Good Morning Bev!

How about Majority 'leader' Cantor yesterday on MTP:

GREGORY: This is a leadership moment here. There are elements of this country who question the president’s citizenship, who think that his birth certificate is inauthentic. Will you call that what it is, which is crazy talk?

CANTOR: [laughs] David, you know, a lot of that has been an issue sort of generated by not only the media but others in the country. Most Americans really are beyond that and they want us to focus —

GREGORY: Is somebody who brings that up engaging in crazy talk?

CANTOR: David I don’t think it’s nice to call anyone crazy, OK?

GREGORY: Alright. Is it a legitimate or illegitimate issue?

CANTOR: I don’t think it’s an issue that we need to address at all. I think we need to focus on trying –

GREGORY: His citizenship should never be questioned in your judgment, is that what you’re saying?

CANTOR: It’s not an issue that even needs to be on the policymaking table right now.

GREGORY: Because it’s illegitimate? Why won’t you just call it what it is? Because I feel like there are a lot of Republican leaders who don’t want to go as far as to criticize those who –

CANTOR: I think the president is a citizen of the United States.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/23/cantor-birther-claims/

Talk about the epitomy of leadership! *insert snark*

RE: Cantor on MTP-

All I could do was replay that line over and over n my head from Beverly Hills Cop where Murphy tells Sgt Taggart "maaaan... you were lying your ass off!"

Also: Any guesses as to how much the rebuttal to the SOTU address is already written, two days before it's given?

Navy: "Teachers, fire fighters, police, public services people will all be joining the unemployment line."

Yeah, so? The wealthiest will still be making plenty. Who needs civil servants when you have so much yourself you can hire your OWN private security people, and pay 'em peanuts. Teachers? Why would we want people to know HOW to think, when the monied interests that own most of the media can tell them WHAT to think?

Good points, Beverly, Feisty Redhead and Drive-by.

Points for David Gregory, for several months he has improved his ability to challenge, to use Tim Russert methods of emphasizing the lack of honest answers. Why can't politicians just answer a simple question? Why does Eric Cantor think twisting and turning to appease his TP menions does anything except make him look foolish? Cantor knows President Obama was born in the U.S. but he's too much of a coward to say so.

Fiesty / DBO;

Good points. Cnator also this week end claims that spending cuts is the only way to go then adds that we need to continue to grow. You cannot grow through just cutting expenses (spending or tax cuts), you also need a plan that increases revenues as well. Without the two the equation will not balance an you are setting yourself up to be stagnant at best and insolvent at worst. I deal with small business all day that make this mistake and when I go back to see them the doors are shut and they are gone.

@ Jody - As you know I've been a VERY vocal critic of Gotcha Gregory... but he is improving on not showing his Republican bias!

@ DBO/NAVY - The righties will spend (borrowed TRILLIONS) of dollars to blow sh!t up around the world! But when in comes to investing in this country... all of a sudden they claim to be fiscal 'hawks'!

It would be laughable if not so incredibly SCARY!

Bev,

SOTU or BOHICA?

I bet it is Bend Over, Here It Comes Again time. More spending, stimulus for jobs, education investment blah, blah, green energy independence, blah, blah. This guy is a one shot socialist pistol that manages to kill millions of job opportunities.

HCR reform and the $230 million over a decade. Sheez, morons and CBO.

This isn't even a half azz card trick, more like faking you threw the tennis ball to a really dumb golden retriever.

From CBO director Douglas Elmendorf -

"CBO antinicipates that enacting H.R. 2 would probably yield, for the 2012-2021 period, a reduction in revenues in the neighborhood of $770 billion and a reduction of outlays in the vicinity of $540 billion." Thus the $230 billion saving.

So in other words, Obamacare will tax us $770 billion (that's revenues for Bev and Feisty) and will give $540 billion in services (outlays). AND THIS IS A GOOD DEAL because they take more frm us than they give back. (Part of of the taxing for 10 years but only giving 6 years of benefits.)

You guys cannot be this obtuse, even the dumbest golden retriever figures it out after a year.

Bev -

As usual your thoughts and comments are right on line.

Sorry for your and Feisty's Bears. I was pulling for them for you guys. Next year, (Smile)

Sorry for your and Feisty's Bears. I was pulling for them for you guys. Next year, (Smile)

Thanks Tom!

Now I'm counting on the Steelers to dismember the Slackers! ;o)

Can I get a witness? lol

California Tom

Bev -

As usual your thoughts and comments are right on line.

Sorry for your and Feisty's Bears. I was pulling for them for you guys. Next year, (Smile)

Thank's California, We've still won the divisional playoffs. Besides, there are more good things to come of Chicago besides President Obama, da Bulls, the Sox, and the Blackhawks.

You see Chinese President Hu picked our city to do international business with.

@Fiesty I think the only thing Cantor knows for sure is when Brittany Spears concerts are.

@bob I bet it is Bend Over, Here It Comes Again time.

I bet you are itdoing too. you can do it either way bob.

Great post, Bev. My sympathies to you & Feisty over the Bears--a tough loss for sure. You are welcome to be a temporary resident of Steeler Nation!!

I still think James Carville had it right when he said "its the economy, stupid." Sure, some people vote purely on ideology but for most of us, especially those in the middle, they want there to be good jobs and they want the government to do everything possible for that to happen.

Go Steelers!

I bet you are itdoing too. you can do it either way bob

If you could only cut and paste intelligence, or coherence.

About the Bears. Actually it's great news.

The people trying to go to the game won't be greatly inconvenienced by a guy who probably knows nothing about football and would just be taking advantage of a political opportunity. America doesn't need that.

Oh sure, Obama would not make the White Sox Mistake again, not being able to name ONE player on his favorite team that he follows closely, but it would have been fun to hear him say something like how he was admired the way Cutler has led the Bears the last few years.

Great posts to all of the libbienuts today, especially the Keyboard Queens. Hilarity on the site. Can't wait to read the great civility from you two to the balance of folks who disagree with you.

"libbienuts"? "great civility"

How do we reconcile the new tag line "lean forward" with what they just did to Keith Olbermann?

I wonder is Comcast will implement a new tag line that is more in keeping with the new owners. Maybe "shifting rightward"

From my previous post about the 6 of 10 myth:

Another misrepresentation is that the CBO report uses 10 years of revenue and only 6 years of spending. First, the majority of the spending is not in the first 4 years to begin with. This misinformation is how propaganda gets started. They are using smoke and mirrors trying to say that future 10 year period will increase the deficit. According to CBPP that is false, in fact as the law matures the deficit will decrease in subsequent decades from the mere fact that the most important cost savings have yet to be implemented and will not be for several more years.

Even Moody’s Analytics said that the HCR Law will have a minor impact in the long run. They also said that there is a real possibility for a reduction in “job lock” . That is when people stay in their jobs just to keep access to Health Insurance. So in fact the HCR actually enhances ones personal freedom and mobility. By not being tide down to a job they keep just for the insurance benefit, they now can leave, maybe become entrepreneurs and hire employees, move to a more productive job etc.

driveby,

Why be PC when numerous libbienuts spout more uncivil comments that mine? As the old Henny Youngmann joke: Take the Keyboard Queens, please.

I like it. It reminds me of "Yeah, but YOU guys..."

I guess what you're telling us, safecracker, is that you are comfortable and prefer to converse in the world of emotion rather than reason. If it were otherwise you wouldn't be working so hard to stir up people who've been nothing but civil in this thread.

Navy,

Was that supposed to be a rebuttal?

Most of the spending is not done in the first 4 years? Duh and Double Duh.

Moody's and job lock?

You're not very good at this. I guess thanks for trying anyway.

Awww, look who's imitating Joe's style.

bob-1805084

Was that supposed to be a rebuttal?

Yeah, why should anyone believe the nonpartisan CBO or analysts at Moody when their analyses don't match the opinion of that world-renowned expert on everything, bob-805084?

Houston,

I quoted the CBO head guy.

Tell me where I'm wrong,

or do just want someone to throw the tennis ball again for you?

Civil? Stirring up? Please review some of the comments on the site and then tell me if I am as civil or worse than others with their vile comments.

• So in fact the HCR actually enhances ones personal freedom and mobility.

I really don't see the logic here. How is the govt. telling people that they have to buy insurance "enhancing personal freedom"?

Read the total article and the context that it was written. Nice try.

Well, there isn't any link.

Besides, how much simpler could it be? They tax us 770 and give us 540 worth of benefit. How is that a good deal for us?

You don't have the intelligence to make your point?

fist and beav, you are wanted over at Rahm's article.

did the bears lose ,,oh i suppose it was not their forte,,hey chicago,,,olbermann sent packing and now rahmmmy losing his bid for mayor ,,,29 days to what a republican mayor ,,the wind is shifting and the new day looks good.

You are not even on the same page. If I want your opinion I will scrape it off the bottom of my shoe.

US Navy Veteran Retired Disabled Jackass.

If you don't want my opinion, don't respond to my comments.

If you don't have the intelligence to argue the point, don't try to argue then gutlessly back out with the bottom of my shoe crap.

See ya tommorrow.

I agree; Keith will be missed. He often said what people were thinking but afraid to say themselves. I wonder where he will go?

It isn't 100 percent clear that the right silenced Keith Olbermann. There's evidence that he had at least something to do with it himself.

But if the right did silence Olbermann, then they can silence anyone.

And what cuts the deepest is that it was done in a way that will likely keep him silent -- at least in the most effective medium -- through most of the 2012 election season. Most of us came to know him during the run-up to the 2008 election, during which his voice played an instrumental role in galvanizing our voices. No one else, not Jon Stewart, not even Rachel Maddow, can do it like Keith Olbermann can.

Without the Fairness Doctrine, we are now literally at the mercy of the corporate media. The first shot has been fired over the bow. And the first shot hit the biggest target, providing the leisure to fire again, at will.

Keith’s passion for the truth will be missed, the right wing have, for now vanquished a worthy opponent but not silenced him, he will return, censorship never lasts

The TRUTH always TRIUMPHS deception!

But if the right did silence Olbermann, then they can silence anyone.

They can't silence me! ;o)

Gingerbread Mamma

Keith’s passion for the truth will be missed, the right wing have, for now vanquished a worthy opponent but not silenced him, he will return, censorship never lasts.

I wish Keith the very best in his future endeavors thank you for your passion for truth and justice. Your are one of the best.

Excellent tribute Gingerbread Mamma

I share the same heartfelt desire.

Censorship in the media is run by the corporations’ a la Koch brothers, Fox noise, the Chamber of Commerce NOT the government.

A good person can not be held down.

In the spirit of your good messaging and progressive voice, Keith, we'll carry on.

Hurry back Keith.

Befroe the trolls start putting out the talking points that will surely get it backwards:

The left formulated their ideas and beliefs about politics, THEN turned on Keith to confirm those thougths and beliefs, NOT the other way around.

Terrific post, Gingerbread Mamma. I posted similar thoughts as well.

Myself, and millions of people are going to miss Keith on MSNBC. He is a great American who cares about other people. Hopefully, we will again see him again carrying on his good work for the people.

Goodbye and Good Riddance to Keith O! A Buffoon! A womanizing, despising, female phoebe. The self righteous accuser of quitters, joins the club of his obsession Palin and becomes a lowlife quitter. He is probably hiding in the bath tub again which is where he said he was when he refused to show up for work to report the Clinton Monica scandal. The master of propaganda, didn’t have the guts or the integrity to face his viewers when he encountered a mirror he just couldn’t cover up. Proof he wanted no part of the truth, just lies and deception. How fitting that the ring leader of hate rhetoric and hypocrisy and the authority on what constitutes the designation of “worse persons”, he himself always was and is “The Worse Person In the World”! (…elitist smirk…throw paper in face)

GBM:

Right on. We all have seen journalism just about disappear from the media. The days of people just telling the facts are disappearing mostly because those sourcesare being shut down by the corporations that own them. This is not good for America nor our form of democracy. We all suffer when we start to stifle individual thought and discourse. The loss of Keith is a blow to all you value free speech and open dialogue.

Did Keith bring this upon himself? I do not know, I do know that MSNBC would not have lost any sleep if he went away. Did the new owners have something to do with his firing, don't know that for a fact either.They punished him for his donations letting Joe S. slide until the people started questioning that decision, then and only then, did they suspend Joe S.

The whole story will come out in time and I do anticipate Keith will get his version of the story out.

Befroe the trolls start putting out the talking points that will surely get it backwards:

WOW less than 10 minutes... isn't that some kind of record or something! ;o))

Do you know today is officially 'starve a troll' day? lol

Feisty ~

They can't silence me! ;o)

Point taken. Exception duly noted. ;-)

Point taken. Exception duly noted. ;-)

LOL!

Congrats on your Packers! Grrrrr!

I thought it was interesting that Olbermann's leaving MSNBC was the leading news story on CNN's AC 360 program Friday night. Olbermann made MSNBC what it is: a place where the lies endlessly blared by the extremist Republicans and talking air heads on Fox News could be exposed and debunked.

And the attempts to portray Olbermann as simply equal and opposite to nut cases like Glenn Beck are totally bogus. While Beck and O'Reilly were vilifying individuals and groups, several of which became assassination targets by Fox News fans, Olbermann was promoting charities like the FreeClinics and speaking out against the Republican Death Panel in Arizona that has denied life-saving organ transplants to nearly 100 people.

I'm sure the teabaggers are overjoyed to see Olbermann go, but they won't be so thrilled that Lawrence O'Donnell is taking over Keith's time slot.

US Navy ~

The whole story will come out in time and I do anticipate Keith will get his version of the story out.

Maybe, maybe not. These kinds of agreements usually contain a clause that you can't discuss the terms of the agreement or the negotiations that led up to it. In this case, I'm willing to bet there's an even broader confidentiality clause. That alone, even without a non-compete clause, would have been worth some money to NBC Universal/Comcast.

@ Feisty ~ Your Bears were tough. We were lucky. Congratulations on a great season.

Good Morning All, thank you for the kind words. Have you ever noticed, (i'm sure you have) how venomous the right is when disagreeing? I wonder why, is it possible that they can't handle the truth?

Actually, Houston...

I vastly prefer Larry O'Donnell to Keith Olbermann.

He's much smarter than Olbermann, less pompous and full of himself than Olbermann (although, he would almost have to be, wouldn't he?), and best of all, it's hard to picture him beating up on someone like poor Geraldine Ferraro.

I disagree with O'Donnell on virtually every matter of substance, but the bottom line is that Keith Olbermann is a vicious, venomous misanthrope.

There is simply no comparison between Lawrence O'Donnell and Keith Olbermann that can be made that is flattering to Olbermann.

And, before I forget:

Lawrence O'Donnell actually graduated from Harvard...not the agricultural branch of an Ivy League school.

I agree, Gingerbread Mamma. I'm not sure we're ever going to know the entire story and what we're hearing doesn't make sense but the bottom line is that a loud voice for truth has been silenced and that is never a good thing.

I hope Keith is able to find another forum to share his thoughts and opinions with those of us who are interested in them.

New owner. Keith was paid $7million a year, but delivered only about 1 million viewers. I wonder what Rachel, O'Donnell and Ed make? I'm sure, given the newness of Rachel and O'Donnell it is only a fraction of what Keith made, plus they had far less "sick out."

I just hope O'Donnell, Rachel and Ed can carry the load. Ed has a tendency to lose it sometimes, and last week O'Donnell shouted down a congressman (R). Hopefully Rachel will learn from Keith and have on people with differing points of view. I think we have all seen Eugene Robinson, Richard Wolfe, and Chris Hayes. Let's get some fresh perspectives.

What are your libbienuts going to do without your Olbermann? And why is it not possible for the left to have a top rated network? It seems that every attempt to build a Fox type network for the left ends in cancelations. No ratings? Not enough viewers?

It's not a ploy by the right to eliminate the left options as one person suggested. I ask because I am interested in learning more from the liberal side.

Mixed Bag:

There is simply no comparison between Lawrence O'Donnell and Keith Olbermann that can be made that is flattering to Olbermann.

They have very different personalities and backgrounds and their shows are very different. Olbermann's Countdown started out as mostly an entertainment show. But if there were no Olbermann, there would be no Lawrence O'Donnell show now. Olbermann paved the way. What started Olbermann as well as MSNBC on its current course was his first "Special Comment." You may regard that performance as one of his trademark tirades, but Olbermann was one of the first, if not THE first TV journalist who had the courage to denounce the abominable Donald Rumsfeld, Bush's incompetent Secretary of Defense, who finally was forced to dump.

safecracker

"What are your libbienuts going to do without your Olbermann?"

Put our brains in Neutral, and tune in to Hannity??

Well Driveby, I don't ever believe you will tune into Fox - I rarely do myself. I perfer to obtain my own information to make reasonable choices.

But it appears that many on the site believe he walked on water.

Goodbye Keith - I for one, will miss you. Your compassion for humanity - the free clinics that you helped support was an amazing feat. You don't see anything like that on Fox News - just want you to buy their gold.

Mixed Bag ~

And, before I forget:

Lawrence O'Donnell actually graduated from Harvard...not the agricultural branch of an Ivy League school.

LoL Good one, Bag Boy ... until I remember that George W. Bush also graduated from Harvard (business school).

It ain't where you learn, it's WHAT you learn.

Good Catch, Anna Molly:

for a brief moment there I thought MB was actually going to ENDORSE President Obama; I mean he was President of the Harvard Law Review. They just don't load that honor up in the vending machines for just ANYONE to purchase,...

But, you saw through the guise. Good on you!

And sad to say - the Steelers are going to win the Big Dance,...So Sayeth the Shepherd. ;)

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

This week we are hearing rumblings that the GOP was to re-write the Bankruptcy Laws to allow “Individual States” to file for Chapter 9. In modern times there has never been a State that declared bankruptcy, mostly because they cannot by law, so the GOP wants to change the law.

And these are the people who tout their Constitutional knowledge!!

A Dodo would know better.

I'm still tripping over the Healthcare repeal not going to committee. They are a bunch of bullies and hypocrites.

Excellent information US Navy. This subject is not being discussed much in the media and it is important for everyone to understand the consequences of states declaring bankruptcy.

I do not actually see this as a republican/ democrat issue- although I must point out that the governors who are calling for this are all democrats.

Nevertheless, I agree that allowing states to declare bankruptcy is a non- starter.

It is also unnecessary. Every single one of the states that are teetering on the brink are in that position because of giveaways to state worker unions. My state was no different. We closed our budget deficit with real spending cuts- and, this year, those union contracts are up. This time, the unions will be sitting across the table from someone whose idea of negotiating is not " how much can I give you". In just one example of Corzine's ineptitude at negotiating contracts, the state workers who plow snow were given bonuses for- plowing snow. This is in addition to the overtime they get for having to plow snow. They also got bonuses for working on their birthdays.

Somehow, I do not see Christie agreeing to those bonuses. I also see cuts in the state workforce.

The governors of New York, California, and Illinois should pay attention. They might learn something.

You say this is not a republican or democrat problem. That is true, there are about 40+ States that have a short fall in the area of 140 million. Some of the problems are of their own making, both Dem's and Rep's. It is incorrect to say that only the Dem's are looking at this since it is the GOP that is looking to re-write the law. Your argument make no sense that it is only the Dem's, since they are not the ones bringing this up, the GOP is unless you are saying the GOP wants to re-write the Bankruptcy Laws for the Democrats. You also did not mention States like Texas that have a major short fall. Why was that omitted???

Navy, you have been reading Krugman again. Talk to some of the people who lost their shirts after reading him- you will learn that he is a snake oil salesman who seldom knows what he is talking about.

As to Texas- they have a PROJECTED shortfall- that is, if they increase spending at a certain rate, there will not be enough projected revenue to cover the increased expenditures. There is a pretty simple way to fix that issue, wouldn't you say?

Moreover, Texas budgets on a two-year basis, rather than yearly. So, if they increase spending for two years, and revenues do not cover the projected increases, they will face a deficit.

This is a situation that occurs every two years in Texas. They somehow always manage to stay in the black. I would not spend too much time worrying about them.

Jody, Iowa

Good points, Beverly, Feisty Redhead and Drive-by.

Why does Eric Cantor think twisting and turning to appease his TP menions does anything except make him look foolish? Cantor knows President Obama was born in the U.S. but he's too much of a coward to say so

Thanks jody

Cantor is stupid. Do you remember that time he had printed out the healthcare bill? The President made him look really, really stupid.

Gregory is getting better I hope he keeps it up.

Thanks Steeler fan, I'm rooting for the Steelers.

@ no joe ~

The whole thing makes me happy I didn't move my 401(k) funds into "safe" state and municipal bonds.

We are totally screwed, indeed. But I don't think it's fair to blame state worker unions. The thing that's blowing holes in state budgets is health care costs, and not just for state workers. I know from experience that health care costs drive everything in contract negotiations, and health care is PRIVATE. Repeat PRIVATE. They're the ones who can't control themselves. It's PRIVATE SECTOR greed that's killing us. Public workers have long since traded off higher salaries for better benefits. Now folks like you want to renege on those deals and take back the benefits, too.

And doesn't that make you proud to be a right-winger, no joe? Doesn't that just make you proud?

Don't be surprised if your streets aren't plowed, and good people no longer go into professions like teaching and firefighting and police. Why the heck should they when they are called "bums" by Tea-partiers (I heard this myself on Tweety's show Friday) and demonized by the right? They've surely got better things to do than be laughed at by you.

Or wait, I forgot. The private sector isn't creating jobs, is it, despite record profits.

But if it's all so cushy, no joe, why aren't YOU plowing snow?

When I was a teacher, I used to ask people who criticized us that same question, including school board members with whom I negotiated. I never got one single answer to that question.

And I'll bet I won't now, either. Because you know better than that.

Which makes the rest of it just "blow," no joe.

The dire financial situations of the states is yet another consequence of the economic crash of 2008. To blame it on unions is misplacing the blame----the union costs aren't any different than they have been historically--it is the revenues of the states that are down due to the bad economy as well as the other expenses the states have that have risen--such as health care. I understand that the states have difficult choices to make but the bankruptcy option strikes me as a different form of union busting.

Good Morning Molly:

Congratulations to your Packers!! A well played football game.

That was one heck of a slap-down to No Jo. I bet she does not realize she was tangling with a real professional like yourself.

NAWO stands for "Not a worthy opponent." No Jo has passed no bar exam, written no dissertation, no orals, no PH.D. , nada. She is not a worthy opponent.

I am SO glad you brought up snow plowing. Give me a chance to tell the following:

The winter of 1995 was a real beaut here. Snow, snow, and more snow- and the plows would come, eventually. After one storm- three days after, in fact- I had no choice but to get in the Jeep, drive in the ruts left by my neighbors, and get out to the store.

My street is off a county road, which was plowed. When I got to the supermarket, whatnot my wondering eyes should appear, but the town plows- parked. I went in to the store, made my purchase, and went back to my car- to see the plows- still parked. The drivers of said plows were sitting in the coffee shop, where they had been since eight a.m.

Back home, I called the mayor's office, and informed him. It seems that our poor, put upon public works crew were cooling their heels all day, going out to plow after four- to maximize their overtime.

These are the same people who are supposed to collect leaves and brush in the fall. For years, my end of the township did not get collected until WEEKS after it was announced. So, not in November. Not in December. If we were lucky, and had no snow, maybe in January. If it snowed, sometime in April. Oh- did I mention that the township would have to pay DEP fines if the leaves were put more than a week? I should have.

The new mayor, who lives in this end of town, got tired of all the excuses. He reasoned that, if it was too much work for the town employees, the so,union was to hire an outside contractor. Public works was not happy, but he did it anyway. Seems there is nothing in their contract to stop him.

So, a private contractor was hired to collect leaves and brush in this end of town- and to p,ow the snow from our streets.

It cost LESS than the overtime paid to public works employees- and my street gets p,owed as soon as the snow stops.

Being a right winger has many benefits- les costly, and a plowed street. You should try it sometime.

Interesting point, but I have to disagree. Although not a state issue, the municipal pension costs here in San Diego are definately blowing a hole in the budget and this city would greatly benefit from a reorganization. 10 years ago the pension costs were 30 million. Now they are 250 million. In five years they will be over 500 million. It is unsustainable and the city workers are unwilling to renegotiate. So what do we do? Sales taxes have already been raised.

And I,m sorry but these city workers make as much and usually more than private sector, and they get the pension and other benefits that far outstrip anything in the private sector. A big story is the firefighters and police who retire at 55 at 100% salary, usually over $150,000, the get rehired at a different position or at a different municipality. Even the librarian was paid $250,000 and gets that for the rest of her life.

Navy,

New York City faced this back in the '70s and Gerald Ford bailed them out. Just immigration/amnesty and so many other things - kick the can - and look how much worse it is today.

Bankruptcy wipes out commitments made to public sector unions, the very entities that are bleeding state and municipal governments dry. It puts an end to political irresponsibility and political racketeering by the unions. In other words - it fixes the biggest problem along with all the other boondoggles.

It is asinine to pour money in to the pension pits of public employees retiring in their 50s to live for decades on pensions larger than the money they were making when they were actually working. Especially when WE ARE BROKE!

California has 700 billion in unfunded pensions?!!!! AND YOU MENTION TEXAS! (BTW - Seems I heard Texas did cut their spending to offset their little deficit.)

California is doomed, broke and hasn't created one new net job since 1998. Liberalism is a complete failure. Right in front of your eyes - but you are too blind to see.

Navy, I read your posting on the various states having financial issues, whether controlled by Repubs of Dems. I can't address other state crisis, but I do know that the California problem was and is caused by the Democrats who have had control over state government for some time. With the exception of the Regan years, the Dems have continued to create more government, more entitlements and more spending than the state can sustain.

Governor Moonbeam 2.0 wants to tax and cut to maintain a budget shortfall, but in his budget plans, some funding is derived by Fed bailouts. Ca should not resort to federal help and taxpayer dollars from other states. The current Spending Party placed the state into our financial crisis and should remove us from it.

I do see NJ coming out of their crisis with a consistent strategy. Perhaps other governors should emulate similar cost-reduction programs. and why not, it is done in the private sector daily; unique for those in the public sector or the military.

Another great piece of research, USN.

Anna Molly;
The two biggest expenses for States and Local governments are Health Care cost and Education which account for 50% of their budgets. Health Care Cost (Insurance) has been on record increases for the past 10 years (1999-2009) doubling and even triple the cost in some locals. Until meaningful legislation is implemented to curb this it will continue. President Obama is addressing this, in part under the HCR Law, but more can be done.

This is not a union issue, they do not control HC costs, Insurance Companies do. If they want to blame somebody that is the place to start. Part of this whole exercise by the GOP is to attack the unions and break them up or reduce their influence. This keeps with their agenda. If they cannot attack something at the Federal Level, like repealling the Department of Education, they will go after the next level which is the States and Localities. They will do this for every program that helps the middle class, creates jobs, promotes education, science, etc. That is what the GOP is after.

no jo

texas is 30 billion in debt and a right to work state and all republicans want to do is cut state workers and teachers and the middle class..Why not tax the rich so they will have a investment in their future employees...to pay for education police pardons and parole and probation officers and to keep our jails from filling up adding to that cost. texas jails are going to fill up without probation at the cost of 31 thousand per inmate a year. How will Texas save money?

I don't understand the resentment towards unions is it because they worked and sucessfully gained employment and learned skills to do the job? Most unions pay a living wage with the addition there spouses also working. cutting their pay isn't going to come close to paying off the debt.

In addition Bush also bailed out unions and the largest ones in the nation by giving no bid contracts to the largest unionized construction company in the world Haliburton.. The Airline Industry is another union that Bush bailed out. If anything people should want the same pay as unions and not strip pay from union who are the middle class of the country

No joe ~

Being a right winger has many benefits- les costly, and a plowed street. You should try it sometime.

Not in this lifetime, joe. By the way, did you check to see whether those plowers were actually city employees or contracted out private sector employees? It's kind of hard to tell, just by looking. Besides, are you trying to argue that there are no lazy workers in the private sector? Because the fact that there are is, in large measure, why I have a job.

But I thought that the reasonable folks in your own state had it all figured out. Or aren't you in charge of everything? Hmmph ... I'm surprised. You seem so highly qualified.

Bob ~

California is doomed, broke and hasn't created one new net job since 1998. Liberalism is a complete failure. Right in front of your eyes - but you are too blind to see.

The thing most in common between California's failure and the looming failure of the rest of the country is the PSEUDO-CONSERVATIVE policies of people like Ronald Reagan. Or are you too blind to see THAT?

Ron ~

That was one heck of a slap-down to No Jo. I bet she does not realize she was tangling with a real professional like yourself.

A real professional what? LoL But thanks for the kind words. And I promise to try to stay off the street corners. Because that's what those in my profession are often called.

As for no joe, so far I've found him or her to be a pretty good sport, anyway. ;-)

p.s. to Joe ~ I apologize for not reading your whole message before i responded. But let me add this -- in my own fair city we have both city crews and outside contracted crews. You can't tell the difference in snow removal. It's lousy everywhere.

I stand by what I said about private sector workers. People who are lazy will be lazy anywhere. People who aren't, won't.

By the way, in case you don't know, public sector workers, just like anyone else, can be disciplined, or even fired, if they're not doing their jobs. But that's not the union's job. That's the job of administrators. As I found out so starkly when I was teaching, it's easier for administrators to blame unions than it is for them to get up off their behinds and do their jobs.

And, I know from my own experience, that this is no more true in the public sector than it is in the private sector.

Navy, may I disagree with you on your comments about education and the teachers union. Again, I will refer to california, since I reside here.

I believe we do have issues with education, the number of agencies that attempt to regulate the educational process, and the unions who control education. We have a federal agency who dictates to the state level who dictates to the district level in all matters of the student. Large sums of funds are allocated to each agency to determine issues in the local district. by the time the revenues actually are realized locally, everyone else has had their hand into the pie. The State is overloaded with managers, the district staffs are overloaded with managers, and teachers are controlled by the union. Good teachers are layed off while the tenured are retained, whether their students are learning or not.

and in CA the union is an activative union, contributing much of the teachers funds to various issues relating to teacher salaries, teacher tenure retention, amoung others. The students are taught to pass the state-wide test so the state meets the Fed criteria for additional funding. CA, as you can determine from surveys, has a terrible record for educating the student.

Would a more efficient organization, void of the masses of management and departments state and Fed, help. Perhaps. Would we see student improvement if the lazy tenured educators were removed from their positions? Perhaps. would education improve if the local board was accountable for student education? Probably.

Is it possible to terminate an educator with tenure in Ca. Only if they are involved with sexual issues with the student. Union rules will maintain their position until retirement.

Anna Molly.

Reagan is reponsibile for Cailfornia being broke?

Wow - one of the dumbest responses I've ever seen.

You do realize that Reagan was governor 40 years ago, right?

safecracker

So are you telling me that Zuckerberg is going to donate another 100 Million to NJ NEXT year, too? To close the education cuts and gaps by Christie? I mean that is the kind of "Consistent Strategy" you're referring to, right?

Just trying to follow the lopheaded logic of those who don't fully engage.

Keeper Trout and Ana Molly, I couldn't say it better myself. I've posted about this state bankruptcy proposal and the GOP's general disregard for state employees and public servants.

I am not familiar with how New Jersey works but the supposed great leadership by the GOP governor has allowed Newark to cut their police officers by 20% in Nov. 2010 and Camden is proposing to cut 1/2 of their police force.

Here in Texas state employees are up against cuts. State funding to municipalities and school districts are on the table as well. The state gains it revenue up to 85% solely from sales tax. Why not increase sales tax rates in lieu of cutting state and public jobs? Not an economist, but with no state income tax, Texas revenues will be doubly hurt due to the recession as more people have less and less to buy, causing more unemployment will only exacerbate the problem.

Clara KCMO

did the Zuckman actually provide funding for NJ? And for what length of years? i doubt he will live up to his initial bargin. But, it is a good tax write-off.

Whenever there is a discussion about reducing local or state governments, why are public services always the first to be threatened to be reduced? Because it will create the most public outcry? I can see retaining police/fire, but reduce other areas of gov. not critical to services while also re-negotiating with the various unions. They do drain public tax dollars.

It's true enough:

http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-donates-100-million-newark-public-schools-2010-9

Regardless of where the cuts are proposed, the polarization of corporate versus individual welfare will remain.

PS. I don't know the terms of the Zuckman's generosity; but my point is that private donations can't save the budget cuts NATIONALLY. Regardless of what the governors wish were true.

I'm just curious but when do all these benefits for the middle class start kicking in? I am not wealthy and I'm always amazed by the amount of tax that is taken out of my paycheck. I have 3 kids and with 2 coming up for college and I doubt I'll qualify for financial aid. So where does the money go? I pay property taxes to collect the trash, but apart from that what am I getting for the money? Schools?

www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/01/gov_christie_releases_study_sh.html

There were figures quoted yesterday in the Star Ledger, not a right-wing papaer by any means, that school districts were spending $17,000 - $21,000 per student. Are test scores going through the roof and nobody told me? I pay around 8% in state tax and 25% in federal. I don't know what you want to consider SS and medicare. But where is the money going and who are getting all the benefits because they're not flowing to this middle class citizen.

So you are saying that cutting funding to the levels of two years ago will " gut" these programs?

Good luck with that line. You will find few who will agree with you.

Most of this bloat is a result of Obama's incredible spending spree. What, exactly, do we have to show for it? The answer is not much.

We get rhetoric that " it could have been worse", with absolutely no proof for that conjecture. There is, however, some evidence of the damage done to the economy by bit the Bush and Obama stimulous spending, provided by a pair of economists from Stanford University

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/where-did-the-stimulus-go--15610

The threat to our bond rating as a result of this spending cannot be ignored. Now that the tax rates are stable for at least two years, it is time to cut the spending- deeply. These must be real cuts, not cuts in the rate of increase.

Obama is going to call for increased spending in his SOTU- using the cute little code word investment- which means he is calling for doing more of the same.

If he is allowed to continue down this path, we will all be bankrupt. The electorate voted to put a brake on his spending. The congress must follow the will of the electorate- cut the spending, and get the government out of the way of economic recovery.

Alan,NJ: So where does the money go?

Where does it go? Who are getting the benefits? The Baby Boomers are just starting to draw down on Social Security, and it's only going to get to be more of a burden on that program over the next 30 years. There are also the federal and state government workers pensions, the ones where they retire with a full pension after 20-25 years of service and they don't pay one thin dime for their benefits and health care. And there is not enough money in those funds to cover those retirees, so the government will be coming to you, the taxpayer, for more of your dollars to support those folks. And of course 47% of the wage earners pay no federal tax, so they too need to be supported for the services they receive, but pay nothing for.

On a daily basis we see the people that defend the welfare state, many them on these very blogs. They defend their right to a living, without having to work for it. We see the number of people that support that welfare state dwindling and the number of people that access the welfare state growing. This is not a sustainable situation, but yet the Liberals keep fighting for more and more of the taxpayer dollar for themselves without them contributing anything to support the welfare state. And that is what the Liberals call: Social Justice.

More terrific information. The GOPTP ran on creating jobs but in their anti-government zealousness, they ignore the jobs of the public sector who protect us from criminals, fires and terrorists both foreign and homegrown. I saw a report where the GOPTPs plan will eliminate 4000 FBI, 1500 DEA, 5700 correctional, 3000 food safety workers. It is simply irresponsible.

Hi Jody

I always love when the reponse is to quote all the jobs that will be lost in the public sector. I don't know if you noticed but there has been a huge loss of jobs in the private sector, which pays for the public. Do you believe that the public sector should be immune to job losses? If so, how do we pay to maintain the level of public services as the amount of revenue available falls? I don't know if you saw the story from Camdem NJ where they are laying off almost half the cops. They tried to reach a deal where they would reduce the wages and benefits and keep the almost all the cops. The union refused and even refused to forego wage increases. Tell me how do we pay for all this?

no joe, no bo, nj

Obama is going to call for increased spending in his SOTU- using the cute little code word investment- which means he is calling for doing more of the same.

Why not use the code word investment, the republicans used that word when giving tax cuts, but the word they use Jobs. to then tax cuts means jobs, and to the president investment means spending, to me No jo its the same thing, tax cuts (jobs) and investment (spending) is the same thing. Both will add to our deficts right.

Now the problem you have admitted will be a concern and that is once these cuts hit the street, the bonding agencies will lower rating because of the huge Budget short falls the local communties are going to have. Its a lesser of 2 evils either you cut and risk your bond ratings, which is very important to local citys, or don't cut spending and raise tax. i don't know what the answer is No Jo.

I saw a real interesting story in the chicago suntimes about the tax increase and the noise, govenors from indiana, wisconson are making about getting business from illinois because of the tax increase.

SPRINGFIELD – Wisconsin and Indiana’s GOP governors have seized on Gov. Quinn’s big tax hike, but the higher income taxes Illinois companies and residents now pay are actually lower in some cases than in surrounding states.

In Wisconsin, where Gov. Scott Walker has launched a PR blitz aimed at wooing Illinois companies, most residents pay more in income taxes than in Illinois, and Wisconsin’s base corporate income tax rate is higher than the base rate here.

And in Indiana, while the individual income tax rate of 3.4 percent is lower than Illinois’ rate, it’s offset by income taxes of up to 3.1 percentage points levied by counties throughout the state.

Even after the tax hike here, a resident of Chicago still pays less income tax on a percentage basis – 5 percent — than his or her counterpart in Indianapolis, whose income is taxed at 5.15 percent.

Based partly on these factors, one leading Illinois economist said efforts by Indiana and Wisconsin to cash in on Illinois’ income-tax hike won’t trigger a corporate rush across the borders, though a few small businesses might opt to pull up stakes and move.

“I don’t think a doomsday scenario is right,” said Daniel McMillen, an economist at the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois.

Illinois’ new corporate income tax rate stands at 7 percent compared to 8.5 percent in Indiana, 7.9 percent in Wisconsin and 6.25 percent in Missouri. Iowa’s rate ranges between 6 percent and 12 percent depending on a company’s taxable income.

As a result, Quinn’s administration contends that Illinois’ corporate rate is lower than many of its neighbors. But business groups and leaders from surrounding states note Illinois’ 2.5 percent personal property tax replacement tax – which, like the income tax, is assessed on corporate revenues but divvied up among local governments – puts the overall corporate income tax rate in Illinois at 9.5 percent, higher than its neighbors.

Nonetheless, McMillen said Illinois has comparable wages to its neighbors, a skilled labor force and adequate public services — all factors that could influence businesses to stay put or locate here despite the increases. Plus, Chicago remains a marquee location.

“It’s the most attractive place in the Midwest,” he said of the city.

As you see and i have said for months, Illinois can get out of this mess by this tax increase, even with this increase some of our corporate and income taxs is still lower than our neighbors. this mess we are in is not common, No Jo for years we had a nice balance between springfield and chicago, our governors were responsible republicans who knew who to control spending as well as tax, untill Former Govner Ryan and Blago ruined the last 30 years.

Governor Quinn is no dummy, as you see the increase is still lower than our neighbors and that was not a fluke.

Jody, Iowa

More terrific information. The GOPTP ran on creating jobs but in their anti-government zealousness, they ignore the jobs of the public sector who protect us from criminals, fires and terrorists both foreign and homegrown. I saw a report where the GOPTPs plan will eliminate 4000 FBI, 1500 DEA, 5700 correctional, 3000 food safety workers. It is simply irresponsible.

when Crime spikes, More Afgan herion hits our streets and the Boarder agents are being overwelmed the people who pushed for thse cuts wil blame those dam Liberals.

Jeff, there is no question that Chicago is still a big draw, and if Quinn was smart enough to increase taxes but still keep the rates below that of neighboring states, he made a good move.

Unfortunately, from what I am reading, this tax increase will only solve your state's problem for one year. What then?

In my state, we are in a situation with the union wages, bonuses, and pensions that in the near future, people working in this state will be working solely to support the unions. It is unsustainable.

In a real, laugh out loud development, the state assembly approved a measure that would require NEW public employees to live in state. Sounds reasonable, right? Pennsylvania requires it, New York requires it- so, why not New Jersey?

The unions are hopping mad over it. They complain that the state is too expensive to live in, given the high taxes. Taxes that, by the way, pay their salaries, bonuses, health care, and pensions.

We are losing two congressional seats, due to dropping populations. In a couple of years, my husband and I will also be ex- residents. It is a shame, because the state has so much to offer- but the cost of supporting these people is far too high.

JoAnnaSmith1

Alan,NJ: So where does the money go?

Where does it go? Who are getting the benefits? The Baby Boomers are just starting to draw down on Social Security, and it's only going to get to be more of a burden on that program over the next 30 years. There are also the federal and state government workers pensions, the ones where they retire with a full pension after 20-25 years of service and they don't pay one thin dime for their benefits and health care.

I was agreeing with you untill the statement about State workers and their pensions, you said they pay nothing for thier benifets, this is not true at least in Illinois, i have friends who work for state and cook county and they pay alot for health ins and they pay into their pensions, Joanna Pension are in trouble, in Illinois its because our former Governor Blago got the bright Idea to Borrow against it instead of a 1% tax increase.

Now this is My problem with pensions, my Uncle is a retired chicago policemen, he got on the force when he was 23, did 30 years and retired at 53, his Pension when he retired was the same as his last year on the force almost 60k per year and only paid a fraction of that in to his pension. that the problem.

The House Republican Study Committee (RSC) has released last week their new proposal for cutting non-defense discretionary spending to 2006 levels and freezing them there for the next decade (2012-2021).

They are going back farther than two years and a 42% reduction will make many programs unable to function, provide services at a meaningful level, and they will wither and die. If I took 42% out of your pocket what would the result be??

Jody -

Let's eliminate Politicians instead, we will save billions.

So Jody/Navy,

What do you think we should do? You complain that there shouldn't be cuts, but who should pay for the increases? The rich? Tax them a little more. Do either of you believe that cutting waste, and parts of the budget could help.

I know we have argued in the past Jody about a flat tax, but when you run the numbers at the lowest level in the tax brackets established in 2009--the federal government would have brought in over $15 billion dollars more if we had a 17% income tax, and no deductions.

Why can't the progressives see that they would have more money to spend or pay off the debt by going to something like that?

Why should we be spending more revenue in the State Department--2010 budget increase of 41%--more revenue in the Commerce Department--2010 budget increase of 48%--more revenue in the EPA--35% increase according to the 2010 budget.

The only places to receive cuts--Health & human Services--2% decrease, Dept of Energy--.4% decrease, Dept of Justice--largest single cut of 6.3%, and the Corp of Engineers--the one place that people can see work done, get another 3.8% cut.

But we still have an average increase in the 2010 budget of 21.84%, 30.58% increase in mandatory spending, and 13.1% increase in discretionary spending.

Yet we have fewer taxpayers, with our 47% that don't pay, and 10% of the people unemployed, but we still spend.

Navy, why businesses don't have to decrease their budgets by 40%, because most well run businesses don't allow themselves to overspend by 20% each year. They never find themselves in situations where they have to cut so much at one time.

no joe, no bo, nj

In my state, we are in a situation with the union wages, bonuses, and pensions that in the near future, people working in this state will be working solely to support the unions. It is unsustainable.

In a real, laugh out loud development, the state assembly approved a measure that would require NEW public employees to live in state. Sounds reasonable, right? Pennsylvania requires it, New York requires it- so, why not New Jersey?

The unions are hopping mad over it. They complain that the state is too expensive to live in, given the high taxes. Taxes that, by the way, pay their salaries, bonuses, health care, and pensions.

No Jo making state, city employees to live where they work has been the rule in Illinois forever. i passed on the Chicago police department because i did not want to have to live in Chicago with school age kids, my cousin is a firemen and the problems he and his wife go through with getting their kids in the right school, make it not worth it to me.

Please educate me, your state employees get bonuses ?

State employees and thier unions are giving skilled unions a real bad name all over, No Jo i work now for a non union company, and believe me, the labor rates this company has that i figure job using is twice the labor as a union shop in chicago, (in chicago i figures installing a simple sink in 1.5 hours, in Denver i figure 3.0 hours) the wage rate in denver is half as it is in chicago but this non union company labor rate in twice as much. so what i'm saying is, if non union is so much better and cheaper then why can't then make union labor rates.

No Jo i hope you stick it out in New Jersey, 25 years ago when chicago was going through a crack cocaine war, i moved out of the city but close enough to so when the war was over i moved back, (Evanstion IL.) so if you and your husband can find a place just right in jersey, you owe it to your selves to try.

The lengths the right goes to find a point of contention. Of course, I'm aware of the private sector jobs lost beginning in Dec 2007 while Bush was in charge. It should be obvious to anyone who ever took an economics class that draconian spending cuts in the public sector while the economy is still recovering is not the answer but will exacerbate the problem--those unemployed public workers won't be buying much from the private sector. Private and public work together to create a strong economy and a civil society.

But Jody,

Where do you cut and where do you tax? When you overspend, don't you have to pay the bills or do you file for bankruptcy?

I have never meet anyone that spent their way out of debt? Have you. We need to be coming up with ideas that help our representatives.

I agree with Jody and others on this.

Nobody is saying that we do not need spending cuts. We all know we do. We also need more revenue as well. One is no good without the other. I would go after the waste in the Federal System and get rid of those programs that have outlived their usefulness. Get rid of the redundantcy, we can do the same job with less, too many chiefs running around all doing the same thing. I would go after the fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid. I would go after the DOD and get rid of the waste there like two engines for fighter, a tank/boat that does not worand a bevy of other waste (as long as it in no way puts our soliders at risk) There are a lot of programs that the military does not even want but the politicians got funding for their corporate sugar daddy's anyway. I would not go after education, science, security, etc until a last resort, not a first like the GOP wants to do.

There are a lot of things we can improve on (reduce our spending), but we still need to increase our revenues as well.

USNAVY is right in this case. We SHOULD go after all of the 'fringe' and make the budget as lean as possible. That is the responsible thing to do. US NAVY is also correct in the fact that cutting ALONE - as the GOPers and the Tea Partyers want to do - will NOT help America in the manner they think.

Think if it this way - you have $100,000 in Credit card debt. You have a decent job, paying good money. How do you get out from the DEFICIT that was created by the credit cards?

Most of us would cut what we don't need (eating out, movies out) and make do with what we do have. We DON'T STOP SEPNDING because we CANNOT STOP SPENDING. We need the money to pay for rent/mortgages, food, transportation costs. You know - LIVING expenses.

What makes you think that our country - America - doesn't have LIVING expenses that need to be paid?

The other thing that most of us would do is get a 2nd or 3rd job. This is analagous to RAISING REVENUES. To clean up the credit card debt, you would work those 2-3 jobs, SIMULTANEOUSLY paying off the deficit with the EXTRA REVENUE that the jobs provide, but at the same time you are still maintaining your household and you are STILL SPENDING to do so.

If we simultaneously raise revenues and cut out what is unneeded in our household budgets to rein in our deficts (credit card debt), why on earth would we JUST 'cut the budget' of our Country, as many fiscal conservatives are touting? We cannot just 'stop spending' because the United States would cease to exist if we did (and with all of the varied interests, that would NEVER happen).

BALANCE is what we need - raising revenues and cutting the waste, just as you would do in your own household budget. To eliminate the deficit, we will need to keep those revenues raised - making more than we spend - for a period of time until there is no deficit.

You CANNOT do one without the other.

I would agree with you Pietro but what do you do when government, Administration and both houses of congress agree to a tax cut that basically borrows another $3,000 for every person in the country.

[ The other thing that most of us would do is get a 2nd or 3rd job. This is analagous to RAISING REVENUES. ]

But that's not how the government will be doing the cuts/revenues. With cuts, the government will in fact be providing less services. In addition, taxes will increase, so the taxpayer, the customer in this case, will be paying more for less. Your analogy breaks down because what your saying is the government will work harder and produce more services it can "sell", but that isn't the case.

And as far as cuts go, $1.5 trillion needs to be cut off the federal budget. May I suggest you look at the Debt Commission Report for some answers on how to do so.

And just like the person with the $100,000 in credit card debt, the country doesn't have a taxing problem, it has a spending problem. And it's time it stops.

I wonder who originated the line "we don't have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem"? Frank Luntz, I'd imagine from the volume of folks who wander through here and chant it like some kind of magic spell. Just like that the necessity to have sufficient revenue to cover funding commitments vanishes into thin air, like it never existed at all. There's never even a thought to acknowledge that revenue AND spending make a budget.

Cue someone to pass by and comment "you Libs won't be happy until the government has ALL the money" in 10, 9, 8, 7...

Navy,

Agreeable position.

I don't have a problem with raising more revenue. I think that the tax code should be reconstructed, eliminating deductions from it and using a flat tax rate for all income taxes. Even the corporate world would need this also.

I have stated, that at 17% using 2009 numbers, the federal government would have brought in more than $15 billion dollars more in income tax revenue. That was also using the lowest dollar amount in each tax bracket.

cuts and revenue will reduce the debt. But you have to start somewhere.

Big Bear;

Agreed. We do need to do something and soon. Getting rid of all the fat, waste and fraud (no matter where it is Feds, Medicare/Medicaid, DOD etc) is a good start as long as it is done honestly and we do not get I will cut yours but you cannot cut mine attitude. See where that takes us and move on down the list. They can do it (democrats and republicans) if they have a mind to. Question is do they have a mind to work together and just do it. Kinda like the old there is safety in numbers arguement. Both parties working together sharing in the glory and the not so glory.

John B: I wonder who originated the line "we don't have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem"?

Obama's Debt Commision. They may have not said it directly, but they did recommend a cuts to tax increase ratio of 3:1. Sure looks like they think there is spending problem.

I hope this helps you.

Thanks, BB. Not everyone insists the budget can be balanced with magic spells.

The ones who do are certainly stubborn about it, though.

I would agree with you Pietro but what do you do when government, Administration and both houses of congress agree to a tax cut that basically borrows another $3,000 for every person in the country.

Alan - therein lies our problem. The American people are more than willing to vote in people who are not into solving America's problems, but are willing to kick the can down the road and across the street. Out of sight - out of mind, correct?

If Americans are willing to allow this to continue to happen, why would we expect that there would be any changes?

Cut waste, yes. But it is time for everyone to get off the tax cut bandwagon and recognize we cannot have a strong country, strong states, safe streets or anything else if no one wants to pay for it. I would also remind those on here complaining about President Obama's spending during a time of crisis (which every president republican and democrat has done) that IF the GOP had been fiscally responsible from 2001 through 2008, IF they had been responsible during the Reagan years, then increased government spending to infuse dollars into the collapsing economy could have been done without a wimper from anyone. You see, deficits do matter but they matter most during the good years; failure to pay down the debt during good times and instead increase it brings us to 2008 and what we face today.

IR:

I hope they all go to jail for a very long time. This is what happens when you reduce regulations and oversight and let these businesses police themselves. People die just like they did here and the Oil Spill in the gulf all in the name of the almighty dollar.

Boys, boys, boys- ain't you been listening? Regulations cut into the PROFITS! And that just has to be plain old, common, SOCIALISM!

Good morning Independent Redneck Va.

Feds cite broken equipment in deadly W.Va. mine blast

Separate criminal investigation continues into accident that killed 29

I hope Massey and Mr. Blankenship don't think this is violent rhetoric.

http://warisacrime.org/sites/afterdowningstreet.org/files/images/Blankenship%20Wanted%20Poster%2004212010.jpg

Well done, IR. OSHA regulations allow criminal prosecution when there is evidence of willful, intention neglect--the report clearly shows there was willful neglect.

I wonder if Rep. Issa will put these regulations on his list of investigations?

Maybe he will start up his own network. Sorry ya gonna miss him, I personally couldn't watch him. As for losing his parents, many of us have lost ours in a similar time frame, but do not use it as an excuse for anything. We just grieve and keep going. My condolences on the loss of his parents. I know how much it hurts.

recyclecongress. Thank you for being nice. I did not say that was the reason. Since you did not watch: because of his father's long illness, Keith used his show to bring national attention to the dire health care situation for those who cannot afford it; his efforts raised more than $2 million dollars for Free Clinics.

Jody, what a lovely post. You have a lot of company in grieving the loss of Olbermann at MSNBC. Someone has suggested that maybe Jon Stewart could take his place - but no, there is only one Keith.

As you, I felt horrified and betrayed by the Bush/Cheney drive to war in Iraq. When Kieth one night delived a special commentary saying President Bush lied, it was a magical, transforming moment. To me it was the equivalent of the 1968 Walter Cronkite broadcast denouncing the Vietnam War.

Let's hope Kieth finds another platform from which to deliver his trenchant observations.

And as an aside, isn't it a tad brrr in Iowa today?

Thank you, John A. I agree, there's only one Keith. Yes it is brrrr with snow showers in Iowa but not as bad today as over the weekend.

Jody thanks for your reply......I know that we do not see eye to eye on politics, but I must say that it is nice to be able to have a civil conversation about this. I do know that he held several health care clinics and I do admire him for doing so, but, I as a health care worker, also know that people are not dying on the streets due to lack of health care. Hospitals cannot turn a patient away, there are also many free clinics, there are parenthood clinics where free birthcontrol may be obtained, in my state there is a kids health insurance program. I'm just saying that things are not as bleak as some may think. And on the other hand, we do not give doctors enough credit....they work their posteriors off, especially when they take call, and remember everyone does not have insurance, so basically its a freebie from the doctor, because he must attend that patient, even in the middle of the night, and many times just because two or more thugs wanted to fight, shoot or stab. Just a glimpse of the other side of the coin that many need to see.

Although many on the left will miss him, I still believe that he was a better sportscaster than social journalist.

Jody---you voiced my thoughts. It is sad to see a liberal voice silenced for any reason let alone someone who used his platform to do a lot of good, such as the free care clinics and other charitable causes he supported. I think it takes courage to speak out against the establishment like Keith did and I hope he continues to speak out.

Stay warm!!

recyclecongress. Hospitals are required to treat emergencies but the free health clinics deal with diagnosing health problems; they helped those who have no insurance to find places where they could be treated for their illness.

Thanks, Steeler Fan. Congrats for the big win; I'll be cheering for the Steelers--maybe I shouldn't say that since I probably jinxed Da Bears.

What I will miss most about Countdown is the truth! We got the truth from Keith Olbermann even when it hurt our feelings. He was an unashamed progessive but had no problem calling progressives and liberals out when they were hypocrites, including President Obama.

What a great intellect and presenter of facts.

Lawrence and Rachel will continue to provide well-researched subject matter but neither of them have Keith's sense of humor which was wonderful.

Hope to hear and/or see him soon in another venue.

Perhaps he could start a Countdown Blog!

recyclecongress

recyclecongress

How many times has Obama promised that he was going to concentrate on creating jobs,

More than the republicans!!!

The fact is, his agenda was much more important than jobs.....the things we needed the most. So should we believe him this time???

Only if you negate that homes and a lives were lost.

September 11, 2010

According to AARP, approximately 1.85 million Americans go bankrupt due to medical bills every year.

From a CNN article:
"This year, an estimated 1.5 million Americans will declare bankruptcy. Many people may chalk up that misfortune to overspending or a lavish lifestyle, but a new study suggests that more than 60 percent of people who go bankrupt are actually capsized by medical bills.

Read more: How many Americans go bankrupt due to medical purposes per year? « Bankruptcy

How many times will republicans allow people to lose their livelihoods with their efforts to increase this statistics?

Better yet, how many republican businesses are sitting on 1.2 trillion dollars and have not created a job yet?

Just asking...

President Obama has concentrated on jobs from the beginning. It isn't his fault the media ignored his efforts and focused on the right's spin against all things job-creating. What exactly did republicans do the past two years to "help" fix the economy? No, no, no, no, too much money, no, no.

Bev;

And how many times have the GOP blocked or opposed bills that created jobs. Like the infrastructure bill they vowed to kill out of the gate? Tax Cuts to Small Businesses, etc. It is pretty hard to get jobs created when one party does not want to help an in fact does what they can to stop the other. But even under that toxic environment President Obama has created jobs in the private sector for 12 straight months. I saw a report today that 71% of the business have exceeded sales and profit estimates. Not bad for a President that has mis- labeled as anti business. Many of the major corporations are sitting on trillions in cash.

How many jobs will republicans create when they slash spending causing layoffs, firings, and increasing unemployment? Even right leaning economists know that massive spending cuts while the economy is in recovery is not effective. Plan for future cuts, yes, establish a plan to be implemented when things are better but draconian cuts now will have a negative impact on the economy.

Jody, Iowa

How many jobs will republicans create when they slash spending causing layoffs, firings, and increasing unemployment

The answer is none. They had their tax cuts before and after the lame duck and they still haven't created jobs.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Bev;

And how many times have the GOP blocked or opposed bills that created jobs.

Since before Obama raised his hand to swear in to be President.

Exactly. Guess the GOPTP figures we should spend it on the military industrial complex.

Jody is correct

GOP short answer = MILITARY

The top 5 countries’ military spending (as a % of all military spending) are: US 41.5%, China 5.8%, France 4.5%, UK 4.5%, and Russia 4%.

The next 10 combined = 21.1%.

The rest of the world combined = 18.6%.

*203 countries world wide

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

Additionally we have 700 military bases in 135 countries.

We have over 300 embassies around the world? Why? At what cost?

There are 8 in France alone. France is about the size of Texas, so why 8?

The new embassy in Bagdad was built at a cost of $1.5 billion. It is the largest embassy in the world comprised of 21 buildings on 104 acres.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_the_United_States_in_Baghdad

The military is 23% of the US budget while in Germany it is 9%, UK is 6%.

Dennis

I agree with most of what you posted, but in the interest of clarity...there is one U.S. Embassy in France and 8 consulates (consular offices) around the country which are there to serve the needs of Americans traveling in France.

Embassies around the world are critical to diplomacy and the movement and protection of American citizens around the world.

The military presence at emabassies is really quite small in most cases, a few marine guards.

Thanks for the info

The government should be using tax dollars for defense, (both civil and military), the courts, ( both civil and criminal), and that is it.

Itmis up to states and municipalities to fund education. All those dollars that flow to D.C. Have led to a decline in education. Unfortunately, in Washington, failure leads to increased spending, not a recognition that you have failed, so shut it down.

Infrastructure? You mean like all those billions wasted on non- existent shovel ready jobs? Or propping failed entities?

Let's look at Amtrac, as an example. They have two successful lines- the Acela to Boston and to D.C. from New York, simply because it takes as long to get there by train as by plane, minus the hassle of the airport.

They lose money on every other line- to Montreal, to Florida- all of them. It is faster and cheaper to get to those locations by plane. So, why are they still running those lines?

Tax dollars.

Why on earth taxpayers should fund failed businesses is something only a liberal could possibly understand. It really comes down to "we have always done it, so we must always do it".

Shovel Ready ~ Construction jobs where all the engineering is finalized and all the environmental work completed where all that remains is contract biding before hiring is started.

This cuts out about 6 to 24 months out of the lead-time to start hiring.

So they were not technically “shovel ready” but they did get people hired quicker than “new projects”.

In other words, the Government should not have created NASA to take us to the moon and explore the universe. Ideological rigidy causes narrow-minded thinking because government investment in research and technology because private companies do not have the resources to do so has led to the advancement we now take for granted in the private sector.

Jody,

Do you really think that we have been on the Moon?:)

Are you high? How did Carter cause the housing bubble? Are you insane? Do you know that the so called housing mess being blamed on Clinton is disingenuous since, and I think you are talking about this, the repeal of Glass-Steele came about with overwhelming bi-partisianship support, as 96 senators voted for it [the remaining that voted against it were evenly divided between republicans and democrats]. Obama being the most devisive president? You gotta be kidding! Bush has that label, and well deserved. And, I see you glossed over senile Reagan, who, at this point in his presidency, had lower approval ratings and was being cast off as a one-termer. I suggest you check yourself in to the nearest mental hospital, and get a head x-ray to see if you haven't lost all your marbles...if not, pick them up, and go home, and don't play here anymore!

Carter implemented the CRA. Community Rejuvination Act. That started the ball rolling as far as making housing affordable to anyone. Even those who could not afford it. Clinton enhanced that act twice. Frank and Dodd are the ones who swore that both Fannie and Freddie were on solid ground and threatened to sue if financial institutes if they did not make the sub-prime loans. No one really knows (at least none of us) how far along Regans senility was at this point of his presidency. Poll numbers as you should be aware are meaningless. It depends on who conducts the poll and whom is polled. Certainly Bush was divisive specifically if you were for or against the war or the tax breaks. If we base the level of divisiveness on the amount of hatefull rhetoric coming from both sides theen Obama wins hands down.

Jim, I suggest you do some fact checking of what you've been told. You should realize that not everything people say is fact, especially if it comes from FOX cable. Jimmy Carter hasn't been president since 1980. You might try looking at what Ronald Reagan did to begin the process of deregulation in banks, remember the Savings & Loan crisis occurred not long after one of his changes. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac did not cause the housing bubble, did not cause people to buy homes they could not afford. Real estate agents and banks pushed sub-prime loans to those who obviously did not qualify and they knew it; and then those same banks passed those loans off to others who had no knowledge of anything beyond buying paper for profit.

Amy,

I think we still make stuff in this country, but it cost about 100% more than those items made overseas. Our country's labor cost have hurt our ability to compete, unless we start using tariffs on imports to increase the cost of imported products.

But then again, we have unions in this country that would rather not work, than take a pay cut to keep their jobs. But we'll continue to spend taxpayer money to support a facility that repairs and refurbishes humvees. That is our money being used to support that plant. Instead of just relying upon the government money, they should have been getting private industry contracts this whole time.

Government money will run out, especially if they keep spending beyond their means. Maybe Obama should talk about balancing a budget?

"Our country's labor cost have hurt our ability to compete"...what a chilling statement! This is the Republican mantra in a nutshell: American workers should live in rented trailers, forgoing decent clothing, vacations, healthcare, and educations so that hedge fund managers can get wealthier and wealthier and wealthier.

Well, I don't agree. When unions are strong in an industry, the local economy benefits because better paid workers buy more goods, pay their bills and contribute more to public education. The plant in Limestone did a good job refurbishing Humvees, and those skilled workers are as much a national resource as oil, gas and minerals are.

Hey Big Bear,

You and I have gone over the US Budget from 2002 through 2010. Although we both can agree on making come cuts to that budget (namenly defence, to the tune of at LEAST $400 Billion), the other glaring item that I pointed out was that the country's REVENUES were out of balance.

For the 2010 budget, we saw that revenues from taxpayers were a $1.2 Trillion. We also saw that the revenue from Corporate America was approximately $400 Billion. (reference: Wikipedia, US Budget, 2010)

For the budget to at least balance, the Corporate Revenue would have to be at the same level as the taxpayer revenue - at a MINIMUM. Because we have this shortfall in revenue, we will ALWAYS be adding to the Deficit, no matter how much you decide to cut from the rest of the budget.

My assessment is that not only do we have to cut expenditures, we have to simultaneously RAISE REVENUES just to balance the budget and not increase the deficit. To eliminate the deficit, we would have to overproduce - at least by 1.5X of what we are producing now - over a period of time consistently to eliminate the deficit.

So how can you continue with this mantra of the 'Government spending beyond its means' when we have identified that the REVENUES that government is bringing in is deficient?

What we are seeing ithis - the cost of running the United States is more than the REVENUES that we are getting to sustain it. Why only CUT expenditures to the point where it doesn't make sense when we should be looking at raising new revenue streams to offset some of those cuts?

I believe that is what President Obama is trying to get across to everyone. No only do we need to produce, we have to do it in abundance. Production in abundance is RAISING REVENUE.

You cannot have one without the other.

Wow. I am certainly glad that I am not your banker.

I guess when you overdraw your checking account because you have a REVENUE deficit, not a spending excess, he gets quite the headache listening to you fight the overdraft charge.

How many times, exactly, have you filed for bankruptcy? I ask because you do not sound to me like a person who feels any responsibility whatsoever for your own debt. Seems you blame those who lend to you, your employer for underpaying you, or " the rich" for not subsidizing you.

You have laid out, in one post, all that is wrong with the liberal attitude.

For that, I thank you. For what you have done to my country, I will never forgive you.

Pietro:
Touche'

You cannot live on spending cuts and tax cuts alone. You also need revenues to balance the equation. One is no good without the other. There is an old adage in business "You have to Spend Money to Make Money".

I have seen too many business that cut spending to the bone. Their Financials look better for awhile. Then they realize that cutting back on R&D, Advertising, Customer Support etc, has resulted in a decrease in customers, no growth, maybe still holding their own for now. As time marches on the competition woes away more customers, the competition down the street has a bigger and better widget than them. And the cycle continues until they close the doors.

Your analysis is right on.

And you, no joe, continue to display you have no idea about how to balance a ledger or even how to read one.

And you think it is my 'liberal attitude' that is at fault?

For the record, I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal in my ideaology. However, I am REALISTIC in my assessment(s) of what we are dealing with. You, on the other hand, are so entrenched in your hyperbole you cannot see the forest from the trees.

A word of advice for you no joe - when you are in a hole, shut up and let the people who know do the talking. You obviously don't know very much.

I analyse things for a living, so I do not see things in a stark 'black v. white' manner. There is usually are REASON why things are they way they are. The trick is to find the reason and FIX the problem. You are NOT helping with your hyperbole, so I guess you must be part of the problem.

I do not need - nor want - your forgiveness. Unfortunately, as an American I have to put up with you.

Pietro,

Heard it was cold in your part of the world this past weekend. We were in the mid 30s this weekend in the mountains.

I don't have a problem raising revenues. I think I have stated that often enough. I have a problem with the fairness of our tax codes.

As stated above, our revenues would be much higher if we went to a flat tax, with no deductions in our tax code. at a much lower rate. $15 billion dollars more at the lowest income per today's brackets. Corporations should have the same type of flat tax upon their income also.

I understand that we have to do both. But I also want to make sure that it is fair to everyone, not just a group of people being picked upon because they have succeeded in life, through hard work or inheritance.

And Amy,

According to you, they were only making money off the taxpayers backs. Why weren't their managers looking for privates sector people to get contracts from? Because it is easier to take the government money and charge them an outlandish price.

I have not ever said that those people didn't provide a great service, but their management should have been doing more to make sure that they could sustain their business if the government cut off its funds. Hopefully they will get their private sector contracts.

As for Republican mantra, I am neither republican or democrat, I always vote for the best person to represent my values. And from watching my relatives in their unionized worlds, I know from fact that they are way overpaid for the jobs that they do. They refuse to negotiate to keep their jobs and would prefer to be laid off. This maybe just an isolated case, but I don't think so.

Why buy an overpriced American made car when you can buy a better made vehicle from outside the US for about the same price? And most times that last longer.

Take the chevy Volt v the Prius--cost and rebates added, why spend another $8500 for a car that get about 29 miles more on battery than the other. Why is the Prius that much more? Not to cover the cost of the workers union is it?

Big bear - I can stipulate and agree that the tax code, in a word, SUCKS. We can thank DECADES of people 'patching' the problem and not solving it.

The tax code needs to be thrown out and rewritten so that it is clear what everyone owes. I am also sure that the accountants that make their living off of the convoluted tax code would/could use their expertise in other areas.

If we, as Americans, would not 'settle' for the status quo, we could be getting a LOT more out of our elected officials. Until we DEMAND better, this is what we get.

"According to you, they were only making money off the taxpayers backs"

Refurbishing Humvees is not "pork," it's a legitimate and necessary service that the factory in Limestone provided throughout the Iraq war. The article says the owners hope to get private industry contracts, but the recession has dampened that business.

Losing 152 jobs is a big deal in a depressed area like Aroostook County. My point was, that Republicans should know, when they are gleefully cutting spending, they are also cutting jobs. Of course, if the need for repairing Humvees has decreased, the government should cut back on spending in that area, but if they are cutting back just to say they are making cuts in spending, then shame on them. People losing their jobs has a ripple effect and the recovery could be jeapordized.

Good post, Pat. This is why the idea to have states be able to go bankrupt is so disturbing to me. You made a career choice based on the promise of certain benefits and it sounds like you kept your end of the bargain. So for NY or any other state to solve its fiscal woes by ending your pension just doesn't seem fair to me. If it costs more to run the state, the state should raise the revenue in whatever ways it can--not hurt people who have worked for it.

The fact remains Pat that the government obligations to the state and federal workers is growing at an exponential rate. Pension and benefit fund costs and outlays for those states are eating up more of the tax dollar to support people that are no longer working. The fact also remains that government workers, with their total compensation of salary and benefits are now exceeding those of the private sector. None of this is sustainable.

I never talked about eliminating a pension benefit, but now that you brought it up, that is something that occurs many times in the private sector, so with all the unpaid obligations the states have to their workers, just what do you suggest? Two choices, 1) Don't pay them 2) Increase tax revenue.

Well, not paying them would be to break the trust that was implicit in the original negotiation.

Thus illustrating that for some Conservatives money is more important than honesty.

What happens to the invisible hand of the free market once we've broken business ethics down to such a low level you can just assume you're being cheated with every transaction?

There really isn't much to hold up the economy then, is there?

John B: Well, not paying them would be to break the trust that was implicit in the original negotiation.

Yes it would. And it would probably go to court, and the workers would win, breach of contract. But what would happen next? If the state doesn't have the money, where does it get it?

John B: Thus illustrating that for some Conservatives money is more important than honesty.

Well, if money isn't that important to the Liberals, they won't mind if they don't get it, correct?

John B: What happens to the invisible hand of the free market once we've broken business ethics down to such a low level you can just assume you're being cheated with every transaction?

Don't know, but why don't you go ask the GM bondholders that Obama stiffed when he took over that company. I bet they'd have some feedback for you.

In most States and Locals, Pension Benefits are a contract and legal obligation that cannot be just changed or cancelled. Benefits like health care (insurance) are typically not guranateed and those may be negioted, modified or even cancelled. It has been reported that 14 States pay 100% of the premiums for retirees, another 14 States requires the retirees to pay 100% to stay on the State/Local Plan and the other 22 states are everwhere in between.

They claim that these benefits are 100% paid by the States is not true, nor is it true that Civil Servants do not pay into their insurance costs. Most certainly do pay into them.

Many States and Locals currently are changing the rules for Pensions. They are requiring longer vesting requirements, moving away from just using the last year of the 3 most highest salaried years to calculate the benefit. Some are going to 10 years or more. They are increasing the age to retirement to be more in line with SS.
There is very little if not nothing they can do with current employees under contract, but they are working on a new benefit structure for all new employees.
Many are looking at the issues as we speak.

Joanna - woman, please.

The Bondholders that President Obama stiffed? If it wasn't for the President, those bondholders would not have an investment. It is more like the incompetent Board of Directors - that were summarily fired - that were going to 'stiff' the bondholders.

You are right that those bondholders will have a word or two for the President - namely, 'THANK YOU'.

You're missing her point, Pietro. Investors are important people who mustn't be slighted. Weaseling out of obligations is only a misfortune to be brought upon ordinary people...like the average American worker.

Rick,

So what you are saying, is tax those that already pay a vast majority of the federal taxes in the United States. Invest--I mean spend more taxpayer money to rebuild America, and cut military spending.

I can agree with the last one, as long as our troops are not placed in harms way.

But why not cut the State Department and their 41% increase in the 2010 budget.

Why not cut the EPA and their 35% increase.

Why not cut medicare and its 18% increase

Why not cut the Commerce department and its 48% increase.

Why not allow our Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae people to pay for their own lawyers instead of using $160 million dollars of taxpayer funds?

Of course we could spend--I mean invest another $877 billion on those projects ready to place people in jobs:)

I wonder how long into Obama's speech some patriotic Republican will yell: "You're lying!!"

Everybody wanted cheaper goods, services and more credit. Guess what the check is due and your cheaper good and services was shopping and sending your money overseas. This is more of a failure of our generation in a whole. We wanted everything now and couldn't and wouldn't wait for tomorrow. I get sick of this whole rhetoric me first get out of my way plan because its a very large disease on the problem at hand both sides have done this.

Funny you say the President's plan won't work. His speech laying out his plan isn't until Wednesday...

I don't have to hear the speech to know what will be said by Obama, he will give a pep talk without any immediate plan to immediately reduce debt. Debt and expansion killed the Roman Empire just like debt and expansion is killing the U.S. Obama will not be able to control spending because the momentum of living on borrowed money is like trying to stop a speeding freight train, it takes a long time and if you try to stop it fast, it will de-rail and crash. Same for the states and for citizens who all spend more than they earn each day. This speeding freight train we call our economy can't stop living on debt without crashing. Obama's words tomorrow will not change anything.

What is the reason for postponement? Who requested the delay?

Without that you only have a story about an enforcement action from the Bush years that hasn't yet reached its conclusion.

Both Party's seem to be guilty of this. So much for the partys working together.

Question. MSNBC is supposed to be a more democratic news station. I just turned back on my cable.

I can get Fox News and CNN News as well as the History ect. MSNBC is in the higher tier above these that one has to pay more for such as History International, biography Channel, ect.. Why is that? I thought the democrats rallyed for the poor and middle class to make things affordable I can now see why people watch Fox News or CNN more. It is in their budget range.

Greg,

Removing President Obama might be an accomplishment for the Republicans, however the voters are not on the same page. This is 2011, the republicans hold the House. What happens in 2012 will be dependent on what is done in 2011. If the republicans are telling the american people we can do nothing until you vote out President Obama then I would encourage the Republicans to do a re-examination of their priority's, or in 2012 there will again be a switch in the majority of the house.

The blame game must end.

What's with the name-calling? It is evident that you don't like the current President or this administration.

I don't like the GOP/TP leadership nor it's policies, strategies or rhetoric. From my vantage point, it appears that they are using rhetoric and strategies to continue to divide this nation and to help to undermine our democratic form of government. On the other hand, I don't agree with everything that this President or this administration has done; however, I disagree with you that EVERYTHING that they have done has been to institute a socialist agenda!

Name-calling distracts us from looking at both parties and their policies as they would affect the individual and the nation as a whole. NO ONE PARTY HAS ALL THE ANSWERS and NO ONE PARTY IS ALWAYS RIGHT!