wow, talk about hard core radical views! Lots of hate in you man, instead of opinions throw out some facts to base your hate on.

I am not a liberal and the only thing I want from Gov is to get out of my life.

Also true though I never have attended a tea party rally but I never attended a KKK meeting either but I know they are radical haters too.

The one thing I have against the Tea Party is the "We are going to take our country back" stuff, it is not your country to take back. the country belongs to all Americans not a secondary Republican Party

Robert; you dont even have a coherent point to make about anything. face it obama is a failure; and many on the left are stuck on stupid trying to defend him

Robert; you have nothing to back up your chrge that the Tea Party are "radical haters"; that makes you a hypocrite and a hater yourself; engaging in slurs against people you dont know, with nothing but your hate-filled opinion as "evidence".

Wow, Alan W, do you feel better? Getting all that hatred out must be a relief.

rob

I was replying to Alan W, which if you read his post you could replace Tea Party with Liberals in your statement and realize there does not seem to be a difference.

you have nothing to back up your chrge that the Tea Party are "radical haters"; that makes you a hypocrite and a hater yourself; engaging in slurs against people you dont know, with nothing but your hate-filled opinion as "evidence".

again; no substance; you made a charge you cant back up.

Great lesson in irony;

Olberman was the most manical TV personality I have ever seen. I was shocked to see Keith desparately search for more and more offensive phrases , insults and slurs to eject from his Radical Left Wing Mouth,, and he wound up where he deserved.

Ed Smith follows the Tradition. Rachel Maddow is a dyke and an embarrasment. Chris Mathews used to be a decent man, but has gone completely to the Dark Side... Read the Polls,, no ratings for MSNBC ,, know why ? Too slanted and not based on anything but Liberalism at its very worst !

Turn into Fox for the news .

I an relishing watching all the swill, hatred and venom pour out of the Liberals mouths on here :-) You Libs are doing an excellent job of mouthing Obama's lies and demogogury,,, and are mindless puppets.

Why don't we let President Obama speak for himself, rob?

From our first days as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and free enterprise as the engine of America's wealth and prosperity. More than citizens of any other country, we are rugged individualists, a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government.

But there has always been another thread running throughout our history - a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. And so we've built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools and universities to educate our citizens. We've laid down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. We've supported the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire industries. Each of us has benefitted from these investments, and we are a more prosperous country as a result.

Part of this American belief that we are all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike any one of us. "There but for the grace of God go I," we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities. We are a better country because of these commitments. I'll go further - we would not be a great country without those commitments.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obamas-deficit-speech-transcript/237274/

lol that's like saying you like puppies.

maniacal liberal spending is ruining the very programs libs stand for; and the left's inability to create an environment for job growth is harming programs that are funded by worker contributions; meanwile virtually al of the programs are available to illegals who paid little or nothing into the system

Pretty well married to this Conservative narrative, aren't you rob? It's all laid out in the link above;

Today, I'm proposing a more balanced approach to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over twelve years. It's an approach that borrows from the recommendations of the bipartisan Fiscal Commission I appointed last year, and builds on the roughly $1 trillion in deficit reduction I already proposed in my 2012 budget. It's an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table, but one that protects the middle-class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future.

The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week - a step that will save us about $750 billion over twelve years. We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs I care about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs. We'll invest in medical research and clean energy technology. We'll invest in new roads and airports and broadband access. We will invest in education and job training. We will do what we need to compete and we will win the future.

The second step in our approach is to find additional savings in our defense budget. As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America's interests around the world. But as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said, the greatest long-term threat to America's national security is America's debt.

Just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense. Over the last two years, Secretary Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again. We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but conduct a fundamental review of America's missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world. I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it's complete.

The third step in our approach is to further reduce health care spending in our budget. Here, the difference with the House Republican plan could not be clearer: their plan lowers the government's health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. Our approach lowers the government's health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself.

Already, the reforms we passed in the health care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion. My approach would build on these reforms. We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments. We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare's purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market. We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid. We will change the way we pay for health care - not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. And we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.

Now, we believe the reforms we've proposed to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid will enable us to keep these commitments to our citizens while saving us $500 billion by 2023, and an additional one trillion dollars in the decade after that. And if we're wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect, this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare.

But let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations.

That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security. While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit, it faces real long-term challenges in a country that is growing older. As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code. In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again.

Beyond that, the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions. And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, like homeownership or charitable giving, we cannot ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn't itemize.

My budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans - a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over ten years. But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further. That's why I'm calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple - so that the amount of taxes you pay isn't determined by what kind of accountant you can afford. I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the Fiscal Commission's model of reducing tax expenditures so that there is enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit. And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive.

This is my approach to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next twelve years. It's an approach that achieves about $2 trillion in spending cuts across the budget. It will lower our interest payments on the debt by $1 trillion. It calls for tax reform to cut about $1 trillion in spending from the tax code. And it achieves these goals while protecting the middle class, our commitment to seniors, and our investments in the future.

In the coming years, if the recovery speeds up and our economy grows faster than our current projections, we can make even greater progress than I have pledged here. But just to hold Washington - and me - accountable and make sure that the debt burden continues to decline, my plan includes a debt failsafe. If, by 2014, our debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy - or if Congress has failed to act - my plan will require us to come together and make up the additional savings with more spending cuts and more spending reductions in the tax code. That should be an incentive for us to act boldly now, instead of kicking our problems further down the road.

So this is our vision for America - a vision where we live within our means while still investing in our future; where everyone makes sacrifices but no one bears all the burden; where we provide a basic measure of security for our citizens and rising opportunity for our children.

what? you are not making sense, slow down.

also read comments you are replying to, I said it belongs to ALL Americans, not a party that has their own ideology of what the country should be, I believe differently.

I also think that spewing hate like Limbaugh and Hannity do with no solutions or ideas other than opinions and sound bites and hate. "Hate out of thin air" hum, sounds familiar huh Rob! Hate and calling people you don't know names like left-winuts and crap like that, yeah you are a great one to talk at all... Frigging haters!

exactly robert; America belongs to all; thanks for making my point for me. they didnt say the country belonged ONLY to them when they said they want to take the country back. they have their vision and you have yours of what the country should be like.

again you display your knack for mindless HYPOCRISY. MSNBC fired olberman and suspended schultzs for REPEATED hate-filled rants

poor robert; there's a $100,000 reward being offered by a "right-winger" for PROOF of hatred supposeldy thrown by the Tea Party agaisnt Black lawmakers. since you are so convinced of this hatred by the Tea; why dont you go collect the money? it's still available

rob, by your own argument the government belongs to "all of us". That being the case whom is the TP "taking our government back" from? The two statements are contradictory.

no it isnt; we are all free to claim the government as "ours'. they want to take it back from people they see as ruining it; just as the left felt they did in 2008. keep trying

You've just admitted that by "taking our country back" you mean to exclude people with whom you disagree. Thanks for your cooperation.

no; i didnt admit that. but you are frre to deceive yourself. the Tea is made up of all kinds; but nobody can make you confront this dangerous far-left government. you have to want to be free

rob, let me jump in here with ya. When the TP says they want to take "our" country back, they mean from those in "our" mist that believe the Constitution is no longer relavent and should be ignored or read so that the government can do what ever it wants. This is in contritiction of why the founders gave us the Constitution. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were created in order to keep the government out of our daily lives. They give the government 18 things it is supposed to do and nothing else and health care is not one of them. If you want the government to control health care, then so be it, but you should do it the correct way, by getting an artical 5 converntion to amend the Constitution and add health care to one of the powers for the government to control.

ba bye hater, talk about hypocryte, you ar ea shining example buddy!

cry robert

you're still a hypocrite

demand is down because people have less money. people have less money because MANY ARENT WORKING. nice circular argument einstein

Uh, rob, how many different ways do you rightwingnutwits think you get to play this?

The economy is a circular proposition: When people don't work, they don't buy things, and when they don't buy things, more people don't work. It has always been thus.

But, sometimes people just hold on to their money in anticipation of trouble ahead: Like when they have reason to believe the TeaBaggers in Congress are willing to send the entire world economy into depression and damage the US permanently so that they can achieve their Aynus Randian Utopia.

TeaBagger intransigence is already effecting bond markets, with the result that the US will likely have to pay increased interest on its debt, thus making it harder to pay off.

What a swell bunch of Patriots the Kochs have purchased.

you sound like queef olberman trying to run to obama to save his failed job!! at MSNBC no less!! lol

Wow, rob, that made absolutely no sense at all.

How much do they pay you to just sort of free-associate all over NewsVine? Does your check come from NewsCorp. or GE?

delusional conspiricy theory? lol you never cease to be predictable

You didn't answer the question, rob: Who pays you to troll here?

Your really should come up with someone, because if the answer is "no one", then you need to head back to your room right away.

Yes, rob, and all that BORROWING AND SPENDING just started in late January, 2009. You know, when history according to rightwingnutwits started.

Now, it's time to take one of your red pills, and do what your nurse tells you.

JC, It started when the Dems took over both houses in 2006. You need to do you own research and quit relying on the news media which is one sided by BTW.

SHAWN, bull@!$%#. The DEMS didn't take over the House until late January, 2007, and the @!$%# was already hitting the fan, before they even had a chance to re-assign office space. Now, rightwingnutwits want to revise very recent history to claim that, somehow, a DEM Congress passed so much legislation in such a short amount of time that they somehow caused a crash to happen even before they were in power.

Speaking of research, you might want to consider actually looking at some historical facts and figures; this is very recent history, after all.

NewsCorp and all of its many subsidiaries have filled your head with mush.

Sorry JC but I check the voting records in the House and Senate, they blocked Bush on F & F. You are the perfect example of my Post # 72.

SHAWN, first of all, WTF is "F & F", and, second, tell us all, then, the specific pieces of legislation that the DEMS managed to pass before they even took power that caused Bush's Economic Diaster.