The Republican "debates" just keep getting scarier. In a sane world, President Obama would stop raising money, tell his campaign staff to go home, and prepare for another inauguration. This is not a sane world.

The Republican candidates had no intention of "debating". They flatly refused to answer questions. What we got was fifth-grade taunts, hackneyed talking points, and a display of world-class ignorance. Nonetheless, after the scrapping, name-calling, and other nonsense, it is now clear the Republican Presidential nomination is Romney's to lose.

You don't recap this bunch moving from left to right. You move from far right to extreme right. Bachmann is gasping. She is now making her pitch to women, feeling their pain, and promising help. How she's going to do that while refusing to cut the defense budget is something she didn't explain. She made the evening's biggest gaffe noting that President Obama now has us in four wars. One in Iraq, one in Afghanistan, one in Libya, and now he has forces in Africa. In Bachmann's world, Libya is NOT in Africa.

Santorum wants desperately for us to believe that America is all about family values. That's what built America. Not indentured servants, not slaves, not devoted family guys like Daniel Boone, not the savory folks in Oglethorpe's Colony. Nope, it's families. You know it's those rock-solid American families, more than half of which are rent asunder by divorce. Beaver Santorum lacked only an angelic choir's backup to his "vision". Perry and Romney beat him like a drum.

Gingrich again pretended to be the elder statesman. He'd just love to be someone's Vice-President. By the way, these debates would have some substance, he let us know, if the media would only have a more sensible format. He is ready to challenge the Democratic nominee to a series of seven three-hour debates. That may happen, but it certainly won't be Gingrich facing off against President Obama.

You have to like Ron Paul. He is not playing for the audience - most of the time. He truly believes what he is saying, and the audience loves him. The answer is isolationism. The answer is the free market. Let states get into bidding wars to be the lucky recipient of the nation's nuclear waste. One thing he certainly has in common with Herman Cain: He sure knows how to lose the Jewish vote. Those darned Israelis are just too dependent on us.

Herman Cain was the nail. The other candidates were the hammers. His 9-9-9 plan got the deep 6-6-6, but the audience loves him. He brought the red meat to the soiree. Fry them damned illegals. Anyone who can't see serious homicidal tendencies in the Republican Party is blind as a bat. Herman Cain is done, and for the most part, Romney and Perry treated him like a lawn statue.

Speaking of Perry, why is it Texas Governors can't pronounce nuclear correctly? I thought Romney absolutely destroyed him. Perry's big gotcha was the fact that Romney had illegal aliens mowing his lawn. Weak! Coming from Texas, my guess is Perry's steaks are cut in a slaughter house that employs scads of illegals.

Romney came the closest to looking Presidential. He was very well-prepared. He delivered his remarks in some cases with a stiletto. He carved both Cain and Perry into little pieces. The rest? Well, noblesse oblige forbade his cutting them up too much. He is the best they have to offer, and he knows it.

In general, for a group that insists government is incompetent and can't create jobs, most promised to do exactly that - create jobs. Only Cain has the guts - certainly not the brains - to offer a plan, albeit the absurd 9-9-9 debacle. Not one of them offered a concrete proposal of any kind that will fly in the real world.

The pundits who discussed the debate afterwards are so out of touch with rank-and-file Americans it was stunning. David Gergen observed that beating on others doesn't play well with the audience. Really? Those guys are out for blood. (Crowd motto: "To hell with liberty, give us death.....someone else's.") Most thought Perry had improved - even Donna Brazile. Good grief, how low is that bar?

The thought of any one of those people as President, as the representative who meets with other heads of state, as the man who leads this country, is almost paralyzing. It should be inconceivable.

So much fun last night, watching ‘All-Star-Wrestling for Dweebs’.

I thought I saw Spanker, JAS and No Jo though, there on the end in the white outfit with the big gold buttons:

Cooper: “about Gitmo…:

White outfit: “ but O-Bahhh-maaa…”

Cooper: “now about job creation….”

White outfit: “ but O-Bahhh-maaa…”

Cooper: “now about Immigration and that fence….”

White outfit: “ but O-Bahhh-maaa…”

Cooper: “Time now for a short break….”

White outfit: “ but O-Bahhh-maaa…”

Yes, his rivals sliced and diced his 9-9-9 plan.

His rivals aren't the only one doing some slicing & dicing!

The Tax Policy Center has determined 99% will yet again be bent over;

Here’s how the numbers break down by income level:

Less than $10,000: $1,122 more (19.5% increase, 22.1% tax rate)
$10,000-$20,000: $2,705 more (17.8% increase, 19.7% tax rate)
$20,000-$30,000: $3,833 more (15.0% increase, 22.1% tax rate)
$30,000-$40,000: $4,196 more (11.7% increase, 23.2% tax rate)
$40,000-$50,000: $4,399 more (9.5% increase, 23.8% tax rate)
$50,000-$75,000: $4,326 more (6.9% increase, 23.8% tax rate)
$75,000-$100,000: $4,368 more (4.9% increase, 23.8% tax rate)
$100,000-$200,000: $2,105 more (1.5% increase, 23.1% tax rate)
$200,000-$500,000: $11,155 less (3.8% decrease, 20.6% tax rate)
$500,000-$1 million: $59,489 less (8.6% decrease, 18.1% tax rate)
$1 million or more: $455,247 less (15% decrease, 17.9% tax rate)

"They never disappoint us, do they?

The crowd cheers when....."

That crowd sounded like the biggest collection of genuine, bona-fide a**holes ever gathered in one setting. These are the people that 'want to take their country back'. THEIR country? That crowd is what American Exceptionalism should look and sound like???

God help us.

Economist Jared Bernstein summed up the report yesterday by the Tax Policy Center on Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan on the Maddow Show.
He explained that under Cain's plan, on average:

4. Folks that earn the lowest income will see their taxes INCREASE by $1600.

3. Middle class income tax will INCREASE by $3,000.

2. Top 1% tax will decrease by $300,000.

1. Top 0.1% tax will decrease by $1.8Million.

http://taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?template=simulation&SimID=415&bydate=0

(Blink twice)
Now for just $9.99, please choose from the following to describe your response to the above tax inequalities:
a) unfair
b) class warfare
c) an insult to our intelligence & a block of wood's intelligence
d) request the Koch Bros recall their protegee
e) I would rather buy a couple of pizzas from the guy.

Rarely have I ever been so entertained by a group of so-called politicians.

The crowds cheered most whenever someone was talking about taking away someone else's benefits or civil rights.

Obama versus the Republicans. Apples and oranges.

What we got was fifth-grade taunts, hackneyed talking points, and a display of world-class ignorance

Kinda like holding a discussion with the teanut-wingnut posters on this site...

My kids and I were watching the debate last night.... and we had to change the channel 5mins into it because it was surely PG-17. At first it looked like Romney was going to fight with Santorum and then it looked like he was going to physically beat up on Perry.

The debate was absolutely abhorrent.

Feisty: "His rivals aren't the only one doing some slicing & dicing!"

True enough. Grover Norquist doesn't even like the tax plan, which I would have thought before this campaign cycle would be the kiss of death. But it isn't.

The others - with the exception of Ron Paul, and he's probably not a viable contender for the nomination - are mostly offering rehashed old Republican ideas, and trying to polish them up into a shiny new campaign platform. I just think that's not what people are looking for right now.

Cain, meanwhile, didn't throw a polished plan out there. He threw an idea out there. It's not a new idea (other than the specific percentages), but it is new in the sense that we haven't seen it elevated to the level of support by a presidential candidate many times.

We might be seeing a dynamic in which the more his plan gets beat up, by all sides, the more Cain establishes himself as the non-politician willing to look at non-politician ideas - and that might just be an advantageous definition for a candidate this cycle.

In normal cycles, Cain would drop out of sight after last night. I'm watching the poll numbers in the coming weeks pretty closely.

That crowd sounded like the biggest collection of genuine, bona-fide a**holes ever gathered

Scary? Yes - but not to worrry: they are about to meet the OWS group and get put back in their rightful place...

what was even more messed up was Anderson Cooper smiling like a lil kid when Perry and Romney were going at it... it seemed like he wanted it to be that way... I'm usually OK with Anderson Cooper, but that was childish... he needed to have taking more control of the debate rather than let Romney keep shouting "ANDERSON, ANDERSON..."

Overall, a disgraceful showing for all involved, and I would not want these guys in charge of nay Nuclear button or in charge of our military - I can easily see WWIII happening. A very stark difference between them and President Obama.

After being force-fed nine Republican primary candidates for months now, seeing an extended interview with President Obama last night had me thinking: "it's not a question of whether or not he'll be re-elected, it's a question how big a raise we should offer Obama to keep him."

Man, is our President head and shoulders above the Republicans in intelligence, steadyness, like-ablity, emotional maturity and all around greatness.

If the Founding Fathers had have exhibited the ignorant buffoonery of these GOP Candidates.

All of us would be paying taxes alright to the British Crown!

Everyone is in denial that the United States was a creation of the "Brightest and Most Intelligent" minds of that era, not the Dumbest nor the Religious.

The 56 Signers of the Declaration were the Aristocratic Most Educated men in the Colonies....not the stupid and inept.

They possessed VISION not TUNNEL VISION.

The winner was Jon Huntsman who had the foresight to stay away from the Circus act!

I'm watching the poll numbers in the coming weeks pretty closely.

They're going to go down quicker then Marcus on a corn dog...

Count on it! ;o)

Paul -- Norquist has since walked back his dislike of the 9 9 9 Plan. He now says if its revenue neutral he's okay with it. Funny maybe when he saw the numbers he liked the fact that it was a bottom heavy tax.....just don't tax the rich seems to be his motto.

What a wasted debate last night. Typical Republican debate, all about how wonderful they think they are and nothing on jobs. WHERE ARE THE JOBS? You promised you'd create jobs if you were elected in 2010, but you liars have failed (or refused) to create a single job. We're going to vote you all out in 2012.

Obama in 2012.

"They're going to go down quicker then Marcus on a corn dog..."

I don't care who you are (or how many times you get to post first..), that right there is FUNNY!

David Walker, terrific analysis of last night's debate.

Feisty, Backhouse. The 9-9-9 numbers do not lie.

What baffles me is how easily the "taxes are evil crowd", most of whom probably earn well below $200,000 a year, can be convinced something that causes them harm is good for them. 9-9-9 is clearly an attack on middle class and the poor and another grand money grabbing scheme for the already rich and powerful.

I do not pretend to be a numbers cruncher but when I first heard Cain's plan, it was easy to see it would provide the largest tax cut in history to the richest Americans and the largest tax increase in history to the rest of America. In addition to taxes, his plan eliminates social security, medicare and every other social program that exists--too bad the debate moderators ignore that.

What was missing last in my living room was pop corn. The Right wing elements did prove a good circus entertainers.

By the way Tunde, what were you expecting Anderson do, cry? Am surprised he didn't role on his back laughing. Those nuts did set that stage on fire.

No wonder they had the debate in Nevada, prostitution is legal there and these people are the biggest political prostitutes in the country. Why don't they just wear FOR SALE signs around their necks?

First Read's Headline Fight Night is incorrect.

They should have titled it "Fright Night."

These "Little Rascals" all grown up are a Scary Group.

I can't wait to see who will be what on Halloween!

But I do know the Bride of Frankenstein suits Bachmann to a TEA!

This is what happens when the clowns forget this is supposed to be all for the entertainment of the audience and start getting offended by being hit with seltzer water, buckets of confetti, or pies in the face. Fortunately they aren't required to all leave in the same car, just to arrive that way.

More seriously, this was all made possible because every one of these candidates is seriously flawed. Their policies are straight from the conservatories that protect Conservative ideas from exposure to the real world. The extreme, radical ideas so popular among the currently popular Ayn Rand/John Birch Society flavor of Conservatism simply can't survive in the real world, but the GOPTP has been too taken over by those extremists to function.

On another note, this from FR is probably more significant than many realize;

If you need any more evidence as to why the anti-Washington and even anti-government resentment has resonance, look no further than this piece in Bloomberg News about DC passing up Silicon Valley as the richest metro area. "The U.S. capital has swapped top spots with Silicon Valley, according to recent Census Bureau figures, with the typical household in the Washington metro area earning $84,523 last year. The national median income for 2010 was $50,046."

The intense poverty that exists in much of DC makes this number even more shocking. It illustrates in microcosm the environment of extreme disparity in income that the Koch brothers and other sponsors of radical Conservatism are trying to bring to reality throughout our nation.

As such it also helps explain why much of the political class is having trouble figuring out the frustrations being expressed by Occupy Wall Street. Large swaths of the American population recognize that the deck is being stacked against them, people who only want an equal opportunity to earn a good life through hard work and following the rules. They're mad as hell, they aren't going to take it any more, but the Washington powers and their wealthy elite supporters are so insulated from the regular American they can't even figure out why the concern.

He who listens to that concern will win, and he'll win for the right reasons.

Backhouse,

You forget to mention that the TAX INCREASE on the lower wage earners amounts to them finally paying taxes at all.

Isnt that a fine welcome to the real world for all those people who benefit from the system but contribute nothing to it?

I dont mind paying a little more in taxes if it means EVERYONE pays and those who somehow believe all these government programs they enjoy so much are free finally see even the smallest portion of cost for it.

The only way to get real spending reform is to have ALL people participate in supporting the spending. Then we will see real reform, as the outrage will be huge.

And to borrow a phrase, "Everyone have skin in the game".

I find it odd that the populace has no issue with raising taxes to pay for their pet projects as long as it is someone else taking the hit. But try to spread the load over all Americans and watch the outrage and crys of unfair ring out.

It is laughable. And if we are ever going to bring attention to the spending issues no one wants to address (because they are not paying for it now) the only way is to make them feel the cost.

I am all for a tax increase if it brings reality to the masses that it is not a revenue issue, it is a spending issue.

Then maybe we can address and fix it. If we keep relying on the top 10% to fund the system, this realization will never happen.

ABO 2012

If you thought last night was crazy,, forget about it, the Tea baggers have an even crazier message

Denver-area teabagger Melissa Brookstone posted a message on Tea Party Nation’s messageboard calling for small businesses to stop hiring in order to take a stand against the Obama administration.

Teabagger Brookstone believes that the Obama administration and the “Democrat-controlled Senate” are socialists, blahblahblah, that radical President Obama is some kind of dictator who, along with his Hollywood BFFs, are anti-business, and anti-free market, and anti-capitalist blahblah.

Here’s how it ends:

Resolved that: Our President, the Democrats-Socialists, most of the media, and most of those from Hollywood, have now encouraged and supported “Occupy” demonstrations in our streets, which are now being perpetrated across the globe, and which are being populated by various marxists, socialists and even communists, and are protesting against business, private property ownership and capitalism, something I thought I’d never see in my country, in my lifetime.

I, an American small business owner, part of the class that produces the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country, hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war against business and my country is stopped.

I hereby declare that my job creation potential is now ceased.

And as Christian Dem also points out, the comments under the post are just as bad. Here are a few samples that I grabbed

You gotta click on the idiotic responses

http://www.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/118/2011/10/14/99346_600.jpg

I'm guessing Cain will have to make some minor revisions to his plan and come out with a 9-9-9B plan that decreases the tax increases to the bottom 90% a little bit, but won't affect the tax decreases to the top 10%. Essentially, he'll take in even less money and have to reduce Federal spending even more than the extremes he already has planned.

This is a man who says he can balance the deficit in one year. The only way to do that is to effectively shut down most of the Federal Government and cut most if not all Medicaid payments to states. Expect your state taxes to have major increases when that happens and states that don't have state taxes will have to either implement them or collect enough through sales tax increases or other fees.

Eliminating Social Security and Medicare will take a few more years to do. I imagine he'll try to convert existing Social Security recipients to a one time cash payment that they can either pay tax on or buy an annuity from the private sector ending up with a substantial cut in their monthly income. Medicare recipients will just have to "man up" and figure out how to handle their health care on their own.

Feisty Redhead:

The crowd cheers when Herman Cain blames the unemployed for their circumstances…

That's puzzling, because the Republicans keep saying that unemployment is all Obama's fault. Which is it? It can't be both.

http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2011/10/18/teabagger-stop-hiring-in-order-to-hurt-obama-hows-that-for-patriotism/

Wow Feisty, those numbers fro 1.3 are absolutely stunning. The GOPTP apparently REALLY BELIEVES the American people are so stupid they'll accept an enormous tax increase while giving the wealthy elites a tax break equal to 8 YEARS of income for the average American. They're worthy of another look;

Less than $10,000: $1,122 more (19.5% increase, 22.1% tax rate)
$10,000-$20,000: $2,705 more (17.8% increase, 19.7% tax rate)
$20,000-$30,000: $3,833 more (15.0% increase, 22.1% tax rate)
$30,000-$40,000: $4,196 more (11.7% increase, 23.2% tax rate)
$40,000-$50,000: $4,399 more (9.5% increase, 23.8% tax rate)
$50,000-$75,000: $4,326 more (6.9% increase, 23.8% tax rate)
$75,000-$100,000: $4,368 more (4.9% increase, 23.8% tax rate)
$100,000-$200,000: $2,105 more (1.5% increase, 23.1% tax rate)
$200,000-$500,000: $11,155 less (3.8% decrease, 20.6% tax rate)
$500,000-$1 million: $59,489 less (8.6% decrease, 18.1% tax rate)
$1 million or more: $455,247 less (15% decrease, 17.9% tax rate)

I thought the debate was disappointing. It was like watching a shouting match. I don't understand why Anderson could not take control of the bickering. The questions were softball.

What surprised me about this debate I mean debacle was how it devolved into a shouting match. No one challenged Mitt or Perry touting being job creators.

Romney's state ranked 47th in job creation while he was governor; not to mention that his Bain Capital gobbled up jobs and sent them abroad.

Perry was not challenged on the Government jobs he created with stimulus money.

My favorite part of the debate was when crazy eyed Michelle Bachmann said President Obama put us in Libya and now he is putting us in Africa.

Where does crazy eyes think Libya is?

She never fails to amuse me.

Poor Cain he just got brainwashed on his 999. They sent him through the spin cycle. RMAOWFL

http://www.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/118/2011/10/14/99346_600.jpg

The winner: President Obama even David Gergen, said so. For once I agree with Gergen.

Which is it? It can't be both.

See here's the thing Houston! - when you inhabit the parallel universe like certified card carrying tea baggers... they can!

PS: 3 + 3 also = 9 and the sun also sets in the West! lol

dsdsherm et al.

As a display and all-out rejection of expertise and competence in the manner of style or fashion, the Tea Party candidates re-visit those 'punk' band members of yesteryear;

And at a time when we need competence and expertise the most, when we are in recovery from the most profoundly catastrophic recession in 60 years.

Which is it? It can't be both.

Wouldn't be the first time, in fact multiple, contradictory messages are more the norm than the exception in Conservativeville. That's because Conservatism isn't about consistency of thought or principle, it's about a series of messages intended to sell policies beneficial to the wealthy elites.

They're sort of like Geico in that way. The gecko appeals to one group of people, the cave man to another group, and they have still other ad campaigns using other hooks to sell a variety of other audiences.

Ray-4054460

I'm a Republican and I would vote for a Democrat. I have in the past and will do so in the future. Just not this Democrat.

So, which one of the morons on parade in last night's debate do you think should replace Obama as president? Romney, the guy who made his fortune by destroying American jobs when he was at Bain Capital, stuffing dollar bills into his pants when he posed for his group photo? Or Perry, the guy who's "Texas miracle" was based on adding public sector jobs, many of which were added thanks to the Obama stimulus? Or do you want Mr. 9-9-9, who's going to raise everybody's taxes and reverse all those terrible Obama tax cuts?

You have so many choices, I'm sure it's hard to decide which one is goofy enough to be the next Republican president.

"You forget to mention that the TAX INCREASE on the lower wage earners amounts to them finally paying taxes at all."

A ggod point, but why does it have to be the HIGHEST rate in the scheme of things??

"If Cain is the perfect Republican candidate for 2012, then Godfather's Pizza is the perfect metaphor for the winner-take-all economy envisioned by today's uncompassionate conservatives: a highly-leveraged management buyout that made fortunes for top executives and big franchise owners by closing stores, hiring mostly minimum-wage employees with no health or retirement benefits, and relying on slick TV ads to peddle an unhealthy and mediocre product...

Economics, alas, has never been Cain's best subject, going back to the health-care debate of the 1990s. According to Hermanomics, if he and all his pizza parlor competitors were forced to offer and help pay for health insurance for all their employees, then the only way they could stay in business would be to lay people off...If they are busy taking orders and making and delivering pizza, then laying them off isn't really a particularly effective business strategy." (Steven Pearlstein)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/?wpisrc=nl_wonk

Amen to that Feisty:

"See here's the problem - there is not a single clown in the car who's capable of beating President Obama & they KNOW it! lol"

Obama/Biden 2012

Ray-4054460

@Houston -- Any one on that stage would be better than what we have now.

So which one do YOU want? Romney the Job Killer, Big Government Perry, or Cain the Tax Man? Don't be shy. Inquiring minds want to know which of these gems you want to sit in the Oval Office.

dsdsherm: I've heard that expression "everyone have skin in the game" many times now. I think Rush Limbaugh used it first, and it has spread. It makes a nice slogan, but do you really believe it? First of all, no matter how many times it is pointed out, the big majority of the 47% who you claim don't pay taxes actually DO pay taxes. Maybe not Income Tax, but payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) as well as state/local/property taxes, sales tax, etc. Secondly, many of those 47% are children. Do you want children to start paying taxes? From their allowance? And many of those 47% are seniors, many of them poor seniors. They ALREADY paid into SS and Medicare. Fortunately/unfortunately, SSI and Medicare HAVE worked very well. People are now living longer, and this fact has blown the fuduciary tables out of the water. Add this to the second fact that SSI and Medicare funds are invested in government securities, which have dropped their rate of return to very low levels, and you can see why these programs are in financial trouble. Bt getting back to the "skin in the game arguement": do you really believe this? Then you must also support the similar logic that says that everyone should serve in the military, to have skin in THAT game, so the sacrifice is shared equally by all. My rather wealthy friend used the same skin-in-the-game agruement with me, declaring that everyone should pay some sort on income tax. I said OK, but was she thinkng of sending her two adorable kids to a Military Academy to prepare them for their service in our Armed Forces? She freaked out: "MY kids are never going to go fight in Iraq or Afghanistan! They going to college and get good careers". So much for the idea that "skin-in-the-game" makes for a better wountry.

@Houston -- At this point I am still formulating my opinion which is what primary debates are all about. Also, I don't buy into your juvenile adjectives. I would support any one of those you mentioned over the Solyndra, Fast & Furious, Sunpower, etc. scandals of this corrupt administration.

Damage123, you say "some polls" show Cain ahead of Obama but, as usual with right wingers you don't name those polls. So far the only poll I've seen showing Cain ahead of Obama is Rasmussen (Cain +2 as of 10/15). Other polls show Obama ahead (Time, 10.09 to 10/10, Obama +12), (PPP from 10/07 to 10/10, Obama +6), (NBC News/Wall Street Journal from 10/6 to 10/10, Obama +11). That all averages out to Obama +6.7 over Cain from the period of 10/6 to 10/15. You knew that, right? Didn't think so.

John B.:

Your posts at 1.30 and 1.34 explain perfectly what today's Republican Party is all about. Yes indeed, there are several messages. The G.O.P. for all its monolithic appearance is quite fractious. It includes a host of single-issue extremists - theocrats, gunners, anti-choicers, bigots, racists, and more, who are united only by their unremitting hatred of those who don't accept their single-interest agenda. This is today's Republican Party, an aggregation of groups so narrow in focus they have no clue they are tools of the super and ultra-rich.

The numbers Feisty has posted clearly show that voting G.O.P. is tantamount to suicide by Republican. Cain's plan is merely the most extreme of the Republican candidates. All of them will - to some degree - reduce the lower class to serfdom.

This next election is going to turn on who stays home. Obama supporters MUST get out to vote and convince someone else to vote for him as well.

Ray-4054460

@Houston -- At this point I am still formulating my opinion which is what primary debates are all about. Also, I don't buy into your juvenile adjectives.

You may not buy them, but it's a fact that Romney made his fortune visiting misfortune on American workers. Ted Kennedy beat Romney in the MA Senate race by pointing out that fact. It's also a fact that Perry wouldn't have any "Texas Miracle" if it wasn't for government jobs he added, some with Obama's stimulus money.

And finally, it's a fact that Cain is going to raise YOUR taxes. I thought Cain doesn't have a chance because not even Republicans are stupid enough to vote for their own taxes to get raised. But maybe not.

"Hiya kids, hiya, hiya." Froggy

Sorry kiddies, once again I watched THE BIGGEST LOSER instead of the debate. It's far more relavent. In fact, if any of those GOP jokers get elected we the people will be the biggest losers. Besides, I'd rather watch Anna Kournikova than Mitt and Jeff mud-wrestle any day.

Here's the deal folks. The GOP/TP/LDS is NEVER going to accept a black man as their nominee. C'mon, get real. The entire freakin' South went GOP in the 1960's after more than 100 years of democrat dominance on the issue of Civil Rights. Look at the GOP/TP/LDS, pale, very pale. Oh yes there are a few blacks and hispanics (mostly Cubans), but they are less than 1% of the party. No way those white folks are gonna support a black man for President. Maybe if he rides on the back of the ticket as VP, but up front? Fuhgeddaboudit.

So, once again, I say, Mitt's the guy, but he ain't gonna fly and it's four more years for our guy!

Oh, BTW, I have finally weeded all the RWNJ's out of my little slice of the FIRST READ heaven. "Ignore", "Ignore", "Ignore". It really makes for a much more pleasant reading experience. MY First Read is a RWNYFZ ("Right Wing Nut Job Free Zone). Beautiful.

And in your prayers tonight let's not forget the Koch Brothers, Rupert Murdoch, Fox News and all their affiliates, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner or Rush Limbaugh. Good Bless 'em, 'cause I sure as hell won't!

"Plunk your magic twanger Froggy"

America held hostage, day 292

Obama/Biden 2012

Wow! Last nights debate really cleaned out the RWNJ's from First Read! A large group of friends and I watched this last night and we have never had so much fun. A few of my friends are conservative and one got up and went home early! The others had nothing else to say after the Romney/Perry fight. It was hilarious!

Best entertainment value in months. This should be in theaters!

The intense poverty that exists in much of DC makes this number even more shocking. It illustrates in microcosm the environment of extreme disparity in income that the Koch brothers and other sponsors of radical Conservatism are trying to bring to reality throughout our nation.

www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.html

Seems wealth is an equal opportunity provider no matter what letter comes after your name. But don't worry it's all the Koch brothers doing.

dsdsherm

You forget to mention that the TAX INCREASE on the lower wage earners amounts to them finally paying taxes at all.

You forgot to mention that the lower wage earner DO pay state and local fees and sales taxes. State sales taxes are among the most regressive taxes of all because lower-wage people pay more as a percentage of their income than wealthier people do.

It's not only Cain. All the Republicans want to tax the poor, who are barely making ends meet as it is, in order that the wealthy can keep their tax rates low. This is one of the positions that makes Republicans so loathsome.

Ray-- since when do values of faith make a difference. You religious nuts better open your eyes. There is no almighty out there. Start relying on yourself and your intelligence if you have any left. I could see you idiots voting to remove the sitting president if you had a better option, but you don't. He was never even given a chance to lead. You morons were riding him from day one even though the crisis happened before he took office.

The scariest thing about last nights debate is that the economy could get worse. It is clear that none of the qualified conservative candidates want the job of steering us out of the worse economic collapse in decade so we get the C team of self serving low lifes. (I respect Ron Paul actually, he's straight and honest, but efficient Government is better than let them suffer zero government, and he's not quite my cup of coffee)

The bitter pill to swallow is that I know that the GOP philosophy was wrong in the last cycle and is working against a solution in this cycle, "NO" is wrong when the country needs cooperation. Everyone just wants a one term president as evident form one of the posters above with "any candidate will do".

That's not right. I want a solution.

I think the president is struggling and will lose if the economy gets worse but I would vote for him if the election were held to day over the sorry bunch that wasted an opportunity last night...

Feisty Redhead:

PS: 3 + 3 also = 9 and the sun also sets in the West! lol

Maybe that's the kind of math that Cain used to come up with his 9-9-9 plan.

@robiscoole -- Your ranting is based on your assumption that the faith I made reference to had to do with God. You need to think before you talk which obviously you don't. Look up the other definitions. Also, if you don't cringe and go on a rant every time Obama brings his faith in God to play when he says "Gob Bless the United States of America" then you are the worst of hypocrites.

@Skippy -- Want to educate us again on why the House would have to vote on the Jobs Act first????

@Houston -- You are just wrong.

He was never even given a chance to lead. You morons were riding him from day one even though the crisis happened before he took office.

He was given the chance to lead us through the crisis. IMO he did not perform.

BTW I wonder if Winston Churchill blamed Neville Chamberlain during the first three years of WW2. I didn't notice that in many of Churchills' speeches.

As to the OWS, take heed.

"Beware of those who would use violence, too often it is violence they want and neither truth nor freedom." --American author Louis Lamour (1908-1988)

dsdsherm: "Everyone have skin in the game"

John and Houston, above, refute your argument better than I could.

I would also ask, if you are for everyone being involved in this way, having skin in the game, why do you have a problem with the Health Care provision that everyone pays into the system?

Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan is certainly getting a lot of publicity these days, and as evidenced by many of the comments on this board his plan is getting trashed as well. My initial concern when I first heard the proposal was that it would result in a more regressive tax structure than we currently have, and that wouldn't be a particularly good thing. But I do agree with Newt's comments last night that Cain deserves a lot of credit for taking on a really big issue in a bold fashion. And as Newt further stated, that bold idea needs to be closely scrutinized so we can all understand exactly what we're dealing with here.

Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that the analysis performed by the Tax Policy Center (which FR cited yesterday) advances that understanding. In fact, as I study this thing I find the Tax Policy Center materials to be largely inscrutable and hardly transparent. They may well have a solid basis for coming up with the numbers they do, but I challenge anyone on this board to go to their website and come back and tell us they know EXACTLY how the Tax Policy Center calculated the impact of the 9-9-9 plan on various income levels. Until they reveal their methodology with more clarity – and allow the Cain people to respond – all their numbers are suspect in my view.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/cain-9-9-9-plan.cfm

Alan NJ: He was given the chance to lead us through the crisis. IMO he did not perform.

Answer: His record.

Question: What is the one thing Obama never talks about?

Obama 2012 - "Those last 4 years? They never happened. That's why I need 4 more!"

Here is a fact check on last night's debate:

http://factcheck.org/2011/10/las-vegas-smackdown/

Bill -- Would you not agree that any plan based on in Cain's words, assumptions, is speculative at best? Too too many variables not to mention shifting the burden onto consumers would further halt demand.

Bill, Fairfax:

Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that the analysis performed by the Tax Policy Center (which FR cited yesterday) advances that understanding. In fact, as I study this thing I find the Tax Policy Center materials to be largely inscrutable and hardly transparent. They may well have a solid basis for coming up with the numbers they do, but I challenge anyone on this board to go to their website and come back and tell us they know EXACTLY how the Tax Policy Center calculated the impact of the 9-9-9 plan on various income levels. Until they reveal their methodology with more clarity – and allow the Cain people to respond – all their numbers are suspect in my view.

Believe it or not, I don't take issue with that. But I haven't seen any other credible analysis that says otherwise, either. In any case, two other things stand out for me.

The first one is that Cain doesn't seem to understand his own plan, meaning that he was not deeply involved in creating it, so that it doesn't give us any meaningful measure of how he really thinks. It certainly doesn't convince me that he is a first-class economic mind.

For example, he seems to be confused about whether his plan involves value-added taxes. Some economists, as well as other Republicans, argue persuasively that it does, and he just denies it without explaining how he reaches that conclusion.

And the second one is why, if it's such a potentially worthy idea, Congress doesn't send Mr. Cain a thank-you card and take it up immediately, like they did with the Ryan plan.

Because, after all, we need solutions now.

And I suspect I know the answer to the second question. Just like the Ryan plan.

I still say Michele Bachmann was right -- the devil is in the details.

Ray-4054460

@Houston -- You are just wrong.

Typical wingnut debating tactics. Ignore the facts and just proclaim yourself to be right. That's what all extremists do, whether they're Taliban or Tea Baggers.

Houston and John,

Yes, I do want all to pay taxes, even the poor. I dont care that they pay sales taxes and state taxes. What does this have to do with their lack of funding for the Federal government. I suppose your arguement is that the people paying federal taxes do not pay these other taxes the poor do not pay so therefore it levels out?? I dont think so.

The poor rely more heavily on this system than other do. But they have no concept of the cost burden it puts onto others to pay for these programs.

The country is bankrupt. We are never going to recover from this if spending is not cut severly. And spending will never be cut if people continue to qualify for federal aide programs that they do not pay for. And the outcry for spending cuts and some sort of budget will never come unless all feel the same pain of funding this system. It is sad, but true.

I am sick of the Robbin Hood mentality being forced by the government. This is the USA, not Nottingham Forrest. we continue to take from the rich to give to the poor. Then we demonize them for utilizing the system to minimize their taxes and say they arent paying their fair share. When in fact there is this huge section of the population that does not share in these specific burdens of federal income taxes, but reap the rewards of the programs provided from it.

I believe the system is regularly abused and other reforms to the systems and safetynets need to be addressed as part of this. But giving income tax refund checks to those who paid in nothing is welfare, not a tax refund. It has no place in our tax system. Allowing a percentage of the population to not pay any federal income taxes at all is wrong. If you want to make thier rate lower than others, fine, I can go with that. But they have to pay something to see there is a cost to these plans.

And I am not a rich man by any measure. The 9-9-9 plan would hit me very hard. But I am willing to make that sacrifice if it would make our system more fair and cause the outcry on spending that should be happening.

The issue is that the majority of the population does not have self responsibility, feels entitled to programs paid for by others, and make no contribution to the system. The entire population should be screaming about the spending, and most look the other way as it is not their money the government is wasting.

If it were their money the story would be different I suspect.

John I do agree all should be available for the military if the country needs them. That is the idea of the draft. As there are plenty now who volunteer to join based on the benefits they get from service, I also have no issue in it being a choice as long as there are plenty volunteering. But the mandatory service system is in place and if it is needed, the draft is instated. And I have no issue with it.

I stand by my comments. ALL SHOULD PAY, or none should. to pick and choose based on criteria of ability to pay is Marxist, and should not be tolerated. And we have tolerated it too long already.

And that is only the starting point of the social safety net reforms that needs to happen.

ABO 2012

Alan is making the mistake of assuming that OWS is a left/right issue as is most of the political world. OWS is a Wall Street v Main Street debate and the political class had better figure that out. With the financial world nearing 1/3 of ALL corporate profit they are sapping the ability of other businesses, businesses which actually build, store, move, and sell things, to generate economic activity.

Anna Molly

And the second one is why, if it's such a potentially worthy idea, Congress doesn't send Mr. Cain a thank-you card and take it up immediately, like they did with the Ryan plan.

I'm not too sure about how they worked out that Cain would increase taxes on the middle class, but the effects of his 9-9-9 plan on the poor are fairly obvious: poorer people use almost all of their wages to buy necessities (food, clothes, electricity, rent, etc.).

So in addition to Cain's 9% flat income tax, his 9% sales tax is really an added 9%, doubling the tax on the poor to 18%, while the wealthy would pay a rate much closer to 9% because they don't use a much smaller part of their income to buy things. The other Republicans attacked Cain's 9-9-9 plan, but most of them seem to see taxing the poor as the solution to the deficit problem.

dsdsherm

Houston and John,

Yes, I do want all to pay taxes, even the poor.

Even if that forces many of them to go on welfare? The earned income tax credit was a REPUBLICAN idea intended to keep the poor off the welfare roles and make them productive citizens instead. Even if they pay no income taxes, their work is still providing something of value to society. And the state and local taxes the working poor must pay still provide funds for the roads you travel on and the police that protect you, no matter how much you despise poor people.

dsdsherm: ALL SHOULD PAY

OK. In taxes. In supporting health care reform. In tax rates. In corporate taxes.

I love how robiscool lectures religious nuts and tells them they should start taking care of themselves and not rely on a god but I guess that doesnt apply to financial policy? Here he wants the government to take care of everyone and provide a financial solution or bailout, welfare or social services to everyone regardless of the personal choices one makes and the self reliance he preaches doesnt apply.

All of this class warfare, tax inequality and income inequality really does come down to a complete different set of personal views on success. Many of us feel that self reliance and personal accountability are the drivers of a person's success (however that may be defined) while the left leaning posters here feel its the governments job to provide that success again however defined. In my world, I look at our country no different than the immigrants that come over today--I dont expect anything from anyone and my own goals, hard work, ambition with no expectation of entitlement or assistance from anyone is necessary. The total opposite of the Occupy Wall Street protestors. I do expect the government to provide basic services for which I pay a fair share of taxes (not intended to provide a basis for fighting on this). But I know this country provides the flexibility to start my own business and rely on myself.

However, from these posts it appears that the left leaning people dont believe in self reliance at all and there is no amount of dollars and spending or welfare that will be enough. You can always point to that one person who doesnt have what Bill Gates has. Maybe I have it wrong, but it appears that many of you actually feel that when you take a mortgage you couldnt pay for, you accepted a job in which you didnt excel or make what you thought you would make, you lose your job, you decide to have a child, you decide to take drugs or alcohol or you choose an education that didnt provide you a return on your investment that its the governments job to fix those bad decisions and level the playing field as if their are no consequences for your decisions. Its somebody else's fault like the bank who lent you the money (they were predatory), its the rich for failing to give me more money as a raise, its my boss for not promoting me, the college made me major in Art History, its my parents fault for not preparing me to live on my own, if I have a child its the governments responsibility to take care of me for my choice in life. And if your Steve Jobs, how dare you believe in trickle down because there is no way he created a single job, it was all those people who built roads and schools where you love that you owe and it wasnt due to your brilliance so give back all your money to me because I didnt make the same choices as you.

Its not about inequality, the differences in philosophy are so strong in terms of how success is created or measured is so different.

Houston,

I dont care if it was a Martian idea. I dont like it. And I dont despise poor people, I used to be one. I have relatives that are poor. I have seen both sides and have issues with both. And I can list a string of abuses from the poor that need to be reformed. And I definately have issue with a credit to reward people for having more children when they can least afford to support them. I would prefer the tax credit be for the ones who are struggling financially who refrain from having children. I know this is wrong thinking and rebuke myself whenever I think it, but it keeps popping into my head. We reward people for adding more children to households who cannot afford them. Can someone explain why?

In answer to your questions, yes. The earned income credit is Welfare, plain and simple. It has no business being part of the tax code. If working people can qualify for it due to their low wages, then fine. There is no reason you cannot receive assistance payments and still work. I am not saying they have to be unemployed to get it. I am saying it has no business in the tax code and being labeled a tax refund, when it is welfare. They can continue to be productive and earn money and work. If they want the extra assistance, that is another program they need to apply for.

I didnt say they are not a benefit to society, or they have no value. But it is odd that the poor can pay state and local taxes, but are exempt from Federal Income taxes.

If we need or wish to adjust programs to suit the idea that the poor are now going to be paying taxes, and therefore will be poorer, then fine. We can adjust accordingly if needed. But there is a psychological impact of this payment. Even if all came out even and no money was lost, just the appearance of the payment would get people looking at what it is being spent on.

That is the idea. Get some awareness. The tax system is the tax system. The welfare system is the welfare system. No blurring the line. The tax system takes. Welfare gives back when needed.

There are quite a few poor out there that have built their lives on government assistance. I chose to better myself and live with pride. I used to be on welfare 25 years ago as I married very young and married into a family with children. But I made it a focus to better myself and my family and get off the governemt dole as fast as I could. I have inlaws that have been on assistance the entire 25 years, and have no plans to get off it or better themselves.

But they have come to expect others to care for them when it is obvious they have no desire to care for themselves. I eat generics and hamburger as we are frugal. They eat steak and chips and dip and name brand foods as they get food stamps. I had better be bleeding to death or dying to go the the ER as the deductible and co-pay for such a venture would be huge. They go the ER when someone has a sniffle as Medicare picks up the tab.

In addition to the specifics of relative I could use as examples all day, I see those in projects dressed as hoodlums and thugs. Tatoos all over and earings sticking out everywhere. And they wonder why they are unemployed.

Saftey nets used to be to help people get back on their feet. They have become a way of life. Rules are too loose and any attempt to change the mentality of the poor is met with resistance and accused of being mean spirited.

I have lived both sides of the aisle. I know it takes work to claw your way out of it and into productive society. But I also see many who lack any desire to do so and have no responsibility. I see a system that rewards irresponsibility and bad choices. And I see people who have lost all pride, common sense, and the ability to reason while on these systems. I was embarassed to be on assistance. I was embarassed to be on food stamps. I would never have thought of bringing another child into the world without means to support it myself. Others were having more because it increased their payment from the government for having more kids.

I have to agree with Cain in the fact that if you are not in the top 1%, take a look at yourself. You are the reason. The corporations did not keep your down, you failed to apply yourself. The Government did not fail you, YOU failed you.

I always had pride and sense of responsibility. I cannot figure out why others do not. So I assume maybe if they could see there is a cost for these things and they are not free, that maybe they would get a sense of responsibility as well.

It is a desperation attempt for sure. But from what I can see, those on the bottom end of the earnings scale still think everything is owed to them, that these programs do not cost anything, and for the most part still lack the desire to release themselves from these programs.

And they just join into the chants and mantras of BHO when he spews such class rhetoric that the rich need to pay their fair share, when in fact they are currently paying for all of it (at least the portion we are not borrowing).

It is this mentality that makes me want to tax everyone equally. Those who currently pay no federal income taxes for the most part have no appreciation for the burden that is currently placed on others to provide these programs.

BHO spews such nonsense, and they blindly chant along. They take to the streets to protest the earnings of people that have achieved something when they are not willing to put in even the slightest effort to chieve the same results for themselves. And they align themselves with the Democrat party as this is the party that wants to continue this wrong minded practice.

And all I can say is :

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE. HAVE YOU NO PRIDE?

This is the problem with America. We have become a country where we really do not have any pride. We have no ambition to achieve greatness. We accept mediocre. We encourage and allow our children to look completely and totally unemployable in public. We do not push for results in education. And worst of all we believe it is all someone elses fault/responsibility. The OWS crowd is a perfect example of this.

I never thought I would see the day when we became the society we are today.

ABO 2012

Kirk,

You and I cut from the same cloth it appears. Good post, glad I am not the only one who feels this way.

ABO 2012

how freaking thick are you liberals?

See here's the problem - there is not a single clown in the car who's capable of beating President Obama & they KNOW it! lol

Obama/Biden 2012

If you really think Obama has been our savior so far, and that another 4 years with him in office will somehow magically fix all the problems he continues to get us in. I am not supporting the debate from last night, but if you actually listened instead of having preconceived notions, you could understand that something needs to be done. If you think that spending more money will get you out of debt, please go ahead and try. Don't worry, the gov't will be there to bail you out when you fail, furthering our nation's debt even more.

Also, you all criticize the ideas and plans for us to get out of this mess, but you are happy to let our current president get us further into it! Not saying any one plan is right, but we need to maybe step back and rethink how we go about raising and spending money as a gov't before we worry about how much will be passed on to us.

People complaining that corps will pay less taxes obviously don't understand the concept of basic economics. In a nutshell, lower taxes for corps means they can build/manufacture products cheaper, which means the end user gets the same product at a lower cost. Otherwise, they can not compete. Any leftover money most likely goes back into the company somehow(R&D, expansion, advertising) to strengthen the company and possibly provide an even better product. The law of supply and demand. Amazingly it also pretty well shows our current employment problems. No one has money to buy widgets, the businesses are not making as many widgets because there is no demand for them. The company definitely does not hire new employees, no matter what the gov't says it can do about creating jobs in the free market. If it wanted to create jobs, it would get out of the way.

I am all for compassion in individuals, but the gov't is not an individual. It is a business. It can have no compassion. It does not need to take care of every last one of it's citizens. This country was built on being able to do for yourself. And we have seriously lost sight of personal responsibility. We should feel bad for one another, but the government can not. As mean as it may sound, the gov't has to let people/ businesses fail. We can not afford to take care of irresponsible, unwilling, able-bodied people any more.

If you disagree with anything I posted, you have your head too far up your own rear end to understand how an economy really works. Seriously, this is basic economics any one of you certainly learned in your time at some fine liberal arts college. Please challenge the law of supply and demand to explain how spending more money will somehow get us

dsdsherm

And I am not a rich man by any measure. The 9-9-9 plan would hit me very hard. But I am willing to make that sacrifice if it would make our system more fair and cause the outcry on spending that should be happening.

So let me get this straight. Obama wants to raise taxes on you and your ilk goes crazy! Cain wants to raise taxes on you and you just shrug and say OK.

Couple O' long-winded blow-hards right there.

I bet everyone just scrolled right on past those two manifestos like I did.

Why dont you two shills go to the yahoo news boards with the rest of the right wing crybabies.

dsdsherm:

This is the problem with America. We have become a country where we really do not have any pride. We have no ambition to achieve greatness. We accept mediocre. We encourage and allow our children to look completely and totally unemployable in public. We do not push for results in education. And worst of all we believe it is all someone elses fault/responsibility. The OWS crowd is a perfect example of this.

I never thought I would see the day when we became the society we are today.

What are you talking about? Many of the OWS demonstrators are highly educated professionals who cannot find jobs because their jobs have gone overseas or have been eliminated during the recession caused by conservative economic policies. They are NOT slackers; they are merely desperate, and they are frustrated because no one in business or the government is lifting a hand to help them. They have no problem with paying their way when they have something to pay their way from. But they are currently beyond helping themselves because there is nothing to help themselves TO.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. And that's you.

As a highly educated professional woman, myself, who happens to also be a liberal, and who has raised an equally liberal daughter who is both well-educated AND a well-employed manager in the private sector well before the age of 30, I find your remarks very offensive. Just because people are frustrated with the way things are going in this country does not justify the unwarranted assumptions you make about their background or your character. You have no right to say these things, as you obviously are completely misinformed.

People who think like you are not the only people who are capable of success. People who think like you are, however, the ones who believe it is acceptable to hoard wealth and to allow others to suffer while you get richer and richer and richer.

Land of opportunity, my eye.

It's people like you who want to dismantle all the opportunity that our generation had so that you don't have to pay for it. Just remember who paid for ours.

Maybe it relieves your own guilt to believe that all these people are somehow unworthy, but it certainly does nothing to show that YOU are worthy. You certainly display no understanding or compassion for the plight of others that might make you worthy of respect.

I never thought I would see the day when someone who says the ignorant and spiteful things that you say is taken seriously. There are far too many selfish people like you.

You should all be ashamed.

I like this multiple debate format where You can really dive in and get to know what the candidates are like beneath the surface, warts and all, because it is serious business, choosing a leader in these times, and I do believe most Americans have had enough of just viewing a beauty contest from the shallow end of the pool, where You make Your pick on looks, sound bites, or whoever it is, someone tells You to vote for, and then, find Yourself stuck with the consequences before knowing what that person's agenda really was under the surface.

"like marcus on a corndog" Wouldnt have been less well you know to say something less than........oh I dont know, what you accuse me of. I know you have no conscious and will just deny and rationalize this off, but it just sounded off!

dsdsherm

I dont care if it was a Martian idea.

Well, the earned income tax credit was a CONSERVATIVE idea, and everyone thought it was a good idea for the reasons I pointed. But that was before Obama was elected president and conservatives all went insane.

I dont like it. And I dont despise poor people, I used to be one. I have relatives that are poor.

I'd hate to be poor if I were YOUR relative. Thanksgiving dinners must be pretty miserable at your house.

I have seen both sides and have issues with both. And I can list a string of abuses from the poor that need to be reformed.

Not doubt you can list "abuses" by SOME of the poor. But the abuses by the poor didn't cause the US economy to crater. The abuses of the wealthy did. And whether or not you used to be poor is irrelevant. You, like most far-right conservatives don't care what crimes against against the nation are committed by the wealthy. You're just too obsessed with the failings of the poor people you despise to care.

Would you not agree that any plan based on in Cain's words, assumptions, is speculative at best?

Sure, all these kinds of things have a speculative aspect. Projecting budget deficits is speculative. Projecting the real costs of Obamacare is speculative. That in itself doesn't argue against dismissing Cain's proposal -- after all, it didn't stop the Dems from ramming HCR through. But it does argue for even closer scrutiny of the proposal – sort of what the Dems failed to do with HCR.

it doesn't give us any meaningful measure of how he really thinks. It certainly doesn't convince me that he is a first-class economic mind.

Wrong on count one, irrelevant on count two. The very fact that he presented the 9-9-9 proposal gives you insight into how he views the world. And as president, he doesn't need to have a first class economic mind. He needs to surround himself with others who have those talents, and be able to assimilate the information they present to him and use that information to make decisions – that's what executives do. Cain has stated on numerous occasions that he is not knowledgeable on various subjects and would rely on the advice of experts in those particular fields. I for one find it refreshing that Cain doesn't try to come across as the smartest person in the room – in contrast to our current fearless leader.

if it's such a potentially worthy idea, Congress doesn't send Mr. Cain a thank-you card and take it up immediately, like they did with the Ryan plan.

Cheap shot AM, most unbecoming of you. It's a complicated issue and the Cain plan is more complex than the 9-9-9 branding might imply. As Newt said, the plan requires scrutiny before it advances and scrutiny of an issue of this magnitude requires ample time. Even if Congress began studying the plan tomorrow it's not likely it would be ready for a prime time vote before the next election.

@BEVERLY Re: Brookstone and her stand to not hire.

Here's my theory to fight back and has been my theory for at least the last 25 years: Everybody walks out, joins "Occupy" and let them take care of their own damn businesses. By everybody I mean "employees". Garbage men, leave it lay there. Secretaries, let your bosses make copies, type and get their own damn coffee. Construction workers, put down your tools and walk away. Go actually be the 99%. Coal miners, walk away. Bus drivers, park it. Let Mittens do his own damn yard work. Let Cain build his own damn fence. Let Mittens foreclose all those properties he so wants to turn over to the "investors". Just do this for about a week and see where it gets us. They can't fire us ALL like Ronnie Raygun did the traffic controllers, because if we're all out on the street, who's going to replace us?

Mike 416, Exactly!

Well, Beverly, I looks like business thinks they are more important that the people. Stop hiring to hurt Obama? I have a slogan for the American people: "You're not hiring? I'm not buying."

We'll see how long these losers stay in business. Remember, "Alice's Restaurant?" We may need a tune, but just walk right in, ask if they are hiring, if they say no, "You're not hiring? I'm not buying." Move to the next store. Maybe this needs a hash sign?

There are none so blind as those who will not see. And that's you.

Does this not apply to Liberals as well?

You keep doing the same things, and expecting a different result. You want to help the poor, but of course don't want your taxes to increase. You want to give advantages to illegal citizens in this country but complain you lost your job to cheap labor, and that picking fruit is beneath you. You want the gov't to take care of the poor, when in fact the gov't is the poorest of us all. You blame teachers for the way YOUR kids act. It is time to for us to take responsibility. I am not trying to make this a party debate, but it seems you all don't want it any other way. We are bigger than the party lines that we think define us. There are plenty of good and bad examples from both sides. We all need to evaluate our position and role in our own economy. We must be happy in our own lives before we can have the gov't make us happy. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Well actually you can, It's called saying one thing and doing another...

Personally, If I needed to provide for my family, I would choose picking fruit over protesting on Wall Street day in and day out.

Well Bill we agree on more scrutiny The important thing here in my opinion is that with Norquist behind any plan that remains revenue neutral is he opening up the tax plan debate to a top down burden as well. Wonder how fast he would come out against a revenue neutral plan in that scenario. It appears he has boxed himself in a corner with the revenue neutral caveat.

Any time we have people talking about tax reform it is good thing. Doesn't mean I will support their plan however. Would like to see the Congress get busy now on reforms. A clean 3 tier rate specifically. And yes, a girl can always dream.

Back at post 1.3 by Ms. Fisty,

Apparently the Tax folks you quoted are not real good with math. Seems to me a flat tax of 9% on income would result in a tax rate of 9% for people making $10,000 or $20,000 or $5,000,000. That's the beauty of a flat tax. It is the same for everyone.

Now if you then want to go down and calculate how much the VAT would be for every income bracket then you would have to base that on a host of assumptions.

What Lefties life Fisty and her bevy of cankeled beauties on these threads can't understand is what a windfall in terms of employment this country would see by reducing the corporate tax from 35% to 9%, or rather from the highest to the lowest tax rate in the world. You probably can't imagine what an impact that would have on jobs coming to these shores. But as an evil corporatist who's job it is to outsource, I can tell you we would stop all transfers and likely reverse many we have implemented already. The ROI would absolutely be in favor of keeping jobs here in the US. So all those fine folks getting jobs would do what with that money - oh that's right, they'd pay TAXES. Kooky, baby!

Lefties talking about economics makes me laugh.

in addition to Cain's 9% flat income tax, his 9% sales tax is really an added 9%, doubling the tax on the poor to 18%,

Wrong. The only way the 9% sales tax could be added to the 9% income tax to come up with a total rate of 18% is if a person were to spend 100% of their income on items subject to the sales tax. Secondly, the Cain plan provides for a refunable tax exemption for indiviuals and families below the povert line, so their effective income tax rate would be zero. Thirdly, the 18% number is an orange that ignores the fact that earners would no longer be paying payroll taxes; therefore, an apples-to-apples comparison of the Cain plan to the current taxing structure requires that the ENTIRE tax burden be considered.

Bill, Fairfax:

And as president, he doesn't need to have a first class economic mind. He needs to surround himself with others who have those talents, and be able to assimilate the information they present to him and use that information to make decisions – that's what executives do.

Which is different, how, from what President Obama did?

As a matter of fact, President Obama surrounded himself with the finest conservative economic minds he could find -- you know, the ones who ruled over the Wall Street meltdown in the first place. No doubt the idea was that, if they were there, they should know how to get us out of it.

But they didn't, did they?

And who ARE Cain's experts, by the way? What are their credentials? So far, this has been kept pretty darned secret.

Why?

I heard it's some financial planner from Ohio -- sort of like the tax accountant in the movie DAVE. LoL Life imitating art, you know?

Cheap shot AM, most unbecoming of you. It's a complicated issue and the Cain plan is more complex than the 9-9-9 branding might imply.

Not a cheap shot. Cain himself suggests it's so simple that everyone should understand it. He belittled Mitt Romney when he took issue with the compounding of sales taxes. He merely denied there was a value-added component and acted exasperated with those who pursued the point.

Apples and oranges. Apples and oranges. Apples and oranges.

Well, at least HE practiced before the debate.

Rick Perry ought to have tried it.

Cain's plan is either simple, or it's not. You've just suggested that it's not as simple as Cain says it is. But I don't take Newt Gingrich's word for it, nor would I take the word of any of the Republican candidates, who obviously are biased, about the plan's merits over that of an unbiased organization that exists solely for the purpose of studying taxes.

In all seriousness, if Cain's plan has REAL merit, what's wrong with Congress taking it up right now?

Wouldn't that be a compliment to Mr. Cain?

Wouldn't that virtually assure his election?

Or not?

Even if Congress began studying the plan tomorrow it's not likely it would be ready for a prime time vote before the next election.

And when do you suppose it will it be "ready for a prime time vote" if we wait until AFTER Cain is elected?

According to you conservatives, this is an urgent problem that is holding the entire economy hostage. According to you, there's too much uncertainty now.

Just how long do you think people should wait for relief?

If it really is relief.

After such an informing debate, EIC is all you got? Why are we not discussing the great policies that will get American back to being a world class enconomy? Wait a minute, where are all the conservatives? They could not all be that ashamed of last night... could they?

it appears that the left leaning people dont believe in self reliance at all and there is no amount of dollars and spending or welfare that will be enough.

So are you FOR the mandate to pay towards healthcare? My son fought in Iraq and I thought everyone should have skin in THAT game - maybe we would be more careful if everyone was affected. Since everyone already pays some taxes, does everyone have to pay some of every tax? You allude to that when everything BUT federal income taxes are paid by the poor.

In a nutshell, lower taxes for corps means they can build/manufacture products cheaper, which means the end user gets the same product at a lower cost. Otherwise, they can not compete. Any leftover money most likely goes back into the company somehow(R&D, expansion, advertising) to strengthen the company and possibly provide an even better product. The law of supply and demand.

Oh, this is rich. One of the problems we have with our economy is lack of demand because nobody can afford things. Obama specifically addresses this when he tries to get more in the hands of the middle class and poor. They spend it all and demand goes up. On the other hand, the wealthy keep most of their money. And in what universe do the corps use their profits to invest in manufacturing or any type of job creation? It hasn't happened in the last decade. Maybe you meant that they are investing overseas, because that is where it is happening, not here.

Corporations are people - maybe we can send Haliburton to fight our next war and leave the rest of us out of it.

So let me get this straight. Obama wants to raise taxes on you

Really? Where? What taxes? They haven't been this low in DECADES.

DAUC:

Does this not apply to Liberals as well?

Yet another conservative post filled with faulty assumptions. You always assume you know how liberals think, but you don't.

You keep doing the same things, and expecting a different result.

Well, that's true, anyway. You'd think I'd figure it out, wouldn't you?

You want to help the poor, but of course don't want your taxes to increase.

No, I've never said I don't want my taxes to increase. No one really does, but I recognize that they probably have to increase to get us out of this mess. I'm willing to pay a little more to help the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and the unemployed. I'm not willing to pay more to help EXXON and BP, Halliburton, or Blackwater.

You want to give advantages to illegal citizens in this country but complain you lost your job to cheap labor, and that picking fruit is beneath you.

No, I have a good job now. Picking fruit is not beneath me; in fact, being short, it's usually above me. As a result, of course, I wouldn't be much good at it in terms of a career choice.

You blame teachers for the way YOUR kids act. It is time to for us to take responsibility.

Actually, having been a teacher, this one is hilarious. I'm the one who doesn't blame teachers, and I always took responsibility for my own child. As she learned civil manners at home, however, this did not prove to be much of a problem.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Sure you can. Just not my cake. ;-)

Personally, If I needed to provide for my family, I would choose picking fruit over protesting on Wall Street day in and day out.

Good thing you don't have to choose. Too bad that others do, don't you think?

Mike,

No, let me clarify. Obama wants to raise taxes on people who make more than me to pay for a spending bill that is poorly conceived as are most of his plans. And yes, I oppose it. I oppose any attemtp to increase taxes on one group or another when all groups are not contributing at the same percentage on their federal income taxes. Demonizing the people currently paying the bills in order to appease those that are your voting base and keeping them paying nothing for the benefits is wrong and I refuse to support it. So yes, I oppose the ideas, but no, it would not raise taxes on me.

Cain wants to raise taxes on me and make EVERYONE pay them, and yes I am good with that. Because it makes it fair. Everyone pays the same percentage of what they earn in federal income taxes. I am not a HUGE fan of the sales tax portion, as it would require a slightly higher cost to the people with the least, as they consume pretty much everything at their income level, so a greater portion of their income woudl be taxed under this structure. But the rich would be paying more in this aspect as well, as they typically buy more expensive things and more things than the average poor person does. It just would not amount to the same percentage of income. But it would help to get some taxes out of those that work "under the table" to avoid paying as well. The plan is not perfect, but I agree with it more than the current system

I am a believer in the fact that ALL should pay for the government as it is a benefit to ALL. The current structure of making one group pay for the rest is wrong.

And you may have missed it, but I currently pay no federal income taxes. BHO wants to keep me that way. I want to see a more fair system, because I am not a Marxist and refuse to buy into the idea that one group should pay more percentage of thier income in federal income taxes than another simply because they can. Even if taxed at the same nominal percentage, the rich will be paying far more than any other group. But to increase their percentage of contribution because they have more is wrong. It is thier money that they worked to get. It is not the Governments to decided how much of it they need to live on.

Maybe I am not the typical GOP person you wish to pose that question to, as I do not fall into the category of someone BHO wants to overtax even more. I fall into typical Liberal territory that pays no Federal Income taxes.

But I have a mind of my own and refuse to let my vote be bought on the idea of perpetuating and unfair system where someone else is expected to pay my share because they achieved a greater level of success. I know that because I benefit from these ideas, I should be a Liberal. But I am not. Because that is one of the main ideas behind Socialism, and I do not want to be a part if a Socialist Society.

Does that carify the answer for you?

ABO 2012

dsdsherm:

I fall into typical Liberal territory that pays no Federal Income taxes.

Where did you get the idea that this is "typical" for liberals? Certainly not for this liberal, or any members of her family, or any of her liberal friends, who are mostly professionals.

The difference between us and conservatives is that we understand what taxes are for, pay our share, and don't whine about it.

Bill, Fairfax VA

in addition to Cain's 9% flat income tax, his 9% sales tax is really an added 9%, doubling the tax on the poor to 18%,

Wrong. The only way the 9% sales tax could be added to the 9% income tax to come up with a total rate of 18% is if a person were to spend 100% of their income on items subject to the sales tax.

That's exactly the point. People who just barely "make ends meet" spend almost all of their income on necessities. They don't have much left over for dabbling in the stock market. Apparently, Bill is so well-off that he cannot conceive of such a thing.

Secondly, the Cain plan provides for a refunable tax exemption for indiviuals and families below the povert line, so their effective income tax rate would be zero.

Their effective tax rate would be 9% because they would still have to buy you know, food, housing, clothes, and other luxuries like that. And they'd still have to pay state and local taxes.

Thirdly, the 18% number is an orange that ignores the fact that earners would no longer be paying payroll taxes; therefore, an apples-to-apples comparison of the Cain plan to the current taxing structure requires that the ENTIRE tax burden be considered.

The total payroll taxes for Social Security, Medicare is 5.6%. That's less than the 9% that would replace payroll taxes according to Cain's plan. What you and Cain don't seem to understand is that whether you're talking about apples OR oranges, you still have to pay for them using the same dollar currency. Cain's plan would force people living on the brink of poverty over that brink.

But what happens to the poor isn't the biggest problem with 9-9-9. I know Republicans don't care about the poor people because they think the poor deserve to live in poverty. But Republicans DO care about their own taxes, and it's Cain's increase on the middle class that's likely make Republican voters turn elsewhere. Unless they're really dumb.

Anna Molly, you should be ashamed of using tactics like that to try and discredit legitimate economic viewpoints. The views of self reliance and personal accountability as a means to personal and financial success are not mutually exclusive of compassion and a social safety net and you know it. We all know for every welfare queen that is used on the right to justify their positions, their are good hard working people in economic hardship that came about for reasons outside their control or choices they made. This isnt about the edges or compassion, its about a philosophy that is based on whether government is the proper method of curing or taking care of all of lifes choices. Its not fair for you to make this about compassion in that way because many people would say that your view is a form of economic suppression or could embellish examples of abuse the other way which serves no purpose.

You know that this is still the land of opportunity. Individual tax receipts were up 21% last fiscal year--yes 21% and guess what spending was up 5% with a huge decrease in Iraq war spending. Welfare payments of all sort are now 900 billion annually before entitlements. Deficit was $1.3 trillion so lets not start with this class warfare stuff. Its great that you are a liberal success but how did you get successful? Did you do it with the government holding your hand the whole way? What about your successful clients? What about the successful immigrant business owners in your community? So why as a liberal do you think your way of finding success is different than the rest of us? What about your liberal views makes you feel that its compassionate if I show them and hold their hand, give them money and they can get there too. Instead you should be saying look how I did it because you can too. Self reliance is the only way.

Yes of course there are professionals at Occupy Wall street just like there were at the Tea Party but stop picking out the examples that fit your argument. If their job went overseas because their labor was too expensive, do you really think the answer is to provide them more welfare? If you woke up tomorrow and it was decided that lawyers are no longer needed for your expertise or outsourced to India, would you ask the government to figure out what you should do next or would you decide on your own? Would you decide whether to get new job training, go back to school, think of opening your own business? All of that is what makes our country great or do you have your hand out to the person in your community who is wealthy and say I want your money and I cant tell you how long I am going to want it but assume you need to keep paying as long as I think its necessary?

@Houston -- Typical LWNJ lies and making up of their own facts.

dsdsherm

There is one flaw in your argument as some of us see it. Not everyone utilizes the infrastructure of the United States to the same degree. There are people that cannot afford to go to National Parks. You cannot begin to imagine the number of people in this country that cause no pollution so the EPA never calls them. I could go on for hours describing Government agencies and programs that only benefit business owners and investors in this country, but will spare you. The bottom line is the wealthy individuals in this country would not be so if not for labor, resources, and government of the United States. My hat is off to them that they were able to benefit and become wealthy. The question now seems to be if they are willing to pay to keep the gravy train going. Where do we start dismantling the government? Should the police go first? Maybe firemen, what are the odds your house will burn down. Maybe the teachers... but don't the wealthy need to educate the population so they can continue to build their wealth. Personally, I can do without teachers, how about you? I believe the notion that those that benefit most, should pay the most. Just seems right to me.

This;

Anna Molly, you should be ashamed of using tactics like that to try and discredit legitimate economic viewpoints.

Is both ironic and hilarious after the feast of straw man arguments and Conservative stereotyping here;

All of this class warfare, tax inequality and income inequality really does come down to a complete different set of personal views on success. Many of us feel that self reliance and personal accountability are the drivers of a person's success (however that may be defined) while the left leaning posters here feel its the governments job to provide that success again however defined.

Kirk has almost completely given up his "reasonable" persona, falling more and more frequently into thoughtless rants that could easily have been lifted directly from a the Blaze, or the Drudge Report.

Oops, forgot about the grandson, I guess I need the teachers after all.

Observations on the Big Debate:

1. Anderson Cooper was the absolute worst excuse for a moderator. He intentionally set the stage for heated argument, and then let several of the less intellectual candidates, walk into the trap. About the only one who did not fall for this blatant treachery was Ron Paul. Instead of stepping in, like a real moderator, Cooper stepped back and fanned the flames. What a pos.

2. It is obvious even to the most casual observer that the goose of Teleprompter Man Obama, is cooked. Every candidate on the stage has more brains than Obama the DA and about 10 times more valid experience.

3. Ron Paul was clearly the superior debater among the candidates. His responses were clear, to the point, and based on unshakeable principle.

4. Loony Liberal Demobags ( nice, natural ring to that description, huh?) will be crying in their straight jackets when Ron Paul is elected in a landslide.

Very enlightening John, Let me know when you can actually respond to the arguments made rather than your personal attacks. Never read a Drudge report and its really too bad that you cant fathom that people actually can argue or have a different opinion than yourself. Really self reliance is that hard for you to deal with?

Anna Molly,

While I am sorry I offended you, I stand by my comments. I am glad for your success and your fine raising of your successfull daughter. I do not find that to be the norm in society today. How many kids of age to enter the workforce have tatoos everywhere, earrings in every place other than their ear, and their earlobes stretched to oblivion. And they complain they cant get a job? I find it equally sad that some DO get a job. I see one working at Walmart, I make a point to mention it to a manager that I find it offensive that they hire such an individual.

That cover my comments on children looking unemployable. I stand by it. I have seen similar looks in the OWS crowd. Not all, but plenty exists there.

Maybe I am old fashioned. But pride would have made me achieve. I have been on welfare way back in history. I was on food stamps. Pride pushed me to get off these programs as fast as humanly possible. Once off I vowed to never go back. Today it is accepted as a norm. 48% of people on government assistance programs of some sort? Where is your pride? It is possible to avoid. Not saying it is easy. But possible.

And I know it is a rough economy out there. I was unemployed from Jan to June after 16 years with the same company. But I live a conservative life and plan for the unplanned. Yes, I got unemployment, but everything else was off savings. I would not have applied for an extension and would have taken a minimum wage job first, if that was what it took. I did not get food stamps, even though I could have. I studied and got more certifications and got another job. Pride. And yes, it pays less than the old job. I will catch up eventually. Pride. Self reliance.

I could have stayed on unemployment for years. I was told by friends I was nuts for not doing it. Heck I could have lasted 2 years on unemployment given all the extensions being offered and my length of employment. But pride said support yourself.

I dont see a lot of this going on.

My main issue with OWS is the message. I understand people are unemployed. But to blame others is wrong. If you are educated and cant find a job in your profession, maybe you made a poor choice and need to start over with a different profession? But it is not a requirement of "Wall Street" to provide you a job. It is a free market system. If you have a skill that others need and want, you will get a job. But if you went to college to get a degree is some obscure major that there is no demand for, dont expect a job in it. No one owes it to you. And free markets are cyclical. There are many reason for our decline, and who to blame is debateable. You blame conservatives, I blame Liberals. Cases can be made both ways. But reality is it takes time to get through it. Current policies are prolonging it, but it will correct itself. There is little the government can do other than make the business envirnment suitable for expansion and hiring. Business has no reason to hire as there is no demand. All the protesting in the world will not change these base principles.

But fact is the OWS protesters are mad because of their plight and rather than concentrate on finding a solution for themselves and be self reliant, they wish to protest and blame others for their situation.

I have watched the news on the most liberal of stations and have yet to hear anyone at these protests do anything other than blame others. They see Wall Street was bailed out and they want a bailout too. This goes to the pride issue. Even if you have exhausted all means to better yourself, blaming your lack of success on someone else is wrong. And the resounding message I hear is to bash capitalism and praise socialism. The CEOs got rich because they "Took" it from the American people. And they "Demand" we take it back from them. And we wont even mention the anti-semetic and plain outright anarchist and communist comments. If you were a decent educated person, and you associate with these groups, you are by default the same. Guilt by association. And it will turn violent, I am sure. I have no doubt on that.

The real reason they are protesting is the rhetoric of our leader who demonizes such individuals as corporate CEOs. Many of the OWS protestors spout about the top 1%. Where did they get that? From BHO himself. He used this before any of them ever thought of it.

So we have a leader who has no pride. He is willing to demonize the most succesfull of people in this country and has mobilized masses to follow this message. He epitomizes the problem. It is easier to deflect than take responsibility for furthering the issue. His Obamacare regulations and burdens it will put on business paralysed them. His EPA regulations stiffle private enterprise projects that would employ people. His allegiance to unions cause for the garbage legislation he proposes rather than something that would actually help.

And his message is no different than the OWS crowd. CEOs not paying their "Fair Share". That their success is somehow tied to your failure. It is a blame game at a high level.

It is his leadership over the past few years that has reduced American pride.

As stated before, sorry if this offends you. Maybe you need to take a step back and be offended by the ones driving this.

But I stand by my comments. We have no pride, we blame others, fail to seek success and feel it is owed to us. It comes from the top, and I wish to fix that.

If the truth offends you, it should. It surely offends me, as I was not raised that way and would not raise my children that way. And I never thought I would see the day when we bacme the society we are today.

ABO 2012

IR12--thats not a flaw in his argument at all. All of those services are paid for by state and local taxes. Property taxes fund most education in this country and people who own homes and businesses fund that education? So the person who went on to become a doctor or lawyer or business owner or Steve Jobs, he had access to that education paid for by his parents. Same with roads and police and fireman, the working wealthy, middle class etc all pay into that system and on an absolute dollar basis the more you make the more you have paid in so are you telling me they owe more for these services available to everyone? That argument that you got wealthy or were successful because of government services that I already paid for doesnt carry any weight. Plus, its not about loving teachers, firemen or policemen, its about rational economic discussions. Lets discuss education reform but lets face it the democrats wont do it because of the unions. What do you think causes the biggest part of the income inequality that Anna and John fight for? Its not the wealthy stealing from the middle class its the education gap we have . What about police and fireman. I am on my local villages finance commission. Do you know that fire and police are unionized with benefits paid for locally under rules mandated by the state. Our fire department has enough equipment and people to fight two simulataneous 5 alarm fires and still do an ambulance call too. In the last 100 years, we havent had a single fatality from fire and they get two calls a year in which fire trucks from 16 local communities showed up. So when we started trying to combine or look at cutting costs as we have $40 million of unfunded union benefit liabilities, $100 million of infrastructure deficits and a $2 million annual shortfall. So the fire men fought tooth and nail to combine call centers, wouldnt take any cuts in pay, wouldnt agree to any position even open position cuts nor be willing to take merit pay as they said it was all about childrens safety. Same thing with the police and all of these guys retire at 50 with $100k annual pension payments. I am just happy that I dont have to truly get involved because I understand why the fire and police dont want to give back as I wouldnt either but economic reality is hitting people in the fact--except for John B of course where its tax the rich they can pay right?

AM – in one breath you trash the economic experts who advised Obama, then in the next you trash the obscure non-expert who advised Cain. You can't have it both ways.

BTW the firm that supported Cain on developing his plan is Fiscal Associates, Inc. Cain has mentioned them before and identified Rich Lowrie as his key guy. Indeed, Lowrie was interviewed recently on Kudlow's show. So the man behind the curtain is not nearly the "secret" you suggest.

BTW2, the Ryan Plan includes a similar approach to tax reform; it's not the 9-9-9 approach of Cain, but it does focus on broadening the base and lowering the rates in a fashion somewhat similar to Cain.

BTW3, neither the Cain plan nor the Ryan plan include anything new under the sun. Both are based on ideas that have been advanced by tax policy wonks in the past. What's different today is that the public disgust with the current tax system might be reaching critical mass.

BTW4, you can read all about Cain's plan here. Enjoy.

http://www.hermancain.com/999plan

Would like to see the Congress get busy now on reforms. A clean 3 tier rate specifically. And yes, a girl can always dream.

Yes, and a guy can always dream too :)

Houston – either you can't read, you can't think, or you just don't give a damn. Have a nice day.

ir12,

Not everyone can afford to go to national parks- This is good because I believe they should be the first to be cut out of the budget. We cannot afford them and I am not willing to keep borrowing 40 cents on the dollar to fund them. If they are desirede enough that fees can fund them in entirety, then fine. If not, defund them.

EPA - Usually not a businesses best friend. If the people demand and EPA to punish business and regulate them that is fine. I would not lay this burden at the feet of the business as it is a consumer portection, not a business protection. I sincerely doubt you find many businesses that list the EPA as one of the benefits they get from the government.

Most government agencies do not have a direct benefit to business, but rather to regulate them. And as these businesses make gobs of money the amount they pay if all percentages were the same is way more than common citizens. And I have no issue with them paying more in total, as THAT is the cost of their added benefit and the reasonable cost to reflect their success in the system. Why should they pay a higer percentage? They are already paying more than the individual.

A person making $100,000 taxed at 10% pays $10,000. A company making $100,000,000 taxed at 10% pays $10,000,000. That seems fair. They are paying more for their success. 1000 times more.

But to say they should pay a higher percentage on top of that is wrong and unfair no matter how you attempt to justify it.

ABO 2012

AM – in one breath you trash the economic experts who advised Obama, then in the next you trash the obscure non-expert who advised Cain. You can't have it both ways.

LoL Oh, yes, I can, Bill.

Both sets of "experts" can be wrong. The stimulus failed, as predicted by many economists, because it was too conservative in its approach. A lot of money got spent, but in the wrong ways -- tax cuts instead of actual jobs. Obama listened to the wrong experts.

BTW2, the Ryan Plan includes a similar approach to tax reform; it's not the 9-9-9 approach of Cain, but it does focus on broadening the base and lowering the rates in a fashion somewhat similar to Cain.

Yes, the Ryan plan is wrong, too. I mentioned it merely as an example of how fast Congress can work if it wants to.

BTW3, neither the Cain plan nor the Ryan plan include anything new under the sun. Both are based on ideas that have been advanced by tax policy wonks in the past.

Failed tax policy wonks, you mean. There is STILL no empirical evidence that tax cuts create jobs.

What's different today is that the public disgust with the current tax system might be reaching critical mass.

So, just to do SOMETHING, we do something foolish?

Like invading Iraq?

Spoken just like a true conservative.

BTW4, you can read all about Cain's plan here. Enjoy.

Why would I believe what Cain says about his own plan, instead of what non-partisan experts say about it?

Bill Fairfax:

Houston – either you can't read, you can't think, or you just don't give a damn. Have a nice day.

You're a jerk who can't discuss anything without lying or name calling, Bill. Have a nice day yourself.

Kirk, the federal government does return monies to the states for these services. They probably should not, but it seems states need the help. A part of it is also so they can force states to provide some semblance of a quality education. If you look around the nation, I am sure you can find some disparities between what is being offered. I am not saying there are not problems that need to be resolved. I do know of Unions that have made concessions to keep jobs. I suspect Firemen and Police feel they have you over a barrel, but not knowing the situation, would not venture a guess on that. Perhaps dismantling the fire department and/or police and paying the county would be a solution. Like I said, you get what you pay for. A fire department is not a necessity. How many people do you know that need an embassy in a foreign country. I understand your argument, but I believe as your needs to up, the percentage of your income necessary to fulfill them increases. If everyone pays 2% for fire, police, and education and that is all there is, OK, 2% for everyone. Want to go to a foreign country, OK, we need another 2% for the passport and customs office. Now do we charge everyone for the service. Or do we admit there is a certain number of people that will never travel aboard and not make them pay. Let's guess that no one making less than 20,000 a year will go to Europe and only apply the cost to those making over 20,000 a year. Voila, a progress tax system like we have is born. Now we just have to figure out a way to charge those that use the services or require the oversight to keep them honest.

dsdsherm:

I understand people are unemployed. But to blame others is wrong. If you are educated and cant find a job in your profession, maybe you made a poor choice and need to start over with a different profession?

As I said before, if this makes you feel better when there are probably 16 million unemployed people in this country, go ahead and believe that they're all slackers.

But before you do that, show me where there are 16 million jobs for them to get.

I see one working at Walmart, I make a point to mention it to a manager that I find it offensive that they hire such an individual.

See, this is where we differ. Walmart itself offends me, both for the way it callously broke with its original business model, which was to sell American-made goods, but the the shoddy way it consistently treats its employees, as evidenced by the numerous lawsuits where Walmart has been called out for its practices.

I don't shop at Walmart. But my daughter, who works in retail management, plans to get a pretty little tattoo. No big deal anymore. Otherwise, she dresses appropriately for her work and demands that the 25 employees she supervises do so, as well. How hard is this? Walmart could do better, but then who would Walmart be able to hire for what it pays?

But fact is the OWS protesters are mad because of their plight and rather than concentrate on finding a solution for themselves and be self reliant, they wish to protest and blame others for their situation.

Perhaps because the fact is that this IS the fault of others. You're lucky, and I'm lucky, and my daughter's lucky, but not everyone is so lucky.

And that's what you refuse to accept. You don't want to see it because then you'd have to do something about it, and that might involve either getting off your high horse or paying a little more in taxes.

God forbid.

Lib50--actually I have no problem with the individual mandate for HCR. I dont see the connection to your son serving in Iraq as last time I looked it was a volunteer military but I would be for mandatory service in the military too as I would agree that might change attitudes towards government service and military action. As for HCR, my problem with it has nothing to do with the mandate and all to do with its substance and lack of addressing the spending or quality of health care in this country. It basically says that the 85% who have quality health care are going to pay for the other 15% to have the same health care as they have today without addressing how to curb spending and how to let the 85% know that they are going to have to take less in benefits than they had in the past.

As for corporate taxes, you miss the issue. Raising taxes on corporation or lowering taxes impacts disproportionately the middle class just like a sales tax does. It impacts the competitiveness in terms of selling products like a GM car versus Toyota which impacts demand which impacts jobs. It also increases the value of corporations which helps union pension plans, 401(k) plans, endowments for colleges and universities etc. So yes it does create jobs and no corp sits on cash that is making 1% and wont reinvest it to increase its value because that helps everyone if they thought it would.

Taxes arent the lowest they have been in decades, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is at its lowest because the economy sucks. Did you see that individual tax revenue was up 21% in the year just ended? Guess what tax rates were extended so obviously it had not negative impact on revenue. But spending even with the Iraq war winding almost down and the so called budget deals with Obama and Reid was up 5% for a $1.3 trillion deficit. Nothing was cut and welfare is now 900 billion annually across 80 programs.

Anna Molly,

Again, I didnt intend to offend you.

I did not mean to say that BHO's entire base is the untaxed. I was just referring to the fact that most that faill into the category of untaxed lean liberal as lilberals are the ones who typically perpetuate the untaxed portion of the tax code.

As you are an educated well paid Liberal, I am a middle class untaxed Conservative. I just fall into a tax category that is dominated by Liberals as far as a percentage.

ABO 2012

.....and Fiesty Redhead comes in the lead again! Fiesty, your job is to inconspicuously shape public opinion! Not to bull through breaking every branch in your way hehe

See here's the problem - there is not a single clown in the car who's capable of beating President Obama & they KNOW it! lol

Obama/Biden 2012

I don't care how much you hate Republicans due to your psychosis of partisan hackery...if you want Obama in 2012 you're a fake liberal, a fake progressive, and just a sophist. Warmonger, torturer, 3 wars now 7 wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, now Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and recently added Uganda), PATRIOT Act loving, no GITMO closing, no trials for suspects, domestic surveillance, assassination of U.S. citizens without trial, ramping UP the drug warrior BS, in bed with Banksters and their Wall Street users, and the list goes on and on and on and on...

...and you intellectually dishonest, sophistic, ignorant oafs STILL support this neocon Democrat?

You're completely lost...and possibly so is what's left of our country.

There is a candidate running who is against all of those things...but you live in a psychosis and won't vote for him. You'll say it's economics, but he predicted the collapse you and all your heroes missed (so who is ignorant on economics here?). You'll say it's abortion, public school support, or gay marriage, meanwhile these are a way of saying you prioritize these issues over mass murder, torture, Banksterism, etc.

You make me ill.

Pioritize before it's too late. Vote Ron Paul...

....or it's 4 more years of vote for tweedle dum or tweedle dee. 4 more years war is peace, slavery is freedom, and interventions are "humanitarian".

Party doesn't matter. Having REAL principles matter.

Anna Molly, you, your daughter and dsdsherm werent lucky, you made the right choices. I hate it when someone tells me I was lucky or your kids turned out lucky because they found jobs out of school or they seem to be well adjusted kids. I wasnt lucky. I worked hard to be a good parent and its not luck that they turned out ok. But I realize that bad things can happen to everyone no matter how hard you worked. And you constantly use the grandiose example. If there are 16 million unemployed, you know that its not 16 million jobs that are needed. So why have arguments for the minority or the exception? Can a liberal not make an argument for the general average?

You should be proud of your success and your parenting skills that made your daughter a success without the benefit of others. You should be a role model for the success and you should be preaching self reliance for those who need it not the nanny state you so wish for.

dsdsherm:

Again, I didnt intend to offend you.

I did not mean to say that BHO's entire base is the untaxed. I was just referring to the fact that most that faill into the category of untaxed lean liberal as lilberals are the ones who typically perpetuate the untaxed portion of the tax code.

As you are an educated well paid Liberal, I am a middle class untaxed Conservative. I just fall into a tax category that is dominated by Liberals as far as a percentage.

No apologies, please. This didn't offend me. I was just curious, as I always am, as to where these stereotypes come from.

I'd like to see the statistics to back up what you say, but at least you've based your notions on something other than what conservative pundits tell you.

Good for you.

dsdsherm

It depends on how you look at it. If it takes 10% to run the country for items that benefit everyone, then 10% should be the tax. However, we know a corperations main goal is to maximize profits for their investors. Were we able to trust them, we would not need an EPA. This is of their own doing so do not expect me to feel sorry for them. These cost have to be above the 10% needed to run the basics. The only way to recover these costs are to charge a higher percentage of income. I do not particularly like the percentage methods as it rewards higher incomes, but hey, they are the ones that made it up. When Ronald Regan gave a 10% tax cut, most individuals received 300 to 400 dollars. The upper income earners received tens of thousands in tax cuts. This shifted all costs of government onto the individuals that earned less. You may not like the EPA if you are subjected to its rules. But if you are, you should have to pay extra for it.

dsdsherm -- You are free to go make a donation to IRS. Apparently your pride compels you to do the right thing and as you pay no taxes this would be the right thing to do in your situation.

Don't fund our National Parks???? Take a hike....it might clear your head.

You're a jerk who can't discuss anything without lying or name calling

Is that so Houston? Let's take a walk down memory lane at some of YOUR remarks today:

So, which one of the morons on parade in last night's debate do you think should replace Obama as president?

it's a fact that Romney made his fortune visiting misfortune on American worker

it's a fact that Cain is going to raise YOUR taxes

All the Republicans want to tax the poor, who are barely making ends meet as it is, in order that the wealthy can keep their tax rates low.

Typical wingnut debating tactics….That's what all extremists do, whether they're Taliban or Tea Baggers.

The other Republicans attacked Cain's 9-9-9 plan, but most of them seem to see taxing the poor as the solution to the deficit problem.

So ummm between the two of us, which one is the jerk who CONSISTENTLY stoops to name calling and lying? But I'll be kind, instead of "lying" I'll just say you toss out sweeping assertions without bothering to back up your "facts." Have a nice evening.

Why would I believe what Cain says about his own plan, instead of what non-partisan experts say about it?

Dearest AM -- so you could apply your own formidable intellect to the Cain proposal and decide for yourself where you come down on it. You know, think for yourself like all the leftists around here purport to do.

Was that Anderson Cooper laughing at the fight?

You have to like Ron Paul. He is not playing for the audience - most of the time. He truly believes what he is saying, and the audience loves him. The answer is isolationism. The answer is the free market. Let states get into bidding wars to be the lucky recipient of the nation's nuclear waste. One thing he certainly has in common with Herman Cain: He sure knows how to lose the Jewish vote. Those darned Israelis are just too dependent on us.

not isolationism but you go ahead and keep believing that.

The answer IS the free market wouldn't you rather let states CHOOSE who wants the nuclear waste and make the money off of it, or would you rather it was forced on your state and you don't get to say anything about it?

They are too dependent on us as are most other countries WE support.

As for the rest of your post pretty much spot on.

The Koch cult is credited in helping the pizza man develop his 999 plan, this plan was set up more for the Rich than the middle class. This 999 is a total "JOKE" This pizza guy is putting rotten meatballs on top his pies.

FL will go to Romney/Rubio by 7 points minimum!

No, we DON'T know that! You skipped right by the part where the President's in front of all the Republicans in Florida, although within the margin of error with Romney.

Auntie,

I didnt skip it, but as a reasonable person I realize this is due to the fact we HAVE NOT NAMED AN OPPONENT. Those for Perry will choose "other" when asked if the race was Romney vs BHO. Same with others who hold out for their candidate and will not commit based on the fact that all are still in the race.

But the truth is, BHO cant get to 50% support level in this state if 49% believe he is doing a bad job. That number is steady. And how many do you really believe will say, "I know he is doing a bad job, but I'm gonna vote for him anyway"? Even his lead against named opponents, how many of these races does he approach or exceed 50%? What? None?

So he is going to lose Florida. Period. And therefore lose the General as there is no margin for error beyond Florida.

But you and "Hope" to "Change" the facts all you want. I find it amusing. And once a candidate is named for the GOP, regardless who it is, let me know the numbers then.

BHO as an unopposed incumbant has dismal numbers in all battlegroud states. He polls well versus individual named candidates on the GOP side, but that is due to the fact stated above. But facts say he cannot garner anywhere near 50% support in any state that is critical to the race. That is an omen of the race and should be recognized. He cannot win. And finally I can sleep at night knowing his days are numbered.

In Florida and other battleground states, he would lose in the general to a can of soup. Obama versus Chicken Noodle? I would vote for Chicken Noodle. And so would many, many others. I would estimate 49% at minimum in Florida would.

ABO 2012

But, they disapprove of the GOP by an even greater percentage. That's why the same polls that put Obama at a less than 50% approval rate also have him up several points over any of the GOP potential candidates for the election.

You have to admit though, things would look really bad for Obama if Romney picked Rubio as VP.

This is what worries me about Cain. I think he's too inexperienced beyond taxes and he would pick Newt Gingrich as a running mate...and Newt is always a ticking time bomb.

Don't buy any lottery tickets today. It looks like your ability to foretell the future is circling the bowl!

The Obama campaign hasn't been able to concentrate on any one Republican candidate. Once the Republicans are done eating their own, the survivor gets to bear the full brunt of the Obama campaign. They've all got flaws that won't play well.

His approval is at least 5x better than the republican controlled house, people are not going to give congress a republican president, especially old people in Florida, who despise the Ryan plan. 12 more months of republicans highlighting their failed policies, and obstinate demeanor will only help democrats at all levels in the next election.

Auntie, I think you are correct on that. Things will get more heated once there is a candidate. However, Obama has a serious problem because he can't run on his record. The only way he can win is to demonize his opponent...I fear this is shaping up to be one ugly election cycle.

Forrest, his approval is at least 5x better than the Democrat controlled senate, too. So are they not going to give the presidency to a democrat either?

I do not find those numbers anywhere to address Mike, but rest assured, the party is not a person.

They specifically disapprove of OBAMA 49%. They can disaprove af the GOP by similar means but as long as it is not the specific person running, it will bear little weight.

I would not trust numbers that said the Dems had a 49% disapproval rate in Florida, as these may or may not translate to the candidate. But say that the specific candidate has a 49% disapproval rating, and I have never seen a race won with those numbers in play.

If there is a GOP disapproval rate in Florida (can you point to those numbers?) it is more than likely attributed to Congress as the polling for GOP involvement seems to be centered around there. Or the numbers are reflective of the current Governor. But I have yet to see where any of the current crop of GOP candidates have a 49% disapproval rating in the state.

So the GOP can have a disapproval rating as you say (and again I would like to see these numbers and where they are coming from) and it will not change the outcome.

And remember also, motivation to vote against someone is a very strong factor. There are plenty in the US who would vote for ANYONE versus Obama. And these people are motivated. The 49% disapprove number is indicative of this. It is hard to win when 49% just want to vote against you because they believe you are doing a bad job, or wish to correct their vote from the previous cycle.

I dont buy your argument.

ABO 2012

Matt,

Cain would not pick Newt. Newt and Cain are from the same state, so it would not bring any benefit. If Cain were the nominee, it would more then likely be Demint or Rubio. Actually Alan West would be a good pick and help in FL as well, but he is the wrong race, and they would not go all black ticket out of fear. The pick will be a white or hispanic man form a battleground state. It will not be from Ga.

ABO 2012

Oh you Radical Right are in la la land.

You have to admit though, things would look really bad for Obama if Romney picked Rubio as VP

Why would we admit that? It doesn't square with the facts.

"There are actually more voters in the state- 36%- who say Rubio on the ticket would make them less likely to vote for the GOP than there are- 30%- who say Rubio as the VP would enhance their chances of supporting the Republican candidate. 34% say it wouldn't make a difference to them either way," the poll found.

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/pppoll-rubio-approval-rating-high-florida-he-would-not-help-vp

The unanimous vote against the job bill by republicans gave great cover to senate democrats, it was the best possible favor they could have wished for.

Rob in ma-3189632

Europe Doesn’t Need Lecture From Obama

Yesterday someone posted a few quotes from a British newspaper that was none to flattering toward Obama.

Evidently, the Germans aren’t very impressed with the big O either.

Obama is indeed pitiful and sad!

Oh boy, it's mindless sheep like you Rob(ber of free speech ) that disregards the President is brilliant, If you have to go to British tabloid to get your dirt, then it you are pathetic.

I can not say much about how intelligent your because you are a FOX-ITE. I'm assuming the tabloid was a Murdoch hit job. You know what they said about FOX watchers

Ohh, and Rob(ber of free speech ) you need a lecture from President Obama every day. In fact, you should download his every word to your ipod just so can learn the true meaning of democracy.

Auntie,

BHO and his minions being able to concentrate on a specific candidate will do him no good. See, the ability to concentrate on his opponent is telling in the fact he cannot use his own record. And smearing an opponent will not help sway the 49% who believe (and rightly so) that he is doing and has done a bad job.

To sway those people he has to be able to convince them he is NOT doing a bad job, not point out how bad the opposing candidate is. They will take the chance on an opposing candidate as an unknown entity rather then one they believe is doing a bad job now. They wont vote for him knowing he is doing a bad job as opposed to one they suspect may do a bad job. They will take the chance on the new guy, as he has YET to do the bad job that they KNOW the current one is doing.

Matt is correct in the fact he cannot use his record over the past 3 years. And I hope Rob is wrong and Mitt is not the candidate. One of our shining examples of BHO and his disconnect with what the people want is his passing Obamacare when it was (and still is ) unpopular and when he should have been concentrating on the economy. He could have passed anything he wanted in that timeframe, and he chose Obamacare. It did not have popular support, and he rammed it through anyway.

With Mitt, this is off the table as a campaign issue and will not help defeat BHO. We need to be able to campaign against all his bad ideas/policies/plans over the last 3 years. Taking the big one off the table is not in our best interest.

If Mitt gets in, I will support him. But he will make it a much closer race than it needs to be due to his similarities with BHO on issues such as this and Global Warming Fiction. I prefer distinct differences to fight over.

ABO 2012

Ooh, "minions"! ANYONE with "minions" must be evil!

Forrest,

You constantly coming back to this as being an issue is actually getting old. The GOP voters who voted the GOP party into the house in 2010 are not for the bill, so the GOP voting against it plays to the base very well.

And his jobs bill is losing support as more people find out what it is and how it will accomplish very little other than a temporary bump for a huge price.

And Senate dems have no cover as there are member who also do not support this. This fact alone has brought the details of the bill to light and caused for greater scrutiny of it. If the Dems had unanymous support for it, it would not get looked at and then you would have an arguement. But as some Dems squaked at it, people started to look into the reason why. And then the details came out on it and it has been losing popularity since.

The vote on his signature legislation and the lack of support from his own party actually gave the GOP cover on this. And it gave ( and continues to give) him a black eye on leadership as well as a string of failures. Not anywhere near as funny as his budget getting 0 votes from any party.

So keep dreaming that this will have an impact of the election cycle. You may be right and it may have an impact, but it wont be the one you seem to think it will have.

ABO 2012

John,

No, not evil. Just inept.

ABO 2012

Job1,

Glad we disagree on who is in la la land.

But I am convinced enough to wager on it, are you? Want to place a friendly bet on the outcome of Florida?

ABO 2012

dsdsherm your analysis requires a towel, for behind your ears. You forget many things, including almost universal disgust at the republican house of representatives and their obstructionism. In the general election this disgust will land directly in the lap of the republican candidate, whoever it happens to be. I expect the GOP house will go by the wayside, even if a republican can manage a sane idea and get elected to the white house. And as you can see when you have a president from one party and a congress from the other party all you get is gridlock because the population itself cannot decide what it wants. Which is exactly where I believe we're headed for the next presidential term. People are tired of the same old republican ideas, and people are tired of a president who wouldn't stand up for the majority of people in this country. I worked on Obama's last election campaign but will not be working on this one. I will, however, be voting for him. Your side offers the county no alternative. You can't reach far enough down into your loony bin to find a viable alternative that wouldn't further sink us into a hole. The right wing's idea that somehow large numbers of people in this country "pay no taxes" show how poorly informed large numbers of the right are, and how poorly their ability to research actual facts have sank.

dsdsherm: but rest assured, the party is not a person.

Your party has told us time and time again that corporations (like the Republican Party) are people. Changing your mind? Again?

Or are you finally coming to your senses?

Damage123

Feisty- Some polls show even Herman Cain ahead of Obama. You knew that, right? Doubt it.

Damage,

Would they all be FOX-mussen polls?

Sources please!!!

There are plenty in the US who would vote for ANYONE versus Obama.

And there are equally as many who would vote for anybody but Romney, Perry, Cain, or Bachmann for their own reasons.

The "anybody but" crowd isn't a majority by any stretch and they're out there for all the candidates regardless of party.

OK amused,

You wish to argue the point?

The top 1% of wage earners pay more than 38% of federal income tax receipts.

The top 10% of wage earners pay 70% of all federal income tax receipts.

The bottom 47% of wgae earners pay NO federal income taxes.

These are facts, verifiable on darn ear any google search. Yes, poor people pay state taxes (sometimes) and sales taxes. But so do the rich people. But the fact remains the rich also pay federal income taxes which the poor do not.

So if you wish to have this fight, bring facts.

There is enough universal disgust in the whole political arena. Yes, the GOP House has some issue right now, as they are being demonized, and it is not to be expected. We sent them there to obstruct BHO and his agenda till we could vote him out. We knew they would take som eheat for this, but they are doing their job, which is to obstruct his agenda of destruction. You may not like it in your world, but elections have consequences, and this is the consequence of the last election cycle. I do not believe the GOP house will go by the wayside as those of us that sent them there to obstruct will reward them with our support for a job well done. We do expect to take some collateral damage from this posture, but it was exepected and deemde to be acceptible.

I do not think the Senate will stay in Dem hands, and we should be able to narrowly keep the house. I do expect we change the POTUS, as you seem to believe as well.

But stop with the Dem talking point of "pay no taxes" and the percetnage of people. We all know the conversation is about paying FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. When it is properly qualified there is no arguing that 47% of wage earners do not pay any. That the top 1% pay 38% of the receipts and the top 10% pay 70% of the receipts. If you wish to dispute these FACTS bring it on.

And by the way, I am in the 47% who pay nothing. And I find it reprehensible to demonize and further tax the percentage paying federal income taxes and say they are not paying their fair share when I am paying nothing. While I am benefitting, I am not a Marxist and wish a change for fairness.

So while BHO has Buffet wanting to pay more, the GOP has me wanting to pay some (along with everyone else).

ABO 2012

Mike,

Agreed, there are plenty of "anybody but" votes out there. But do you honestly believe there are not a ton more in the "Anybody But Obama" category than any other "Anybody But" camp? I have yet to meet anyone who says "If (*insert GOP candidate here*) is the candidate, I'm all for him/her, otherwise Im going to vote for Obama"

The only one who could have come close to his numbers would have been Palin, as people either love her or hate her. But she is not in the race.

And Obama has even more of a "Love/Hate" vote. He has very few middle of the ground people. In your day to day, how many people do you run into that do not fall into the "Love" or "Hate" category with him. He has no middle ground from what I have seen.

ABO 2012

I sure would. If the President doesn't win Florida, I will stop posting here on this site for 6 months. Do you want to match it?

Job1,

Glad we disagree on who is in la la land.

But I am convinced enough to wager on it, are you? Want to place a friendly bet on the outcome of Florida?

ABO 2012

dsdsherm

I'm a little left of center. I'm not 100% happy with President Obama, but I think he's done a reasonable job given the circumstances. If Huntsman is the GOP candidate, I would consider him a credible alternative. A lot of moderates seem to share my opinion that Huntsman is not a Tea Party robot, and that they could probably support him. But any of the rest of the GOP hopefulls as the Republican candidate, and my vote goes to Obama.

Job1,

That sounds like a good bet to me. You are on. But I will miss your witty banter come November 2012.

ABO 2012

Hi dsdsherm,

Okay, here is my hand shake. It's a bet.

If I am overestimating the impact, then you are underestimating it dsdsherm, the protests are growing and they are not isolated in any way, not by age, income, or geographic location. These people will likely be boots on the ground for a candidate they decide to support, I don't really think it will be republican candidates. Mean while republicans and I do realize it's early, but they have not gotten behind a single guy and none of those candidates are likely to flip a democratic voter, not even Mitt, and he is going to have big heavy baggage with the protesters because he is Mr. Wall Street. Like I said it would have been hard to imagine just a few months ago but Obama is looking better everyday as of late, and he did a pretty good job as CIC, so republicans can't hardly even go there can they. Better keep an open mind about Obama being your president for four more years, because at this stage of the game he is a little better than even money and gaining.

We sent them there to obstruct BHO

At least you admit to your douchery.

dsdsherm is already a re-reg troll Job1, why would you want to bet her?

Being from Florida - Obama doesn't stand a chance. The Palm Beaches is heavily democratic... Heading south towards Miami is as well. On the West Coast - Naples north is highly GOP. The Orlando area is about split... but north of Orlando.... and into the panhandle... good ole boys and a lot of tea party support. Florida has been heavily hit by the economy. Unemployment is hovering around 14-15%.... many people blame Obama for the economy in Florida... so that means he will never take Florida by a long shot. That is the reality of it. I've been working out of state for over 2 years because there is NO work in Florida. I can guarantee that none of my family nor my neighbors support Obama and my home base is the Palm Beaches....

Liberals can delusion themselves all they want. Obama is going to lose because Obama has screwed this economy and it's common knowledge...

I don't see any of those "good ole boys" out protesting for a job like all those union members, what are they just hunting and fishing and collecting unemployment.

dsdsherm: your post only shows the glaring inequality in this country. You want everyone to pay taxes? Make it possible for people to get out of poverty. The incredible idea that people like to be poor is so laughable that only the right wing delusionals actually believe it. Re-create the middle class, and the tax burden will be spread more evenly. Or doesn't that make enough sense in the parallel republican universe?

BEVERLY IN CHIcago,

About the only thing that would make obama "brilliant" is for him to smoke a cigarette next to a gas pump.

This is not the republican Party old people remember.

NoTea4Me,

dsdsherm is already a re-reg troll Job1, why would you want to bet her?

I have no ide a what this means, but can guess. You think I register under multiple names. That is the best I can come up from the term re-reg troll.

You alse believe I am female.

You are wrong on all accounts. And I keep to my word and all bets placed.

Besides, if I lose that one I will probably sink into alcoholism for at least 6 months anyway.

ABO 2012

Beverly

Obama is from Chicago. He does not know the meaning of democracy.

The Obama TImeline www.colony14.net

It wasn't his fault that he got fired, but it wasn't mine or in fact GlaxoSmithKlines....it is just the way business works. Life sucks sometimes.

If you brother is out protesting instead of trying to get a job, that IS his fault.

It took him all summer but he started his new job on Monday.

DA--I guess somethings are too hard for you to understand because you believe everything should be given to you. Cain is saying sucess is for those who work for it. I was laid off too,I collected 3 un-employment checks and started my own company. For two years i probably could have made more money off the gov. by I chose to actually work and struggle. It WILL pay off in the long run. That being said I wouldn't vote for Cain or Obama.I'm glad your brother got a job.

Hillary 2012

Congrats to your brother...Cain has a problem with the give me attitude of OWS, rightly so.

What Brent in AZ and time4truth don't understand, is that when a guy like Da Noid's brother gets laid off it's not just his problem, it's a bad sign for America. Da Noid's brother got a another job because he's obviously well-educated and employable, but it's clear American workers have lost benefits and protections and respect over the past decade.

The Republican viewpoint is: you're expendable, get over it. Well, that's the atitude they have towards their workers in China, Americans used to have more pride in their jobs and commitment to their comapnies. I'm not saying Americans should have thngs handed to them, but a little respect, please.

Jody: "In addition to taxes, his plan eliminates social security, medicare and every other social program that exists--too bad the debate moderators ignore that."

That would hurt Cain... if this was a race for the nomination of the Democratic Party :)

Oops. Meant to post that a couple discussions up.

Cain has a problem with the give me attitude of OWS, rightly so.

Having a problem with OWS' attitude is one thing. Making a blanket statement that everyone who is unemployed has nobody to blame but themselves is another...and foolish.

I also suggest you listen to the song "Three And A Half Letters" by Chickenfoot.

Paul M. True, the far right loves it but there are a lot of republicans who like their social security and medicare.

I think FR is acting weird because when I posted to say good point about Cain's not being a politician and that could favor him despite 9-9-9, it ended up on page 2 or somewhere other than where I was replying.

DaNoid, blaming the unemployed for their situation is just stupid but it speaks to the same broader demonization by the GOP of unions, teachers, the poor by implying they are lazy, no good, live off the government. Sad but the GOPTP lacks the "compassion" and "logic" genes in their DNA.

BrentAZ

"Life sucks sometimes."

And the Republican attitude to the middle and lower classes in this country sucks ALL the time!!

Amy....the problem you have is that you think that getting fired is always terrible for a person. While it sucks, many of the people who get laid off end up better than they were before. It is called creative destruction.

Get over yourself and stop complaining, as President Obama would say. Or does he only say that to African Americans?

Brent AZ

The problem I have with Republicans is their "tough love" approach doesn't extend to banks, corporations, and billionaires. Talk about "coddling failure, and a sense of entitlement, " Republicans will do anything for these industries and their captains, including sending working class kids to war to protect oil company profits.

And I know all about getting fired as "creative destruction." I'm not someone who wanted to work for the same company for 30 years, even if it meant getting a pension, like my Dad had. I've landed on my feet, many times.

What you don't understand is, there is a point where people lose their committment to work, because they aren't compensated fairly, and that is bad for our country as a whole. It's like what happened in Greece when tax evasion became the norm - the whole system broke down. A functioning society needs everybody to feel invested in it's success - and not feeling expendable.

Da Noid, thanks for mentioning the song, it sends a very true message.

It is called creative destruction.

As would your suicide.

Douche

Amy B- I wish I could sit around ALL day so I could have responded sooner, but I so glad to have an economics lesson from you. I do understand I was laid off it sucks but what you don't understand just because you are a lib doesn't make this solely a repub problem. I am almost 100% lib but I'm surely not stupid enough or blind to think this is a single party problem. I clearly understand Bush ran up a huge debt, I surely understand Obama has made it worse! The housing bubble can be traced to Carter ( yes Carter) who was a horrible President and Clinton who was a brilliant President. The banks not lending money can be traced MOSTLY to Obama. If burying your head in the sand works for you then good for you, but reality works better with Eyes Wide Open.

Hillary 2012

It is called creative destruction.

followed by the comment:

As would your suicide.

Douche

Creative destruction works...it's easily logically explained too. Did "too big too fail" banks get larger or smaller after bailouts? LARGER! So it would have been creative destruction to let them fail, and let the banks underneath who didn't make bad bets collect the worthwhile assets and better manage them through a bankruptcy proceeding...but some of you will support OWS while sophistically and ignorantly supporting the bailouts that cause these pseudo monopolies to GROW and EXIST.

Secondly, some lay-offs are good...just not when it's caused by government funded or government aided outsourcing, immigrant labor, or technology ABOVE (not at) market levels. Any interference by government to hinder or increase this market value will result in additional unemployment. All three are factors in comparative advantage, a concept of David Ricardo's. Basically, immigrant labor, outsourcing, and technology are all CONDUSIVE to economic growth if AT MARKET LEVELS, not above or below those levels. The only way to have market levels, not above or below, is for the government to NOT INTERFERE in outsourcing (by aiding it or hindering it, which it does currently aid it and make it advantageous), immigrant labor (closed borders are as bad as incentivizing too much immigration; currently the issue is too little, not too much, despite populist myth and xenophobia that scapegoats immigrant labor), and technology (currently government hinders one type of technology by subsidizing another; taking money from one form to give to another form).

An example:

During the largest influx of immigrants in our country's history wages GREW 2% for natives. There has never been a direct negative correlation, and therefore causation, between native unemployment rates and native poverty rates versus immigration levels. People see high unemployment in a Depression/recession and want something to blame...they blame immigrant labor that increases native employment rates and native wages normal economic times, as if it is to blame for what are expected increases to unemployment and decreased standards of living in economically depressed times. In short, correlation is not causation.

Another example is outsourcing. Much like how immigrant labor makes our products cheaper and labor less expensive, so to does bringing the job to the immigrant (to spin a phrase). Both create cheaper products...like Apple iPhones made in China. This means poor people can afford what was previously only available to the rich. It also means these products cost consumers less, which in relation to income makes us all richer relatively. Anytime you get paid the same, but products get cheaper, you get richer. This spurs consumption with the newly freed up expendable income as well, which creates more jobs natively. Hence why service sector jobs pay almost identically to goods sector jobs...and are in fact starting to overtake them. People forget, doctors and lawyers are service sector jobs, not just fast food. This is also why America is producing more products than ever, and doing so with less manpower than ever. Although the production jobs have left, do to machines we are producing more than ever. Please google charts to see what I'm saying, they look like an X. As one increases (production in total), the other decreases (manpower). We, the consumers, all get richer in this process.

Which brings me to the third example; technology. Does technology put you out of work? Temporarily, yes. Is this bad? No. Why? Read about the Luddites.

In short, should we have banned cars in order to keep buggy and buggy whip manufacturers in business and hiring? How about horse salesmen? Of course this sounds ridiculous given we see all the car making jobs that followed...but believe me the buggy and buggy whpmakers got with the horse dealers and complained...as did their employees who claimed cars were taking "their jobs". It's all short-sighted nonsense of course, and in the end technology only increases unemployment. In fact, if not for advancing tech at market levels (not above or below) we'd never keep employment up high enough to keep up with population increases. Necessity is the (true) mother of invention (not government subsidies and populist ideals).

So, as you can logically see, creative destruction, labor set free (as Ricardo called it), and other forms of shifting resource allocation in the market are GOOD for society...but not so good for politicians, or those workers unwilling to shift into other sectors of the economy.

What we must understand is:

1. You have no Right to a job...no one owes you anything. You may need to retrain at some point.

2. Politicians lie and pander. They will hurt the lot of us to please the ignorant screaming mob.

technology decreases unemployment*

999+666=911 What a "Joke" Anyone that supports this plan is a total "FOOL"

Speaking of the foreclosure problem, Jody, I saw an interview with Romney last night where he said the best thing was to let the foreclosures continue to happen, investors buy the properties and rent them out to people. Doesn't matter that people will lose their homes---those investors will pick up some bargains! How cold can one person be?

Doesn't matter that people will lose their homes---those investors will pick up some bargains!

Once again proving they are the party of - 'I got MINE screw YOU'!

Feisty....if you promise to pay for something and then can't pay for it, the lender then has a right to the home according to the contract that YOU signed.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but to allow those who took the bad loans to keep their homes only reinforces the bad behavior. This is the same as bailing out the banks that made these bad investments.

Romney last night where he said the best thing was to let the foreclosures continue to happen, investors buy the properties and rent them out to people

I think Mittens got that idea from Potter in "It's a Wonderful Life"

Looks like 2 of a kind to me...

And Brent: if you wish to discuss "bad behavior" let us examin the lenders who made the loans in the first place. Chicken or the egg?

The really sad thing is on the home front is that a 10 year tax credit is being bandied about for those poor poor investors. They need tax dollars to, you know, help them in their time of need.

Those investors are middle class people like me trying to balance out my first underwater mortgage by purchasing a new house and renting out the old one. Boy am I a terrible person for trying to live up to my obligations.

I guess buying something you can't afford isn't the problem.It's ALWAYS better to blame someone else for your mistake,sometimes it's just bad luck. When I lost my job I knew we could make on 1 salary for awhile until I started making money again. We had to tighten our belt...alot, something the banks and the governmant should think about.

There is plenty of blame to go around

Yes there is, it's known as predatory lending for a reason.

Writing loans without bothering to do a income verification comes to mind...

What about those who through NO fault of their own now find themselves out in the street?

You can't wrap up all those facing foreclosures in a cute little ribbon.

Brent -- Do you need governments help and tax payer dollars to do that? You are free to go do that now.

If Rick Perry would have called Herman Cain brother one more time, I would have turned into a "birther' wanting to see Rick Perry's Birth Certificate!

I guess the N-Rock is still weighing on Rick Perry's little mind somewhat!

.....or his campaign managers mind! However, the ploy too transparent.

So Feisty is in favor of "income verification" in getting a loan but OPPOSES citizenship verification when voting. Nice.

Damaged Goods - to quote the flavor of the week; 'Apples & Oranges' my friend!

Weak attempt at deflection... really weak... lol

Feisty...did the people who took out the mortgage agree to the no income verification? They have some responsibility too.

The real problem is that the banks have not been allowed to fail because of this stupidity. Removing the risk for the banks, only incentivizes them to take more risk.

How does this Tea Party Ad Grab some of you?

Grifters Inc.

BrentAZ, you ignore that a large percentage of the foreclosures are the result of the owners losing their jobs because of the economic collapse that began in Dec 2007. They entered the mortage agreement in good faith while employed and the bottom fell out. Yes, there are some who bought too much house but many were convinced by real estate brokers to do so and by banks who failed to adequately check the incomes of the buyers, by banks bundling what they knew were bad loans and selling them to uninformed investors.

Conservative financial guy Dave Ramsey discourages the average person from buying multiple homes as investments to make their fortune. He opposes that from his own personal experiences. It is only beneficial if one is very wealthy already.

Conservatives are also ignoring the fact that the vast majority of all those facing foreclosure could afford their homes at current values and interest rates...which is the BEST SCENARIO AVAILABLE to the lenders...if the property doesn't experience significant deterioration while empty during the lengthy foreclosure/resale process. It would be good for the economy and good for the neighborhoods where these regular Americans live, as well.

Looked at through that lens it's clear that the wealthy elites who run the Conservative Movement and Republican Party see foreclosure as just another method to consolidate wealth and power at the top.

Great post John B!

Spot on, John B. Thanks.

Phew.

Far as I'm concerned, this Republican Debate was an exercise in going-on-the-offensive, "One-Upmanship."

Each candidate -- at the expense of their opponents standing next to them -- trying to demonstrate that they're more "pure" than the other guy, in their ultra-conservative, regressive values, mouthing off their "talking points" that they try and pass off as "real world facts," to an agreeing, applauding, selected audience that's proving to be as hateful, intolerant, and as extreme as the lot of them.

I wouldn't know what's worse... podium members of the Republican Tea Party Regressive Right vying to show America and the world, who's the "Top Dog," ...or their seemingly, corporate suit-and tie-wearing audience in attendance that sits in judgement, looking to unhesitatingly cheer on their approval for any one of the candidates that says the most politically extreme comments to them and the TV cameras.

Well, EVERYONE that has posted previously looks to be leaning just a tad left of the abyss. Had no idea that MSNBC was so 'progressive'.

Good thing Thomas, since there's an abyss just to our Right.

I have been drinking since 2008. Cant wait to sober up.

Oh! Well that explains most of your posts and positions on here...

LOL

Oh! Well that explains most of your posts and positions on here...

Damn - you beat me to it! LOL

But I have been cutting back, Cant just do the cold turkey thing. Have to ease into it.

I asked for it, and you jumped right on it. Cudos. *hic*

ABO 2012

dsdsherm: the republican nominee is going to be Romney. Romney cannot beat obama. You better start stocking up another refrigerator

AP,

Romney can beat Obama, as can just about any person in the current field of candidates.

I just dont think he is the best choice. The problem is the GOP seems to think they need to "find" the candidate that can beat Obama. They dont. Obama has already beat himself and it dont matter who our candidate is.

That is why I have issue with them propping up Romney, as the best chance to beat Obama. Any of them beat Obama (maybe even the nutjob Paul). I just want the most conservative candidate, and that is not Romney.

ABO 2012

Beating him "off" doesn't count, dsdsherm.

What should scare you is that you support a warmonger, torturer, and Bankster lover like Obama when Ron Paul is in the field...sophist.

Your priorities are all screwed up.

If Obama gets re-elected, or any of the other GOP candidates besides Ron Paul, invest in the war profiteers...they will flourish in our fake war economy.

Obama came in it was Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan...now it's all of those and Libya, Somalia (again), Yemen, and new to the intervention list Uganda. From 3 to 7 wars...that's "change"?

And don't tell me they are ending Iraq...BS! For every troop that leaves we replace them with a private mercenary from Z Corporation (formerly Blackwater). You guys fall for the smoke and mirros just because THIS neocon is a DemoCrip, and not a RepubliBlood.

You're both worthless gang mentality weilding losers.

So why not support the only candidate in EITHER PARTY that predicted the economic collapse, Wall Street fall, high unemplyment, the list goes on...Ron Paul?

Because you like the neocon DemoCrip in office...as long as he isn't a RepubliBlood.

Wake up. It's all a sham, and you fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

Obama and Bush are two peas in a pod, obviously.

Any differences are slight at best.

Keep supporting those neocons from the 2 Parties though.

The only candidate that CAN HAVE solutions is the one who predicted it...logically.

So why not support the only candidate in EITHER PARTY that predicted the economic collapse, Wall Street fall, high unemplyment, the list goes on...Ron Paul?

Because you like the neocon DemoCrip in office...as long as he isn't a RepubliBlood.

Wake up. It's all a sham, and you fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

Obama and Bush are two peas in a pod, obviously.

Any differences are slight at best.

Keep supporting those neocons from the 2 Parties though.

The only candidate that CAN HAVE solutions is the one who predicted it...logically.

Because Ron Paul's plan would make the economy WORSE, not BETTER;

Yesterday, Presidential candidate Ron Paul published his plan to save the economy.

And today, calling a spade a spade, we observed that the plan would destroy the economy, at least initially.

And this, not surprisingly, brought out the torches and pitchforks and howls of ridicule from Ron Paul fans, who were completely appalled.

• Didn't we understand that the government spending is TOTALLY BLOATED?
• Didn't we understand the "crowding out" theory that they teach you in Econ 101? (That government spending somehow deters private spending.)
• Didn't we understand that the economy is already destroyed?

Um. Yes, Ron Paul fans. We understand all that.

And so we have a simple question back:

When you suddenly cut $1 trillion of spending out of a $14 trillion economy, what do you think will happen to the economy?

That's right!

The economy will shrink by 7%, to $13 trillion.

And the folks whose salaries are paid by that $1 trillion--let's call it 1.5 million of the 4.4 million people employed by the federal government--will instantly be unemployed.

So, yes, we think it's fair to say that this would "destroy" the economy, at least in the short term.

Now, Ron Paul absolutely deserves credit for saying what expenses he would cut, unlike his lame-ass GOP candidate colleagues, who talk a big game about runaway spending but are too wimpy to actually cut anything.

And, it's possible that, down the road, the ~1 million or so government workers that Ron Paul fired would get motivated and get great jobs and start businesses and stuff and that, eventually, this would begin to close the $1 trillion GDP gap Ron Paul created when he fired them.

But this would take time.

And given that there are already 14 million unemployed people in this country, it will probably take a lot of time.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-economic-plan-2011-10?comments=all#comment-4e9dbca7ecad04c16700001c#ixzz1bHJXd1c2

The plans of all the other Republicans would also make things worse rather than better. I give Paul credit for at least being totally honest about what he'd destroy.

So monetfan---I guess Mitt thinks it is OK to hire illegals if you aren't running for office? Should lower the cost on his new California beach home once the election is over.

Steeler Fan -Always love your comments!

Monetfan, enjoyed your post. Keep it up. In the past Ron Paul has been the GOP candidate to get wild cheers and applause and still occasionally does but his problem is that he's old news; he's run so many times voters hear nothing they haven't heard many times previously.

Welcome, Monetfan!

Enjoy your comments and I, too, am a fan of Monet!

Thanks for the kind words, Monetfan---am enjoying your posts and hope you stay active here & don't let the RWNJs get to you.

Monetfan (moi aussi), you clarified the TP problems with Romney very well. I was mystified last time when McCain was chosen over Romney.

just remember under the failed policies of Bush jr. almost every American had a job. those who did not have a job did not want one.

I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's policy positions, but he's obviously smarter and more principled than any of the other Republicans up there, in fact, it's hard for me to think of him as a Republican.

these are the stats that concern me.

Americans need to work. we need to support
our families.

US Unemployment rate by President

http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbyPresident.asp

just remember under the failed policies of Bush jr. almost every American had a job. those who did not have a job did not want one.

2.6 million people lost their jobs in 2008. So, what, did that many people just decide they didn't want to work any more during that year?

Bush' unemployment record is much better than obama's.

not even close.

Is it me or does honest jo sound a lot like NJNB?

honest jo, Bush's numbers were better because he left the office before the full impact of the GOP created economic implosion. President Obama inherited a near depression and with it the unemployment numbers. If the GOP legislators had engaged in governing instead of engaging in defeating President Obama, the decreasing unemployment numbers and hiring in the private sector that was clearly happening prior to Jan 2011, would have continued. Honest jo ignores the facts because the reality does not suit the narrative.

Don't carry it all, you could be on to something.

Jody -- lol, just keep reading below and it becomes clearer.

honest jo

US Unemployment rate by President is miserable and people need jobs?

Tell that to Republicans who don't to pass the jobs bills.

Of course half of that is from the Bush-II tax cuts and most of the rest is because of the Great Recession which the republiCONS caused.

Have you heard the story of GE motor which the President saved and created jobs?

What Gov. Romney did not do is report the company. He had a personal or business relationship with the contractor, so instead of reporting him (because he was violating US law) he just asked him not to bring "certain" employees to his home. Secondly, he could have switched companies at that time, and very carefully chosen another company. Instead he stayed with the first company... all he actually cared about was not being "caught" with undocumented workers rather than care about the law. By "outsourcing" the responsibility to someone else, he has plausible deniability -- but this is not a presidential behavior.

What you seem to miss in your argument is that we have a need for the kind of laborer hired by Romney's contractor and by other housing companies...and that kind of labor is "illegal" because our immigration laws don't allow for legal immigration of unskilled workers.

Romney is a leader that can and will move this country forward.

How can Romney "lead the country forward" when his policies rflect the same Republican philosophy that lead to the financial crisis at the end of the Bush years? "Let the market fix it" is just code for "let the billionaires profit from others' misfortune." In this past decade the rich got richer, the middle class lost ground, it got harder for the brightest to go to college, and ordinary Americans were scammed out of their life savings by mortgage companies.

Amy...I am sorry you feel that way. The fact is that it was government intervention coupled with greed on all levels that led to the crisis. Do you know that it was the bi-partisan repeal of Glass Steagal under Clinton that was really the thing that kick started the mortgage crisis?

BrentAZ -- the problem with your argument is that the repeal of Glass-Steagal would not have necessarily created problems if the banking/mortgage industries regulated themselves. Instead, as soon as there was no regulation, they began some unsavory practices designed to enrich themselves. There needs to be regulation. The banking industry proved itself incapable of self discipline.

BrentAZ, check out Romney's record in vulture capitalism; it's quite astounding. Gotta love the photo of him with money coming out of his suit. I am not opposed to making as much money as one can, but buying successful and profitable companies and turning them into a bank by borrowing against them and ultimately bankrupting the company just doesn't cut it.

Herman Cain is just Uncle Tom in blacker face.

honest jo....I haven't heard a coherent message on that. Telling me you are coming out with a plan later this week doesn't count.

He has done a fine job in Texas, but he is not the leader we need at this point. I had high hopes for him, but he has dashed them pretty quickly.

show me where obama's record is better!

Obama's is worse.

However, Romney, Cain, Huntsman, and Gingrich all have real plans, better records, and are better communicators than Perry.

Perry's record is better than Obama? Not sure how you can claim that when Perry was able to create jobs using funds from Obama. That means that Perry and Obama created those jobs.

Cain and Romney have no job creation records - they both laid off employees and reduced jobs. Ditto for Gingrich, I have never seen any record of him creating a single job.

As govenor of Utah, Huntsman may have a record of creating jobs, but I suspect that was during positive enconomic growth. How well he can create jobs during ressesion is unproven.

You are a persistent troll.

it's just you!

Aside from the comic value, what these debates show is the utter lack of competence from any of the GoP candidates. No mention of jobs...

Nashville, well said. These wannabees couldn't find their way out of a paperbag in daylight.

Well lookee here - InTheMiddle TX (who is currently serving his second 1 week suspension) & has re-regged as WillyDynamite decided to grace us with his presence this morning!

Tick tock... little man... tick tock!

PS: Why did you scrub your "pimpdaddy' page? Not that it matters... Newsvine will catch up with you soon enough! ;o)

Nashville----the whole foreclosure issue is so hard to Mitt----he has to balance the needs of the corporate people to make money versus the needs of the human people to have a place to live and the dream of home ownership. Why are we not surprised that he comes down on the side of the "investors", who he trusts to straighten out this mess?

Why do conservatives hate the UN? Aren't we glad there was a UN to take care of the whole Libya mess? And I am tired of the "apologize for America"---President Obama has done no such thing EVER.

Nash, it's not just you. I feel the same way.

really?!!!

the united states is falling apart.

Americans are more devisive now than ever in our history and obama is the winner?

well hell yea! cause it sure ain't America that is the winner!

Not so fast if we take our eye off the ball it will be a repub Pres.

Hillary 2012

The U.S. is falling apart because the GoP are determined to make Obama a "one term President." What have the GoP accomplished since taking over the House? These folks would take us so far to the right that George Bush would be considered a liberal!

Sacred** Iagree Repubs haven't straightened out the economy since Nov.2010 but what has Obama done in three years? He took Bush's failed policies, kept then in place and made things MUCH MUCH more worse. So making Obama a "one term president" isn't just a repub mantra some dems and Independents feel teh same.

Hillary 2012

Which of Bush's failed policies has Obama kept that have "made things MUCH, MUCH worse?

[the democrats had the house and the senate for 4 years and the house, senate and president for 2...]

If you are referring to the "inaccuracy" that the Democrats had a "super-majority", you really need to read up on what's fact, and what's fiction.

dishonest Joe,

You should try a little honest research.

Oh yeah, I forgot... thats what you righty trolls get paid to do.

Every poll you see shows that American's overwhelming concern right now is job creation.

Republicans say they are in touch with what Americans want, so what do the Republicans in the House do? Try to pass 7, yes 7, anti-abortion bills since the beginning of 2011 , while not bringing one jobs bill proposal to the table after voting down Obama's.

I would personally like to see both Liberals and Republicans work together to get things done for this country, but I have to laugh at Republicans stating they know what we want and need, and then go and spend 99% of their efforts trying to pass abortion laws that won't create 1 job.

What have republicans done to help? ZERO.

Cheryl,

The status quo on health care with rising costs and shrinking care is what is unsustainable . . . did you have a solution . . . or is this just your free therepy?

President Obama has the AUDACITY to ask the Congress of the United States to get off of their collective @#$# and address the problems of this country.

That is what I voted for and I appreciate his effort to attempt to turn our crony Congress into a governing body.

What is the alternative Cheryl . . . talking points, jobs shipped over seas, shrinking wages for those who have a job, and no health care unless you get it in a for-profit prison?

Cheryl: the part that was removed was a VOLUNTARY life insurance part of health care reform which MSNBC does discuss in another piece on this site. The reform part is still very strong. And if you consider providing health insurance for all Americans a Ponzi scheme, then there is no hope for you...