where Keynesian Economics have ever been implemented. Just one.

I am not here to defend Krugman. He has been shown to be right time and time again; not perfect, but right most of the time. In any case, he can certainly defend himself against the likes of you.

Regardless, there are some simple economic/accounting/financial truths that are immutable. For purposes of this discussion, the most important is that you cannot spend more than you earn indefinitely. This is the economic reality that everyone avoids like the plague. Oh yeah, the Republicans and their ignorant reactionary Tea Bag buddies talk about cutting spending, but when pressed for specifics they run away.

The budget MUST be balanced, and the evidence of the past 10 years clearly demonstrates that tax cuts have not closed the budget deficit. Period. The fact is there is no substantial demand for capital goods in the U.S. right now. Consequently, there are no places in which to invest capital in this country. In fact, investment is going to foreign countries because that is where demand for goods is to be found.

As far as your BS contention of class envy, perhaps you can explain how the Republicans captured the House. Republicans are after all, in your world any way, the veritable model of tolerance, right? You make yet another worthless contention that Americans believe in opportunity. Why isn't this belief manifested somewhere? Where are these opportunities?

By the way, is there something wrong with being elite?

Mixed Bag - you still don't get it. While an anti-incumbent feeling, fanned by vast sums of undisclosed third-party campaign adveristing budgets, certainly gave the Democrats a shellacking," it wasn't about the Constitution, it wasn't about the defecits, it wasn't about health Insurance Reorm - it was about the economy and jobs. EVERY poll showed that. And rest assured, GOP right-wing efforts to hamper the national legislature and attack the p[rograms that are now succesfully helping rebuild the economy will be the next target of voters' ire.

Bob - movement of jobs overseas is a direct result of tax and economic policies established first under Reagan, and expanded by both Bushes. Obama has done nothing to drive business out of the country. Quite the opposite, he instuted a number of intiatives to regenerate American manufacturing and expand small businesses. You're the one who won't get it, because you are blinded by partisanship.

I first published to the 'Vine in October, 2008. Looks like it is time to repreprise these comments for the benefit of Bob, Valhalla, No Jo, and JAS1:

Some columnists are asking if the current crisis will lead to "the end of American Capitalism."

To the contrary, now that the madness of Republican and Libertarian ideologues is being buried in the ash heap of the global economy, maybe true "American Capitalism" can get back to work.

"American Capitalism" is not a hands-off, completely laissez-faire economic and government relationship that the Libertarians have managed to sell to many people since the Reagan era. The idea that an entirely unregulated marketplace was the world's most advanced and healthiest system has been known to be a failure since the 1880s, for crying out loud. The U.S. led in developing "American Capitalism" in the early 20th Century in a system that imposed regulations all over the place, including many that the Republican ideologues under Reagan swiftly sought to dismantle.

So let's get this straight RIGHT NOW: "American Capitalism" is traditionally a system in which government regulation and intervention IS an essential component, and in which public policy interacts with the market to both protect the interests of investors and to protect the interests of the nation as a whole.

That, which some ideologically-driven fools in the Republican and Libertarian circles seem to say is "socialism," is what has historically been the model for "American Capitalism." The economic polices of Reagan-Bush I-Bush II have been throwbacks to the uninformed, incompetent and aggressively aristocratic systems of Great Britain in the mid-1700's when Edmund Burke voiced his "liberal" theories. And oh yeah, "Liberalism" was actually describing in those times what we call "conservatism" today.

The global market crises are a direct consequence of the utterly insane and inept policies of Bush II, beginning in 2002. At that time, the Dumbo from Crawford launched a program of aggressive promotion of debt to put money into the economy. Mortgage the house, he told America, buy stocks! Everything's just fine, go out and BUY that new car, new refrigerator, or mega-buck fancy TV set. And the Bush Regime followed suit with interest rate cuts repeatedly, intentional avoidance of regulatory oversight, and any other measure. When in early 2006 the country was so debt-ridden the economy could no longer be fueled by mad consumer spending and new home buying, the crash really started.

The Bush Debt Economy is the cause of this crash. The utterly idiotic idea that "American Capitalism" is defined by Reaganomics and the ideologues of mindless deregulation unfortunately underlies the Bush Regime's horrendous policies. But "American Capitalism" for a century preceding that time was anything BUT the stupid, inept, and nearly-criminal policies of Republicans and Libertatians.

We have already done this, David. Tell you what- go read a book. I do not argue with Alinsky trolls.

The fact that you can have a candidate discussion without mentioning a possible run by Ron Paul, in the midst of the Tea Party era shows how IRRELEVANT the main stream media has really become...

It's as if they are trying to force the politicians they WANT to get press...

No one discusses a potential Rand Paul candidacy because the very idea is lunacy. It's even more ridiculous than a Sarah Palin or Christine O'Donnell candidacy for the presidential nomination.

American Capitalism" is not a hands-off, completely laissez-faire economic and government relationship that the Libertarians have managed to sell to many people since the Reagan era. The idea that an entirely unregulated marketplace was the world's most advanced and healthiest system has been known to be a failure since the 1880s, for crying out loud. The U.S. led in developing "American Capitalism" in the early 20th Century in a system that imposed regulations all over the place, including many that the Republican ideologues under Reagan swiftly sought to dismantle.

The problem with your theories is that you are COMPLETELY CLUELESS as to what you are talking about. Pure DEREGULATION is not the answer nor the solution proposed by REAL libertarians. Reagan was NOT a libertarian... not even close.

In fact, you can't talk about a true MARKET economy in America because we have not had one in over 100 years. Let's be clear though... you will ALWAYS have laws and rules... in any economy. The rule and laws a libertarian looks for are those that allow FRAUD and THEFT to be severely punished and to allow such investigation to be initiated by the PEOPLE who are harmed.

What he have and have had for the past 100 years is a system based on Central Economic Planning. AS shown, Central Economic Planning has been a FAILURE in EVERY SINGLE NATION and does nothing but line the pockets of the wealthy elite. Central economicplanning destroy competition because the mega corporations get into bed with the state on regulations that benefit them and restrict up and comers. This is true for EVERY SINGLE regulator body in the US... SEC, FDA, FTC, ect... All of these are staffed by the pals and buddies within the companies that are supposed to regulate. That system doesn't work.

The global market crises are a direct consequence of the utterly insane and inept policies of Bush II, beginning in 2002. At that time, the Dumbo from Crawford launched a program of aggressive promotion of debt to put money into the economy.

Ok.. now you have shown how really clueless you are. This ship has been sinking for decades.. before W. was born. Was W. a disaster... HECK YES and real LIBERTARIANS never supported him and never liked him. To be honest, Obama has not been much different... expanding government and government spending, expanding the "wars" on terror, expanding the patriot act, gitmo still open, bailing outthe banks, staffing his cabinet with the same CFR, wall street elites, little transparency in government ect....

You won't get REAL change in this country until people like you quit see things in left/right... when you stop getting all of your news from MSNBC (for the lefties) and Fox News (for the righties).

The whole left/right system is a game to keep us ignorant by having us bicker and argue over minor details while the federal reserve/wall street system robs the middle class blind with the help of the District of Criminals both dems and repubs.

No one discusses a potential Rand Paul candidacy because the very idea is lunacy.

Trying reading a little SLOWER... it says RON PAUL... not Rand.

Of course why would you want someone in office that actually understand economics.. that foresaw this thing decades ago, that is the ONLY politician sounding the warning on Social Security and deficits for two decades... that actually WORKS with folks on BOTH ends of the isle like Bernie Sanders, and Alan Grayson to bring audits to the Federal Reserve system...

Nah.. you probably want another Bush/Obama globalist elite....

NJNB -- "I have no answers for you, therefore I'll dismiss what you've said out of hand and move to a thread where I still think I can win."

NJNB -- "I have no answers for you, therefore I'll dismiss what you've said out of hand and move to a thread where I still think I can win."

LMAO John!

That's the 'mighty' righty way... when the going gets tough - the cowards CUT & RUN!

No, John A.-

It is you who does not get it.

It was not "an anti-incumbent feeling"..."an anti-incumbent feeling" produces large losses of incumbent seats for BOTH parties.

Again, and try to pay attention this time...53 incumbent Democratic House members were defeated in the midterms, while only 2 GOP members, both freshmen, lost their seats.

In the Senate, 2 incumbent Democrats lost...no Republican incumbents lost.

This was not "an anti-incumbent feeling", John.

It very much an anti-Democratic Party phenomenon. It was Democratic incumbents that lost in November...not incumbents in general.

Wake up. You are still in denial.

Mr. Rogers - I'll do the short one first. Since I mis-read yoiur question about Ron paul, I'll correct myself. In the matter of a Ron Paul candidacy, no one gives him a spit's chance. He did so well last time, huh?

As for your longer screed, Reagan followed a policy program cobbled together from a number of sources, among them Libertarian. Basically, he used the Milton Friedman-Chicago School of Economics model - and he was an utter failure. He did lay the groundwork for the Bush II policy failure. And by the way, it is a total myth that Reagan "won" the Cold War - Gorbachev presided over the dismantling of the Soviet Empire and the Soviet Union.

The country actually has done well, in between Republican recessions and various massive scandals such as the price-fixing cabal led by GE (Eisenhower), the savings & loan debacle (Reagan), the biggest one-day drop on Wall Street between the Great Depression and the year 2001 (1988, Reagan again), Enron-Worldcom-et al (On Bush II's watch, but originated in Reagan deregulation), and so forth.

As for a general view of politics, I find nothing desirable or even potentially realistic about the Libertarian approach. The battle today seems to be over undoing virtually all insitutional development since the New Deal - and I stand much more on the side of the basic concepts of government as initiated by the New Deal.

Nojo: Gosh, I only asked for one example, where a government has implemented Keynesian Economics. Just one.

You can't do it, so as you always do, you run away.

I didn't ask for an argument. I asked for an example. Just one.

Mixed Bag - you really didn't pay attention to the multiple polls, taken as voters exited the voting booths on election day and since, that clearly showed the vote was NO "mandate" for Tea Party-style policies. Obama's health insurance reform program was way down the list - a small numer of voters mentioned it, and overall the issue was ranked eighth.

Some of you guys are clrowing, saying that the election results augured well for business and that any further recovery is all due to that. BS. Here's a handy update from Yahoo News:

Economists surveyed by CNNMoney are forecasting an average of 2.5 million jobs added to the U.S. economy this year, which would be the best one-year gain in hiring since the white-hot labor market of 1999.

Of the dozen economists who responded, several of the more bullish are predicting more than 3 million jobs added -- about 250,000 jobs a month. Even the most pessimistic of those surveyed, David Wyss of Standard & Poor's, expects 1.8 million jobs to be added this year, roughly double the pace of hiring in 2010.

That wouldn't be enough to climb out of the 8-million job crater created by the Great Recession and won't bring down the unemployment rate by a significant amount. An improved job market could even bring a short-term rise in the jobless rate, as those discouraged from job hunting resume looking for work and are once again counted as unemployed.

But the forecasted hiring boom could get the economy back into gear and provide real relief for many Americans

The President's policie did and will continue to work.

John A: The President's policie did and will continue to work.

The 10% unemployed and the 25% under-employed can take comfort in the fact the Presidents policies are working, as they eat their mac&cheese and wonder when the sheriff will show up to evict them from their home.

Okay, David, one more time, just for you.

The United Kingdom. France. Germany. Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain.

Now, go read a book.

Basically, he used the Milton Friedman-Chicago School of Economics model - and he was an utter failure.

True libertarians would have lowered taxes.. but unlike Reagan they would have reduced the budget in proportion.

Government does not create wealth because it produces nothing. It takes wealth and moves it around rather inefficiently.

Industry creates wealthy by producing things. The government's NUMBER ONE JOB is to protect our liberties... not make us wealthy... not keep us "safe". By sticking to the first role, we become wealthy and safe as a result. The focusing on the second two, we become broke and at risk of a great many dangers. Nothing can be more evident of this than the times we live in now.

Ah, someone comes along to tell us the only reason Conservatism hasn't worked is that it hasn't been tried. Now even RONALD REAGAN wasn't sufficiently Conservative!

Once again proving that "Conservatism that works" is really nothing but a thought experiment. If it has to be that "pure" to work it simply won't.

Sorry, John A.-

As voters exited the polls, whatever they told the pollsters after last November's referendum...

They overwhelmingly voted against the Democratic Party, didn't they?

Again, John...

53 Democratic incumbents gone in the House, 2 in the Senate...only 2 GOP incumbents defeated in BOTH Houses of Congress combined.

I've heard of being obtuse, but John...really, you're creating a whole new standard for obliviousness.

C'mon, man...!

Are you going to listen to exit polls...

Or, believe your own lying eyes.

Wake up, John.

Mixed Bag - First of all, the voters also returned nearly 200 Democrats to the House, and retained a majority in the SEnate. That rather trumps your paltry Tea Party delegation. Next, I was very interested in what the voters had to say because it does matter. I seeded the following article to the 'Vine on November 16:

CNN Poll: Election not a mandate for GOP

By: CNN Political Unit

Washington (CNN) - Americans approve of the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in the midterms, but only one in six say the election results were a mandate for the GOP, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday also indicates that President Barack Obama's approval rating has rebounded from an all time low in September, but is still below 50 percent.

Fifty-two percent of people questioned in the poll say that Republican control of the House will be good for the country, with 39 percent saying it will be bad for the country. The GOP won a net gain of at least 60 seats in the House (with six contests still unresolved) to win back the chamber after four years of control by the Democrats.

But only one in three thinks the Republicans will do a better job than the Democrats in running the House, with just over one in five saying the GOP will do a worse job, and 44 percent saying there won't be much difference.

Only 32 percent say the new Congress will get more done that the current one, with just over one in four saying it will accomplish less, and 41 percent saying it won't make a difference.

Only 17 percent say the election results were a mandate for the GOP, with seven in ten saying that the midterms were more a rejection of the Democrats' policies.

"That's the classic pattern in elections like these," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "In 1994, the last time the Republicans bumped the Democrats from power on Capitol Hill, only 18 percent thought that those midterms elections were a mandate for the GOP. In 2006, when the Democrats took control, only 27 percent thought that was a mandate for the Dems. Most Americans seem to believe that these elections were 'throw-the-bums-out' events."

According to the survey, 43 percent of the public has a favorable opinion of the Republican party, with 48 percent saying they see the GOP in an unfavorable way. Forty-six percent say they have a favorable opinion of the Democratic party, with 48 percent saying they see the Democrats in a unfavorable light.

"Unlike 1994, the last time the Republicans bumped the Democrats from power on Capitol Hill, the GOP takes over without the American public solidly behind it. The Republican party's 43 percent favorable rating is the lowest that number has been since the fall of 2009," adds Holland.

If Americans dislike both parties so much, is there room for a third party?

"Americans are split over whether they would like to see the Tea Party movement become a third political party that would run candidates against the Democrats and Republicans - 48 percent would like to see that, 48 percent would not," says Holland.

But despite the success of many Tea Party backed candidates in the midterm elections, the poll indicates unfavorable views of the movement increased by five points, to 42 percent, since late October, while there was little change in the favorable rating, currently at 38 percent.

According to the survey, 48 percent of Americans approve of the job Obama's doing as president, with 50 percent saying they disapprove. The 48 percent approval rating is up six points from September, when Obama was at an all time low of 42 percent in CNN polling.

Thirty-eight say they disapprove of Obama because he's too liberal, with nine percent saying they disapprove because he's not liberal enough.

"Obama's marks on domestic policy are still low, particularly on the federal deficit and the economy. But he continues to get his best marks on foreign affairs and terrorism, and his overseas trip immediately after the midterm elections - whether by chance or design - sent images back to the U.S. of Obama looking presidential in a foreign setting that may have helped his standing with the public," adds Holland.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted November 11-14, with 1,014 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points

Nojo:

Not one of the countries you named has implemented Keynesian Economics. Injecting money into an economy is merely one facet of Keynes' idea. Another facet of Keynes' idea includes collecting taxes to offset spending, and repay borrowed money when the economy booms. That has not happened in any of the countries you list.

Your understanding of Keynes is similar to suggesting that a Ford is a failure as a car because it does not move when one doesn't add wheels and tires. Ya gotta have the whole package, not just part of it. Keynes never advocated constant deficit spending.

Additionally, Keynes did not limit his theory - which to date remains untested - to those two issues; spending and borrowing. He also was interested in interest rate manipulation to stimulate investment. Further his theory contemplates a stimulated private sector, which contributes to the overall national well-being.

Come on Nojo; the world is only black and white where you live.

John A.-

53-2 in the House; 2-0 in the Senate.

Those are the totals for Dem-Rep losses of incumbent seats in Congress last November.

Forget CNN...

What do those numbers say to YOU, John?

I mean, assuming that you're a sentient being...

Bag, it means we got fooled again

Actually, Byl...

You got fooled.

You probably believed Nancy Pelosi and Chris Van Hollen when they told you Democrats wouldn't lose in the House...let alone by 63 seats.

JoAnna - Illinois has no more crooks leading it than any other state. Any time you have politicians - of either party - you have a bunch of crooks. Always so funny when people who don't have a clue try to act like they know something. That would be you JoAnna.j And, Mixed Bag - just means the people got fooled by the lying Republicans again. But, 2012 will see a reverse of that.

W. Goin

JoAnna - Illinois has no more crooks leading it than any other state. Any time you have politicians - of either party - you have a bunch of crooks. Always so funny when people who don't have a clue try to act like they know something. That would be you JoAnna.j And, Mixed Bag - just means the people got fooled by the lying Republicans again. But, 2012 will see a reverse of that.

-------------------------

And yet, Liberals want the "crooked government", whether it be federal, state or local, to have more and more power. While on the other hand, Conservatives want less power in the hands of the same crooked government and more power with the individual people. You know, like the GOP led House will soon do with the repeal of ObamaCare?

Hope this helps your "thinking" Goin. And you might want to be a little careful on who you think the fools are.

In short, the only "vision" the GOPTP has is defeating President Obama and democrats in 2012--never mind how many millions of Americans are harmed in the process. I've been following politics for many years and never have I seen one party decide that "power" and "winning" trump the needs of the country and its people.

Jody;

You just summed it up better than me. The handwriting is on the wall, lets hope people start reading it.

Face it my friends the American people are creatures who each live in their own World oblivious to what Government is up to, it has just gone too far off track for a correction, most people like it or not will listen to some 30 second sound bite ran on Fox News once in a while and not take one minute to try and determine the validity of what they heard, and face it the "powers that be" control so much of the media that one has a hard time finding "facts" and the "whole story" even if one expends the effort, that being said why should anyone hope for a sudden enlightening of a nation of indifference, denial and apathy?

Nicely said, USN. Our Governor-elect has said his plan to remake the state budget consists of 3 agenda items;

1) Dramatically reduce state funding for education.

2) Dramatically reduce state funding for Medicare/Medicaid

3) Dramatically reduce pay and benefits for state employees

Just as we've been saying for months, the GOPTP cares not for average Americans. It's all about delivering for the top 2%, which he intends to do through elimination of Inheritance Tax and a 30% cut in corporate tax rates.

"I got a rock." -- Charlie Brown

John B;

How true. When the republican/tea party talks about spending cuts they mean "Mandatory Spending" which includes Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Unemployment Compensation, Child Tax Credit, Food Stamps, Retirement and Disability programs for the Civil Servants, Coast Guard and Military. And the list goes on. What about Defense Spending?? Do not hear they go there. Corporate Welfare, no not there etc. What do these spending cuts have in common? They all are "Middle Class" programs.

They are going to try and correct their mistakes and mismanagement of the Bush Administration on the backs of 98% of the American people. We can not afford it. Especially when the very people that have created the problems are getting a free pass, hell they are getting bonuses. The economic divide is at a record level and increasing every year. That want to impede education, we already rank in the 20's in math and science. How much lower do they want to take this country. We used to be number 1. Not any more and the republican/tea party wants to only make it worse. Go figure.

Navy and John B. - excellent posts. Navy's key line might be:

If they do not get their way they want to shut down the government. Sounds like a bad Science Fiction movie does it not? But, this “Great Society” of the republican/tea party may very well be just around the corner and here sooner than we think unless we put a stop to it.

Years ago, Kevin Phillips wrote about the Reagan Regime that an underlying strategy of his Administration was to bankrupt the government in order to at last undo all social service programs. Many of us knew it at the time, and were somewhat shocked that Phillips, a conservative who had served with Reagan, would put it into print.

It seems that legacy is now reappearing with a vengeance. Commentaries such as Navy's need to be packaged for op-ed publication and submitted to a wide range of newspapers. The points raised need to be delivered to Democratic party leaders at the state level, and to as many indpendent pressure groups - including Move On - as possible. The ONLY way to get action to interrupt the GOP/TP juggernaut is to mobilize opposition to it, and with every disgraceful effort they make, stir up an outcry. The Tea Party earned its success in that way - let's turn the tactics back on them!

They are little more than saboteurs. Their activities border on treason. Obama may have to make use of his powers under the PATRIOT act to put them in their rightful places.

"Obama may have to make use of his powers under the PATRIOT act to put them in their rightful places."

Well aren't we the snivelling little fascist today! Did Bush use the patriot act to put you in your place? Didn't think so.

It is treasonous to run up trillion dollar debt year after year and see unemployment increase. It is treasonous to have a record 20 months of near 10% unemployment. How's that suit you?

If you really want to know who's killing entitlements, it's Obama. He has spent us into oblivion to the point that the well has run dry. People were somehow "brilliant" for electing Obama, but are now "stupid" for giving the democrats the worst defeat in 70 years? Does that make sense in your feeble liberal mind? How about Obama and the democrats lied to get into office and once there, were exposed? That is actually logical. Democrats promised fiscal responsibility and health care reform, instead we got trillion dollar deficits year after year and Obamacare. We were not amused.

The biggest mistake liberals make is to think that voters are stupid and that, somehow, liberals know best. It does them in every time. Their arrogance and elitism is truly astounding. Republicans were elected in a landslide by being obstructionist to the democrat's radical leftist agenda, yet now they are supposed to cooperate or else? You want to know the definition of stupid? Leaving Reid and Pelosi in leadership positions after what happened on Nov 2. Not that I'm complaining, they have such big red targets painted on them.

It is clear you are completely ignoring Nov 2. That's great, it means you'll be even easier to dump in 2012.

Navy,

Great article. Thanks for posting. This tax cut deal really bothered me. As a fairly independent person I found it particularly disturbing to see how adamantly Republicans defended tax cuts for the very wealthy of this country. I don’t believe in trickledown economics. I think it’s a scheme that has never been proven to get middle and lower class votes through economic scare tactics. They want you to believe that extreme wealth is sensitive to an incremental tax increase which is a distortion of truth. During the Clinton years I didn’t observe any major lifestyle change when the tax rate was 39%. You can’t be serious about deficits and be an advocate for extending tax increases for the wealthy. Republicans of all people shouldn’t believe this is a “responsible” policy. On the other side of the debate I do believe President Obama should re-define wealthy as income over $1M or more to win this fight in 2012.

Ed

If making use of th PATRIOT act provisions is fascism, then the Bush administration was a bunch of fascists for proposing its existence and signing it into law.

Good points, Ed. I believe that flattening the tax brackets right down to $250,000 was a deliberate tactic to blend the millionaires and billionaires right into a group that doesn't differ all that much from the upper middle class.

In reality the world that the truly wealthy inhabit is so separate from the rest of us that we wouldn't recognize it. If one of us had $50M fall in our lap we'd be ecstatic, knowing that we can live beyond our wildest dreams for the rest of our lives. That doesn't even buy a Gulfstream for one of the Fortune 400. These are folks who spend, hundreds of thousands of dollars, sometimes millions on purely speculative ventures because they'll never miss the money, destabilizing the economy in the process. When they spend money it's on wildly extravagant things that don't generate a lot of jobs in the process. That provides a dramatically smaller multiplier effect than the activity of regular working people, who would use the money to take a modest vacation and buy a new Ford every few years...if the wealthy elites weren't busy driving down wages.

After all, they have a new Gulfstream to buy. Or maybe they like to spend time in a place where they don't yet own a mansion.

and wouldn't it be nice to take a modest vacation and get a new car every once in a while. The rich call that entitled living, like we expect to get nice things or enjoy life just because we work 60+ hours a week for them. What right do we, the working poor, have in asking for such things?

I'm sorry but this is the United States and part of our guaranteed rights living here is to be able to pursue happiness, just like what John B is talking about. How dare a handful of rich fat cats deny that? And worse yet hoodwink others into thinking its OK?

Remember the lessons from Greece!

Ever hear of Occams razor? Here is a much simpler explanation, as the country felt more and more confident that republicans would take the house and block the radical democrats, they felt more confident in the economy.

What happens when republicans continue to block the radicals and the economy improves even faster? What will be your excuse then?

he republicans are going to block the tea party?

Nothing about Occams razor says "ignore all the evidence in order to get a simpler solution, and assume the outcome you prefer for anything still in process."

sounds more like the right wing playbook than Occam's razor. dems in the house, senate and wh? statisitcal blip. repub in the house? a mandate.

Or see global warming!

Boehner will read the Constitution but the GOPTP prefers the words not contained in it: freedom of religion "except", majority rules "except", equal rights "except"....

Jody, Iowa

Boehner will read the Constitution but the GOPTP prefers the words not contained in it: freedom of religion "except", majority rules "except", equal rights "except".

Truer words could not be spoken. Besides, what make the GOPTP think it is a majority? That's why I think they are a bunch of dolts.

Jody:

Touche'. Amazing that they even have the nerve to read the US Constitution with what they are planning to do, re-write it. Maybe they just want us to remember what it was before they got sworn in.

So, in other words, the left supports stretching the Commerce clause to include just about every aspect of American life, but rejects the Tenth Amendment, which the Founders intended would be a constraint on the abuse of such things as the Commerce clause.

Kind of picky and choosy, aren't you?

Reading the Constitution and understanding it are obviously different things. It's worth noting that one of the most promising constitutions ever written in terms of guaranteed rights and freedoms was that of the Soviet Union. While American Conservatives obviously have little or nothing in common with Soviet Communists their disregard for the rights of anyone outside the wealthy elites is uncannily similar.

Liberals are a lot less "picky and choosy" than are modern-day conservatives who lack forward thinking and lack vision for long-term goals; and, we prefer not to pick and choose on issues of religion, speech, majority rule, and civil rights. Liberals prefer picking and choosing to help all people not just certain ones. Conservatives lack the compassion concept that is part of our Democracy form of Government.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired : Great Post. Thanks

Jody, Thank you.

Job1;

Good to see you again. Thank you. I trust you had a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Reading the Constitution out loud to a body of politicians who should already know it is a waste of time -- either the members do already know it and are being paid (by the taxpayers) to twiddle their thumbs OR they aren't familiar with it and have been very successful and are unlikely to change their behavior. It is very interesting that the Tea Party and the ACLU are on the same side here -- if those organizations can agree on how to interpret the Constitution our nation is not in as bad a way as some have feared.

Navy,

I am gonna have to say, you have at least read the constitution, which many people haven't, but you complaints go a little overboard, to the extreme.

1. Repealing Citizenship--I will agree on this point, unless the amendment is rewritten or repealed, it stays the way it is. If you a born in this country, you are a US citizen. But that does not give the right to the parents if they are here illegally. That means that the born individual would have duel citizenship until their 18th birthday--on that day they would have to chose their country of citizenship. If they were minors and their parents were returned to their homeland, they in turn would have to go, but would be allowed back if they decided that the U.S. was their homeland at 18.

2. "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"--Yes, they have that power, but they do not have the power to mandate purchases, which is the part of the Health Care law that they are fighting. Telling me or you we have to purchase something is not regulating--it is forcing.

3. Congress has the authority to spend, we all know that, but where does that authority end. That seems to be the biggest debate. Congress provides for the general defense and promotes the general welfare--welfare meaning in this instance--health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. Where does it say--take care of people who won't take care of themselves. You know as well as I do, every entitlement program is meant to buy a vote. Give them something, they vote for you. There is know elect the best person available--because look at our congress--both sides.

4. Congress does have the power to tax--"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"--the word that jumps out at me has been bolded--uniform. What is uniform about our income tax code, that the people who make the most, pay the most. And to go along with others, I would repeal the 16th amendment myself. Why should we have to pay taxes on the money that we earn? Shouldn't we be paying taxes on the things that we purchase, not on what we earn.

5 & 6. Equality & fundamental rights--I really do believe in equality and that each of us has the ability to succeed in this country, but we have to want to. I don't believe that we allow the judges of this country to legislate from the bench, which they love to do. If the people in California vote against gay marriage--then the majority has spoken, until you can change the vote, that has to stand. That is what democracy stands for. The majority wins, but minorities have rights. They have the all other rights, to work, to get educated, to live, eat, but they cannot be married, that is the will of the people.

7. Repealing the direct election of senators--I like this one. Our forefathers compromised on this over 200 years ago, with Madison, the father of the constitution, agreeing in the end. Madison was for representation in the senate to be based on population also, and picked by the state legislatures. But in the end, compromised to have 2 from each state, still picked by the state legislatures. Our forefathers were trying to protect states' rights. Today, our senators don't care about the state, they care about getting reelected by the people of those states. Do you really think that Barbara Boxer really cares about all of California--or just about the people that keep electing her? If she could remember who elects her:) Do you really think that John Kerry is doing what is best for Massachusetts, or what is best for his voters? Does Mitch McConnell really have what is best for Kentucky in mind when he smarts off about defeating Obama?

I just think you ought to give the new congress a chance before blaming them for things that haven't even happened yet.

I expect to see a lot more of this grand standing, read the constitution (but don't follow it) weep for your fellow man (as you give the keys to corporatoins) standing in front of big flag while selling the middle class down the river.

I'd rather they actually follow the constitution (like stop wire tapping and throwing people into permanent prisons) than sit around wrapped in the flag reading it to each other. But I guess a do-nothing party has to look good for the cameras.

Hi, US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

It was a nice. I hope you and your family had a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Da Noid;

Good question. Time will tell, but I have already seen some buyers remorse out there. Lets see if they do what they claimed like creating more jobs in this country and lowering the deficit. SO far they failed on one of the two and from what I am reading and seeing come Wednesday, creating jobs appears to be on the back burner. They are going to just slow the government down now with investigation after investigation. All this does is distract the American people from what that said was most important. The economy and jobs.

The Tea Party put its boot on the throat of the GOP – we knew it was only a matter of time. The GOP sold out for a win last November.

The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/us/politics/02teaparty.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&src=twt&twt=nytimespolitics&adxnnlx=1293976851-vRgj62OxqxOrTYGACLUF6g

Are you suggesting that the Tea Party hasn't already been co-opted by the Republicans?

The upside is we will NO longer have to listen to the chatter that the 'tea party' is composed of Independents!

The tea party is nothing but a 'front' for a bunch of angry, disgruntled, hateful white people - PERIOD!

THAT was the worst kept secret in DC!

Still waiting for someone to tell me where they want to take THEIR country back to? Anyone?

Fiesty

The first step in taking it back happened in November of 2010. I would say they are well on their way to taking it back from the progressive/liberal agenda. Life is good.

Life is good

By all means... do enjoy it while you can!

After 2 years of witnessing full blown civil war between the 'old guard' and the 'tea baggers', will cause anyone with an IQ higher than a turnip to come running back to the Democrats!

So keep repeating it and make sure to click your 'ruby slippers 3x's while you're at it! lmao

Popcorn?

Feisty;

If the American people start connecting the dots and realize what the republican/tea party wants to do as I have laid out above, 2012 may be very interesting indeed. The facts are all there and documented. When you connect them all together the agenda becomes very clear and it is not good.

Retired... You my friend, did a mighty fine job of laying out the dots!

You NEED to keep connecting them for those who are either to lazy or apathetic to do it for themselves!

Thanks!

PS: Ron hit the 'nail on the head' - there is already PLENTY of 'buyers remorse' out there! ;o)

Feisty; Ron is right. People are starting raise questions. It is in the republican/tea party court now. Lets see if they listen to the American People. SO far their record is less than stellar.

The PLENTY of buyers remorse is being corrected as quickly as possible. The November elections did a very good job of correcting the very assine mistake of letting the progressives have too much control. You lefties just have to sit back now and see what happens. It can't be any worse than the past four years.

Can't wait to see what happens, JH. The budget and all its consequences now belong to the GOPTP. The ensuing chaos promises to be very entertaining.

John B.

Agreed. Let's see how smug JH is in 2012 if the republicans keep with their "Obstructionist" Agenda. They have the House and people are looking for answers. If the republicans do not provide them they will be unemployed in 2012. SO far all I see is more of the same old and that is not going to cut it any longer with the American People. Period.

Retired & JohnB!

I for one, am thoroughly enjoying the over-reach by these right wingers!

Cockiness is a 'good color' for them... well, that is until it begins to fade...

Once the electorate realizes they've been 'snookered' yet again by the party that 'talks the talk' but CANNOT 'walk the walk' let's just say... it ain't gonna be pretty in 2012!

Hey Feisty, if you truly believe the following, than you are simply delusional:

The tea party is nothing but a 'front' for a bunch of angry, disgruntled, hateful white people - PERIOD!

I suggest you tell that to all of the young and minorities that have marched down the street with those angry white people. But hey, we all know that you fancy yourself to be a Dem party operative, so it's not surprising that you will resort to the race card and divisive tactics, the stock and trade of Dems, to try and salvage the sinking ship. Unfortunately, for you and the Dems, that trick is old and worn out.

BTW everybody, wasn't it the laugh of the year to see Ms. Napolitano, the head of Homeland Security, over in Afghanistan this past week to work on border security, when she hasn't even secured our borders here!!!??? Just goes to show you where the priorities of the Obama administration lie. Anything to keep the illegals in line to (illegally) vote for Obama in 2012, who cares if our national security is compromised while the head of Homeland Security is in a foreign country sticking her nose into military matters she knows nothing about. Talk about a waste of taxpayer dollars. But what can you expect from a buch of liberal hacks that don't have a clue?

Hey Feisty dangling dog part, it seems you have run out of things to say. All you do is comment that the navy guy and Ron have good things to say. You forgot to mention that all Repuplicans are racist haters that only want to make a few billioniars more wealthy. If you don't keep reminding me, I might forget and start thinking that having a smaller goverment might just be a good thing; the really big one we have now is out of money and not helping the economy very much. I did notice that you feel that there is buyers remorse. Kinda hard to have buyers remorse when the product has not even arrived. If the current facts don't suite you, why not speculate on how bad you think your "Enemy" is going to be?

Why is it none of you had a problem with the Dems not having a budget Now all of a sudden you are all concerned about what other are going to do that your useless party couldn't

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

The tea party is nothing but a 'front' for a bunch of angry, disgruntled, hateful white people - PERIOD!

And the White House is the new front porch for a bunch of angry, disgruntled, HATEFUL black people! PERIOD!

How's that sound, Feisty? Does that statement sound hateful? I think it does. But no more hateful than your statement.

Think about it girl.

As a matter of fact, openminded, I've been continually upset by the Republican refusal to allow the budget process to move forward.

If you like the tea party and want smaller govt, you might get it when the party in power can't decide to raise the debt ceiling or not (and all the in-fighting that comes with it). Maybe they will shut down the govt, then it gets really small.

Or maybe they will raise the debt ceiling and voters didn't get what they voted for... again!

I know that politics is, to say the least, a heated topic, but it would be good if we could discuss things civilly instead of turning this into a flame war. If our arguments aren't strong enough on their own without personal attacks, maybe we should reevaulate our positions. (Hint, hint.)

I would like to see "Obamacare" banished as a term for health care reform.

Steeler, they keep using that term to describe health cre reform, and as a consequence are ALWAYS wrong. It was Health Insurance Reform - health care reform is yet to come and badly needed. Many of the Reagan-era "reforms" of health care are directly responsible for the staggering rise in costs.

John A, you are as usual right on target. It should have been Health Insurance Reform from the beginning. That term is both more descriptive of the actual legislation and would have played better with the American public.

Steeler Fan:

I agree. The time has come to sh!t of get off the pot. Lets see which they choose. More gridlock and legislation and rules that put the burden on the backs of the Middle Class or will they do something constructive to move this country forward and get the rich and powerful (who created this mess to begin with) start paying their fair share. I wish I knew the answer, but I feel we will see very soon which way the ship sales.

It all depends on the democrats. If they continue their radical leftist agenda the republicans damn well better continue to obstruct!

The democrats have owned congress for four years and the white house for two. How has the last four, and particularly the last two helped the middle class? Democrats inherited 4.6% unemployment from the republicans and turned that into 9.8% with a record 20 months of 9%+. Can you really claim with a straight face that democrats care more about the middle class? Give me a break.

You screw up the country for four straight years and now, before the republicans even take office it's time to @!$%# or get off the pot? If you are talking about democrats I agree.

Can you really claim that Democrats "inherited" 4.6% unemployment when it was nearly 8% on the day that George W. Bush left office? That's simply laughable.

He's been repeating this lie for months. We confront him on it and he just keeps repeating it. Must be a RE-peat-the-lie-to-the-PUBLIC-an.

Bill---I think there are differing views of the election of 2010----you see it as a sound repudiation of the Obama agenda. Others see it as an expression of frustration that the economy hasn't done better along with the expected losses generally seen by the party in power in a midterm election. Time will tell which view is correct. If the election was frustration with the economy, swing voters probably won't be interested in relitigating the past---they want to see progress.

Somehow, I do not see investigating Fannie and Freddie, actually discovering the cause of the economic collapse, investigating what led to WikiLeaks, or investigating the situation in Afghanistan as 're- litigating the past'. In fact, three of those things are necessary to understand fully, if we hope to avoid similar situations in the future. The fourth is necessary in order to have a good, solid conclusion to the war.

Or did you not actually know what Issa is planning to investigate?

It's all about jobs, jobs that pay decent wages with benefits, the kind of jobs McConnell, Boehner and the Republican Party think the American people no longer deserve, they think the American people should be sacrificed in the name of Corporate greed, greed that can only be satisfied by outsourcing, the country be damned.

Which part of HCR shall we repeal first?

Small business tax credits?

Elimination of preexisting conditions clauses?

Expanded drug discounts?

Dependent coverage to age 26 when needed?

Enhanced consumer protections in the insurance market, including a process to appeal plan decisions?

Mandatory coverage of preventative benefits?

Closing the Medicare "donut hole"?

Medicare payment for primary care and preventative medicine?

Expanded teaching of medicine to ensure an adequate supply of health care providors?

http://healthreform.kff.org/timeline.aspx

Pick one. Hey, pick several and see how the American public likes it.

John B: Which part of HCR shall we repeal first?

How about we repeal the part that forces every American to purchase a health care policy?

Bill, I agree with your first question/comment about whether republicans want their first actions to be about repealing HC and witch-hunt investigations. You are right--voters did not elect republicans to appease the conservative base; it is not smart to make those actions their priority. It's the economy, stupid, to use that old familiar phrase; voters expect them to create jobs, to reduce unemployment--doing those things will impact the deficit and the debt; cutting spending now will ultimately reduce revenues and simply exacerbate the problem.

The rest, well, you speak the usual talking points. Election exit polls clearly showed that voters said their vote had nothing to do with President Obama's policies, that what voters wanted was for both sides to work together and a balance of power. Republican legislators and conservatives here ignore that information; they insist it was all about Obama and democratic party policies.

JoAnnaSmith. Fact check: You do realize that the mandory purchase was a Republican idea, that Iowa's own GOPer Charles Grassley made sure it was part of HCR; it was big insurance whose lobbyists demanded it and their republican bought legislators made it happen--of course, both conservatives and big insurance deny this.

Jody, Iowa - I'll stick with my original answer. And you know me better by now, no? I'm not a partisan hack like you and others. I find the time to disagree with the Republicans as much as I do with the Democrats.

It doesn't matter where the provision came from, who asked for it, or who voted for it. The mandatory purchase of health insurance needs to be repealed.

It would seem to me that if the government can mandate that a hospital purchase supplies and equipment and the skills of certified professionals and at the same time require said hospital to treat all comers, whether insured or not; and given that corporations have the same rights as citizens according to SCOTUS. Why can't the same government require you and I to either purchase insurance in order to be able to access that hospital facility, or forgoe its availability to us?

Bill,

I don't have any polls or articles to cite that back up my opinion, nor do I have time to do that, but I think a large majority of Americans wanted healthcare reform. People have grown tired of seeing their premiums and deductibles go up every year. I can attest working in healthcare that the average charge has doubled in the past ten years and its starting become unaffordable for most employers and consumers. Insurance companies have been cutting back benefits for years and cherry picking the coverage to offset the cost. I think the general consensus is something had to be done. Obama, like him or not, did have a mandate for healthcare reform after the 2008 election. Healthcare was a large part of his platform and the American people handed him a decisive victory. Now Republicans showed considerable force in 2010 to take back the house but I think it’s a mistake to say they have a mandate to repeal healthcare reform. Provisions of the bill poll very well. Nationally republicans ran on deficits and the economy. To focus on anything other than that will be a mistake. Repealing healthcare reform and opening investigations into how it was done may please their base but it won’t win them an election in 2012. It will allow the President to appear he is focusing on the economy and paint the Republicans as sore losers trying to re-hash history.

Ed

Paul -It would seem to me that if the government can mandate that a hospital purchase supplies and equipment and the skills of certified professionals.

News to me. What law mandates hospitals to do such things? There are many different types of hospitals such as local ones that handle "routine" issues and send more critical patients to more sophisticated hospitals. Some hospitals specialize in brain injuries, others in cardiac care, each requiring a diverse set of skilled people and diverse set of sophisticated equipment. They're all different, all diverse, but I don't think the goverment mandates them on what their specialities should be.

Maybe you can enlighten us on these mandates?

John B,

Which part of HCR shall we repeal first? The part that mandates people purchase insurance or be fined

Small business tax credits? Who really cares how much credit you get, because they did not limit the cost of insurance premiums, small businesses are still going to be hurt, have to get waivers to keep from dropping people. The credits will never outweigh the cost of insurance.

Elimination of preexisting conditions clauses? This is a regulatory position, could have saved a lot of paper if they had put this by itself. They could have also added as a regulatory piece that insurance companies have to cover procedures if their clients are up to date in paying their insurance premiums. No denial of claims if they are listed as covered.

Expanded drug discounts? I thought the left didn't like drug discounts, because they were unfunded. Who picks up the bill for the discounts in the long run?

Dependent coverage to age 26 when needed? And how long are we suppose to take care of our children. Wouldn't 21 or 18 years be enough. I can see keeping them until they are 22, as long as you can prove they are still in college taking a full time load, but if they are not in college, 21. But sometime they will have to make/live their own lives and make their own decisions.

Enhanced consumer protections in the insurance market, including a process to appeal plan decisions?Where are the consumer protections? Did the HCL eliminate the cost of Health insurance? Does it regulate the amount insurance companies can raise the price each year? Who is going to hear the appeals, what government agency will people be beholden to in that process?

Mandatory coverage of preventative benefits?Again, a regulatory situation, save some paper. But at the same time, by making it mandatory for insurances to cover, they will increase their cost of insurance.Someone has to pay the doctors.

Closing the Medicare "donut hole"?So what you are saying is that once people get to the "donut hole" that $250 rebate check is really going to help with that $4300 that they are going to have to pay out of pocket. But then again, people can purchase a different premium to cover those costs, instead of relying on the government. I am not saying this can't be closed, it should be done in steps for people. But it is a government run program, so what do you expect.

Medicare payment for primary care and preventative medicine?Are they any cost cutting measures in here. Are they going to cut payments to doctors? Are there going to be fewer doctors because they don't want to deal with medicare stuff? Who really pays for these things--the taxpayers--with their taxes.

Expanded teaching of medicine to ensure an adequate supply of health care providors?Who is going to pay to expand the teaching of medicine? Are research firms, insurance companies, or the taxpayers to going pay?

You all talk about where to cut, what to spend, as long as it is other people's money. It seems to me we should be cutting in some areas if we are going to spend in others. But most on here feel the solution is tax the rich more. Simple until they run out of money, then what do you do?

http://healthreform.kff.org/timeline.aspx

Pick one. Hey, pick several and see how the American public likes it.

Well, Ed, may e you should have done a little research, because there are plentynof polls on HCR, and none of them show any level of support

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

People wanted the costs of healthcare addressed- and there is a simple way to do it. Repeal state mandates.

Why do you suppose you can buy an individual policy in Idaho if you are a young healthy person, for less than fifty dollars a month, while the same person would have to pay in excess of two hundred a month in New Jersey?

I can tell you- because in Idaho, you are not mandated to buy coverage for fertility treatments, erectile dysfunction, or educational programs for your non existent autistic child, that is why. You can buy coverage that will pay the bills for broken bones, appendectomies, - in other words, catastrophic coverage, which is all a young, healthy person needs.

Actually, we older, less healthy people could also benefit from eliminating state mandates. Ten years past my hysterectomy, I honestly do not need fertility treatments, and heaven alone knows, if I got pregnant, the Vatican would probably cover the costs, as it would come under the heading of "miracle".

All Obamacare has done is institutionalize the existing mandates, and created more than a few of their own. Now that healthy young person in Idaho is going to have to pay a lot more for that individual policy- and buy a whole lot more coverage than he or she needs.

That is not opinion, by the way, but fact. You can continue to believe that Obama is a gift from on high, and all his programs are wo derful- it is, after all, a free country.

The rest of us see him pretty clearly. He is an ivory tower elitist whom is failing miserably.

Liberals are great at ignoring reality. First, the latest poll shows over 58% of voters want Obamacare repealed. They literally prefer nothing to Obamacare. Second, the republicans heavily campaigned on repealing it and won the biggest victory in 70 years. What do you expect them to do?

The republicans campaigned on extrending all tax cuts, repealing Obamacare, and making Obama a one term president. As far as I'm concerned, one down, one in the cross hairs, and one to go.

Governments cannot create jobs, they can only provide a business friendly environment where jobs can grow. Their campaign promises go a long way towards achieving that goal.

Nojo can always count on you for a partisan oversimplified rant. I guess wisdom doesn’t necessarily come with age in your case. Do you honestly think state mandates are the answer to this problem? You should alert the media if the issue is this easy to fix. I think you need to do a little research of your own. Insurance companies cannot control cost. They are 3^rd party payors. I want you to ask yourself why have hospital charges doubled in the last ten years to cover cost? 3^rd party payors have nothing to do with hospital cost. Once you answer that you will begin to understand some of the fundamental problems with healthcare but for now your rant is useless and contributes nothing towards the solution. Like tort reform, this is another free market principle Republicans use to distract you from the issue. In the aggregate it doesn’t accomplish much except to further their agenda of a free market running wild.

Let me address some of the details of your response. First off, being a young person, why are you trying to get between me and my doctor and tell me that I only need catastrophic insurance coverage? When I go to the doctor I want my insurance to do what it is meant to do, pay for all my medical expenses. Why should I expect any different from HEALTH insurance.

Secondly your tirade about erectile dysfunction and autistic children I’m having trouble understanding. Basically your saying it’s the parents fault if they have autistic children therefore they should pay more. Have fun winning the issue on that platform. This goes back to the Republican mantra of what’s mine is mine until the issue personally affects them. Then they want help.

Your Idaho and New Jersey comparison I’d believe if you could back that up. I need to see a comparison of coverage’s. What are the deductibles? What are the co-pays? I’ll bet that person in Idaho doesn’t have half the coverage of the person in New Jersey and doesn’t even realize it or you could just be making up numbers. I lean towards the latter.

You clearly need guidance to understand this issue. Until then I wouldn’t go out of my way to make my opinion known.

Ed

No kidding. And where were these Republicans when Wall Street was wrecking havoc on the global economy during Bush's tenure? Where were the Republican voices when Bush cut taxes and started two wars at once, resulting in the federal deficit they now claim is their number one concern? Now the Tea Party wants to "save us" from President Obama? Please! Save me from hypocritical Republicans.

The status quo is reject everything, blame the dems for stuff that you did (forcing people to buy health insurance in HCR?) and take credit for stuff that works (State money from stimulus that they tried to stop?)

Its not just politics they are hypocritical in, how about religion? tend to the poor lately conservative christians?

Happy New Year, Jody. I think you are right that most people want Congress to work to govern and solve our problems. And I hope Congress does that. I don't know when compromise became a dirty word but I hope it returns in 2011.

Me, too, Steeler Fan. I found it frustrating that John Boehner refused to use the word "compromise" but prefers common ground. Guess he figures his base will not understand they are the same.

Jody, Iowa

Me, too, Steeler Fan. I found it frustrating that John Boehner refused to use the word "compromise" but prefers common ground. Guess he figures his base will not understand they are the same.

If you think that's frustrating, just wait. Boehner if he is not drunk might reads the Declaration of Independence instead of the Constitution just like he did at a tea bagger rally.

Worse it's on tape @ about 38 seconds he start to rant about his copy of the Constitution which just so happens to be a copy of the Declaration of Independence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Oi0OPgIbA

What's in his noggin? This insane republi-clown posse is not ready for prime time!!! LOL

BB:

1. Because I am cooking more, instead of eating out, I noticed something on the a bottle. "Extra Virgin"--I need someone to tell me how you get "extra virgin" in olive oil.

2. My mother-in-law asked me why we park in a drive way and drive on a parkway--can someone help me with this question.

3. And if a fly lands on the ceiling--does it fly upside down and land, or does it flip over at the last minute

-----------------------

1) Extra virgin olive oil is the oil produced from the first pressing of the olives.

2) You should stop letting your mother-in-law ask you things. Nothing good can come from it.

3) The ceiling flips over. But because everything else flips with it, it looks like the fly is flipping over.

Hey Bear, Happy New Year.

Extra Virgin? I think it depends on the timing, type of press and method used.

"Drive ways" and "Parkways" are a mystery to me too. Maybe a dyslexic day in engineering.

Seems like a fly turns over at the last second, but considering they are faster than the naked eye can see, Idunnoknow.

Nice chuckle, BigBear. I have my own issues with wording sometimes- it seems sign painters never took grammar courses.

Very often while driving, I am informed by signage that in a few feet, "the road divides".

Now, maybe in a Steven King novel there are roads that divide, but here in reality, the road, which is an inanimate object, is divided, presumedly by the workers who laid the road.

No Joe,

That in itself is a fine question. I will spend the rest of the day researching that. Which leads to the next question?

Are you breaking the law if you drive past those road signs that say "Do Not Pass"?

Life is too short to worry about politics all the time:)

How about the ones on toll roads that say "reduce speed, get ticket"? So, just race through?

And last for today,

Why are highways built so close to the ground?

Have a great new year everyone.

Even if the right doesn't love you, God does:)

Another question Kevin,

How will the GOP and his primary opposition view his election promise of not allowing tax breaks for the rich. Those who make $250K or more. Will they attack him like they did Bush 1 or will they accept that as compromise? And even if Bush 1 didn't have any "NEW" taxes, which he didn't, he just raised taxes on things that were already being taxed. But were called "New" taxes by the Dems. Isn't it great how politics works.

Spoken like a real loser. Of course anyone can get rich in this country, immigrants do it all the time. The key is how hard do you want to work for it. No work, no money. Unfortunately a lot of Americans like you have bought the big lie that you don't have a chance so you don't try.

You are a self fulfilling prophecy.

Yup. Stay tuned, Jeff Franjevic, that show is about to go into reruns.

Agree, Jeff and John B, the reruns will not be popular. And worse, the GOPTPs chatter about allowing the US Govt to default by not raising the debt ceiling--they'll be begging for a "do over" because the global impact of such stupidity will be huge.

people forget 2 years ago the dems swept into power and did not go after all of the republicans in a "we're gonna get you" manner. There were no which hunts, endless trials or trying to figure out what happened. At the time I thought it would have been better to go after the criminals who were high-tailing it out of town.

Now we get these new repubs and the first thing they want to do is start the investigations. It seems to me we have one party that is trying to get the work of the people done and another working for big business. Their only way is to obstruct and whine. They rant and rail over cutting services? how about raising taxes on the rich?

So now we can attack the white house daily and throw stuff until it sticks and waste time and money. Maybe they can read the constitution between trials. Should be a fun 2 years. Hope we get some jobs out of this.

No administration has usurped the constitution anywhere near as much as Obama's. They've continually ignored the will of the people and even the will of congress. If they don't get a bill passed, they simply write and executive order or have a bureaucracy do it for them.

The list goes on and on, there is plenty to investigate

"They are mostly old white people who can't understand what happened to their America. Turn off Fox News and try doing some thinking for yourselves for once."

==============================================================

I lost hope of that happening long ago.

Whether left or right, everyone needs a balance in the information they read or programs they watch.

The tea party is multi racial, multi aged, ect. with the common goal of forcing government to shrink, cut spending, get out of their lives, and do the will of the people.

If you view that as radical, I'm glad to wear the mantle.

It is a media and conservative driven talking point that President Obama has been fooled by republicans into thinking he can achieve bi-partisanship. President Obama knows what the republicans want to do, he understands they have no intention of helping him or the country--he was not fooled by them, instead, he fooled them. He is a pragmatist like Reagan, Clinton, Bush 41--he does what is necessary to get the best deal he can for the people and if that means angering those on the far left or far right, he puts aside the politics and governs for all the people not just some.

He is not a pragmatist like Clinton. Clinton had no problem making a hard right turn. Obama is a radical ideologue, he will only bend if forced to. It is republicans' jobs to force him. Extending all the cuts was the first victory.

I've been waiting 30 years for trickle down to kick in. When do the rich start sharing?

John D. Rockefeller used to have his limo driver go to a poor neighborhood so he could hand out dimes to the kids. That's about as good as it gets.

Trickle down prosperity Bush and republican congress, 4.6% unemployment

Trickle up poverty Obama and democrat congress, 9.8% unemployment

The BLS numbers don't lie, your propaganda does.

30 years of stagnant middle class incomes while incomes for the top 1% exploded. The numbers don't lie, Conservative propagandists do.

Eligibility for what? To be president? President Obama is a US citizen born in the great state of Hawaii; there is no eligibility issue. What beliefs of Jefferson have been undermined? Freedom of religion for all people not just Christians? Freedom of speech? Civil rights? The Bible speaks often of the responsibility to care for the least among us. Did you say the same thing when Truman ended segregation in the military? Did allowing blacks to serve with whites and in later years, allowing women to serve on the battlefield also end nearly 200 years of that "well regulated militia? Your personal belief, according to Jefferson's Constitution cannot be imposed on everyone else. That's what the first amendment is about. I would suggest you read the US Constitution and study it--Boehner will make it easy for you, he's going to read it Wed.