Probably a lot from the dirty old men in the GOP. Of which there are quite a few. By the way, Happy Halloween!

Feisty -

Herman Cain is absolutely in trouble now, and you nailed him!

We have seen all along that he's a right-wing goblin, the creation of the Koch brothers turned loose on the country. He hasn't yet produced any sensible proposals for anything - and, in fact, has said he doesn't need to until he gets in office.

He's just a hollow sack of hot air - the popover candidate. He'd better not wander too close to the roast beef ....

Reading about this proposition26 in Mississippi about abortion, and an ovum being a human once sperm and egg are untied, I make the following 2 observations:

1) If ‘it’ fails to attach to a uterine wall, and is ‘rejected’, ‘it’ must be documented via a birth certificate or at least some certificate recording it’s existence and demise. ‘It’ must be properly disposed of, too. Casket? Cremation?? (by the way- does ‘it’ have a gender?)

2) Also, if ‘it’s’ environment was altered intentionally to prevent ‘it’s’ being nurtured and being allowed to continue to enjoy life’, and that constitutes a crime, then something tells me the EPA is going to be around a long, long, long, long time.

Now, who on the right wants to argue or comment?

OK- Cain is being accused of sexual harassment. Not hard to believe, when you consider that he’s :

1) a Republican

2) a religious right ‘morals’ kind of guy

3) a male of the species.

But I’m willing to hear all the evidence. I hope I’m wrong on the above. See, I think the guy can lose on his own without any of these kinds of allegations.

*** Lowering Cain? What the political gods giveth, they also taketh away. Just a day after the Des Moines Register poll showed Herman Cain leading the GOP pack in Iowa, a Politico report surfaced alleging that at least two women who worked under Cain when he headed the National Restaurant Association complained of inappropriate behavior by the ex-Godfather's Pizza CEO.

This is great! Anonymous sources, unproven allegations, a "he said, she said" situation, broken confidentially agreements. Just wonderful.

The Liberals high-tech lynching is now in full swing. Can't have a conservative black man around. People might start thinking that's acceptable.

Even right-wing idiots can provide inspiration. Thank you Sean Hannity.

Those who gobble down the Hannity recipe of idiocy - mix one can of stupid, with one cup of hatred, one cup of fear, stir way past boiling - might try a much better recipe. This recipe is found in the book of history and is highly recommended by Jorge Agustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana y Borrás who said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (His Americanized name is George Santayana.)

The recipe is a simple one: Mix one lifetime of experience, add vast amounts of history, and leaven with the experience of others. Stir and stir and stir and stir. Taste frequently to keep a fresh perspective.

A bowl of that stuff will keep you going. Consider President Obama. The Hannity Recipe tells us he is the most radical President in the history of this country. A couple spoonfuls of Santayana's recipe and President Obama seems rather tame next to a fellow named George Washington. This guy was an outright revolutionary, who proposed war against the country that ruled over him and his fellow revolutionaries. This was the richest guy in this place called Virginia, calling for the overthrow of the King; The King, for Pete's sake, the ruler, the Big Cheese, the Head Honcho! George Washington, now there's a radical for you.

A couple bites of Hannity Hash will really get you all forked up. He tells us that President Obama is the most divisive President ever in the United States. A couple spoons of Santayana Soup, and you realize as Steve Doocy (a Hannity busboy) would say, "Well, that's just crazy." Consider this President, a fellow named Abraham Lincoln. This man presided over the single greatest carnage in American history. You can't get too much more divisive than having brothers killing each other, now can you? Get this! The Republican Party is also known as the Party of Lincoln.

Santayana Soup has a very heavy flavor of the Bible as well. This book is very, very old and the ingredients didn't come via the written world. Nope. The cooks just passed it on verbally. The most recent part of the book finally came into print, but it's been edited, redacted, and translated many times, but somehow the central message remains the same. It's about a Jewish kid who threw bankers and moneychangers out of his place of worship. (This kid was named Jesus and he spoke a language called Aramaic. I can't be positive, but I think the word "banker" in Aramaic, actually translates to "bankster" Don't quote me on that.) Anyway, two thousand years later, this kid is still remembered as the founder of a very large religious group called Christians, and he is revered as a great prophet in the religion called Islam. Even though he lived and died a Jew, he isn't too highly respected in Judaism. Still, he carried a pretty good message: "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Words to live by? Definitely! It's almost impossible to escape the notion that Jesus was a liberal.

But hey, today is Halloween. Santayana Soup has some really good flavor on that subject, very different from Hannity Hash. Chef Sean says, "Halloween is teaching our kids to be liberals.....because we're teaching kids to knock on other people's doors and ask for a handout."

Wow! Jesus handed out free health care and wine. Definitely a liberal.

JoAnn, I think that when it comes to "high-tech lynching", the far right has it down to a science. Oops, not science. You guys don't believe in that. How about a fine art? Oh, you guys don't like art either. Hmm. Well how about down pat.

Anonymous sources, unproven allegations, a "he said, she said" situation

I sure hope the idiot in Albany doesn't see you calling his 'Politico' 'bible' an anonymous source Sniffy...

The Liberals high-tech lynching is now in full swing.

I get it now - the right wing nuts & dolts consider reporting FACTS these day to be a high-tech lynching.

This IS great!

Who would of guessed? lol

PS: Probably be a good thing to ACTUALLY read the article before you slip on your feed bag of ignorance!

Doing what they do best! It sure didn't take the left to dig up, what we will probably find, 'dirt' on one of the Republican's.... this time it's Cain.

All public figures, including politicians, frequently get accusations from folks with an agenda, and sometimes it makes more sense both practically and financially to give the scum some money to go away. The BO regime will stop at nothing to stay in power, and they have plenty of vermin to help them do just that.

OK -- Everyone ever accused -- rightly or wrongly -- of sexual harassment is guilty. Now let's get on with the business of fixing this country. You know how about this:

http://investmentwatchblog.com/total-us-unfunded-liabilities-are-estimated-at-144-trillion-roughly-1-2-million-per-taxpayer-was-that-a-pin-dropping/

Total US Unfunded Liabilities are estimated at $144 trillion, roughly $1.2 million per taxpayer… Was that a pin dropping?

By now everyone has seen and played with the US debt clock via usdebtclock.org whereby anyone who so wishes, can find every little detail about America’s current sad fiscal state. The fact that America currently has just under $14 trilllion in national debt should be no surprise to anyone who professes to having an even modest interest in the state of the US economy. Yet a new feature on the “debt clock”, namely one which extrapolates future debt at current rates of advancement (instead of one based on the always completely inaccurate CBO estimates), and looks at US debt in the year 2015 will probably make many stop dead in the their tracks. If anyone thought that $14 trillion in 2010 debt is bad, just wait until we hit $24.5 trillion in total US national debt in 2015. And it gets even more surreal: total US Unfunded Liabilities are estimated at $144 trillion, roughly $1.2 million per taxpayer… Was that a pin dropping?

As Zero Hedge has long been predicting, we anticipate roughly $2 trillion in incremental debt per year. Surprisingly we are not far too off from the debt clock see the US condition in 5 years. At an estimated $24.5 trillion in federal debt, our $2 trillion per year run rate is spot on. Another thing that is spot on: our prediction that the US will need not one but two debt ceiling increases in 2011. And probably 6-8 over the next 5 years.

Some other observations for the US economy in 2015 simply assuming current conditions persist:

• Federal spending will be $3.3 trillion per year, and with federal revenue of $2.3 trillion (this number will be reduced as it also assumes $731 billion in payroll tax, a number which will likely be indefinitely reduced) the result is a budget deficit of $983.7 billion.
• Annual Medicare/Medicaid expenses will be just over $1 trillion
• US population: 326.8 million
• US workforce 131.3 million (and declining)
• Officially unemployed: 19.4 million
• Actual unemployed: 22.3 million
• State/Federal employees: 17.9 million
• People on SSN and other retirees: 72.6 million

And the most critical data:

• Food stamp recipients: 89.7 million
• Foreclosures: 2 million
• Social Security Liability: $19 trillion
• Medicare Liability: $99 trillion
• Total US Unfunded Liabilities: $144 trillion
  
• Gross Debt to GDP: 143%

Should one of the bolded predictions hit, the travails of Greek and Irish bondholders will be nothing compared to what those unlucky enough to be in possession of US debt in 2015 will have to go through.

I caught David Plouffe on MTP yesterday morning & all I can say is, I'm glad this guy is on OUR side!

He was brilliant and held his own with Gotcha Gregory!

When bobbing for apples, how can you distinguish which one is the Willard apple?

It has NO core!

PS: Listening to women defend Cain this morning, is some of the most pathetic spin I've ever seen.

Then again, most 'nags' have never experienced harassment!

I'm not particularly a Cain fan, but this does stink of more 'Chicago Style' politics from the liberals!

EP: The BO regime will stop at nothing to stay in power,

So true. Obama can't run on his record, he never talks about it, and for good reason. When you've got a billion dollars of campaign funds flowing in from the unions and the Wall Street fat cats, you can do a lot of dirt digging, leak it to their friendly media outlets, and leave it run like wildfire.

And isn't that special and ironic that the first person they choose to eliminate with their innuendo and aspersions is the conservative black fella. We all know "how those people are", shouldn't be much of leap of faith to believe it all. Look at Libs posting here today. There are no questioning of authority from them, they know it's all true. It's Hook-Line-Sinker for the Libs.

Feisty, you summed up Cain perfectly.

What has bothered me about Cain from the beginning was his righteous indignation that anyone would dare question what he has said, dare challenge him because he is who he is--whatever that might be. The danger in Herman Cain personalities is their rigid belief that they are always right; their inability to listen to the other side let alone admit they are ever wrong. Bush 43, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld were always right, too. It isn't about being right, it is about being smart enough to know when one is wrong.

I don't think this will hurt Herman Cain with Republican primary voters, as we all know conservatives have forgiven worse sexual improprieties before.

Nice deflection from Good Ol' "Connie Yellowstreak" Joe in Albany. Wassa matter can't stand the heat? Bout time the WH came out swinging against these poltroons.

Cain, the "Dirty Old Man". "Unsubstantiated Personal Attack". Yeah right. Where there's smoke there's fire. LMAO. I love it.

@Amy -- as well as Democrats.

@CA Tom -- It will be very easy to prove by the media. All these ladies have to do is produce their tax returns where they showed they claimed the settlement on their taxes. And/or possibly bank statements showing the deposits. Not saying the accusations are not rue, but where there are accusations, one must produce the proof. The accused has a right to be in front of his/her accuser.

Media Alert:::: Karl Rove a memeber of the "liberal media"

says just saying "speak with the Restaurant Association" is just not enough

ooppps guess you teabaggers just flushed your $ by backing CokeCain

Please go read the Politico article. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html

Nowhere are the sources identified as "liberal". (EvaPeron is a tool.) That is the Cain spin. Period. It is not impossible that Republican operatives are behind this story. The sources appear to be legitimate, but it would be a good idea to wait for more information before making judgments. "Sexual harassment" charges are all to frequently BS. We will see.

1.) If they are groundless accusations, why pay them?

2.) How do you justify using the Restaurant Association's money to pay them??

3.) Did you tell the Restaurant Association's membership that you made these payments?

Not to jump to a conclusion, but ..... if this is true ..... would you really want this man as President???

@Marlon -- the same reason you would want a man who lied under oath to Congress and was impeached as President.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/keystories.htm

Read the litany of stories and then ask yourself the same question. If you don't or anyone else on here for that matter -- you are hypocrites of the worst kind.

David Walker, good recipe!

EvaPeron. My money says that if one digs deep enough, they will find Karl Rove beneath the Cain story. This has his fingerprints all over it. Never be surprised at just how much dirt Rove and establishment GOP likes to toss at GOP candidates they don't want to win by indirectly force-feeding a tip to the media.

Ah, witness the phony outrage as FR Conservatives pretend they're offended by the new accusations against the Hermanator. It's exactly the sort of attack that allows Conservatives to close ranks and unify, straight from their favorite villain...the "Liberal media." It allows them to feel the victimhood they so crave, and justifies their feelings of isolation as self-appointed lonely sentinels guarding society against its nearly inevitable downfall.

Now back to the real world. I couldn't care less about the Politico Cain story, though I find his absolute refusal to face the issue directly to be most interesting. Let's make one thing clear -- there's plenty of good reasons why Cain isn't a viable candidate without the need for any "anonymous smears". His 9-9-9 plan is a massive acceleration of the existing GOPTP redistribution of wealth to the top. His maybe a joke/maybe not about an electrified fence at the Mexican border reveals a man who is right in step with the disturbing authoritarian tendencies of the Right. Claiming he doesn't even NEED to understand foreign policy reveals him to be both unprepared and unworthy of the highest office in the land.

The guy is a mess, and were it not for the fact that the entire Republican car is filled with clowns that would be obvious by now.

The truth always comes out. Unfortunately, so does "Little Hermie" apparently.

@Ben-636050

Does that make it right?????

Oh I can imagine what good use the Cain Train will do with the taxpayer's money ... and accountable to no one.... gee

Oh yeah I read your article and it says Clinton paid with his own money.... a little higher up on the ethics scale I would say.... lol

Take on the GOP establishment at your own peril. Just ask John McCain about his 2000 experience in South Carolina.

This one doesn't look like a dirty trick - it seems there is something to this smoke. If I understand the story, the complaints and settlements happened long before anyone thought of Cain as a candidate.

But... you know someone with connections to the party establishment is helping media with background research and feeding it info. And feeding to Politico is perfect - why not have the revelation come from a source seen as more from the left than the right. It's just like how four years ago we had one Democratic campaign feeding negative info on another Democratic campaign to conservative outlets.

@Marlon -- apples and oranges. As a corporate employee in his position, Cain is entitled to representation from that company when issues arise. It is part of an executive contract. Clinton was a public employee. The bottom rung of the ethics scale and the next to the bottom rung is very little difference. They are both wrong. It's like saying one is a little bit pregnant.

Even if the "dirt" on Herman Cain is true ( it probably will never be substantiated), I don't think it should hurt him much considering.........how popular Bill "I never slept with that woman"Clinton has always stayed with Dems/Libs .

We know some Dems don't care about sexual deviants among their ranks, just some voters do. That's why Anthony Weiner got "fired" by the voters for sexting pics of his "weiner" to young women.

When this dirt doesn't work then the slime bags will have no other alternative but to go to this line of questioning: "Mr. Cain. Anonymous sources have leaked your current doctor's records to show that your liver/colon cancer has reappeared. Do you have any comment?"

Even if it wasn't true, all it will do is -- like this story -- plant a little bit of doubt in the voter's mind and distract them from the real issues of fixing this country. I guarantee you the despicable left will make his health an issue.

To the Liberals, this story on Cain is like calling "Sooey" to them and have them run to their little piggy trough to feed. They just "com'a runnin" (that's "Obama speak" like when he's talking to the CBC).

I'll give Cain the benefit of the doubt for now, but it's not hard to believe that he would sexually harass women. He's an arrogant male, consumed with power, who is contemptuous of the average person on the street. Even if the story were not true, his remarks on the campaign trail would eventually have sunk him.

FACT ALERT:

This just in! Leona lotsanumbers is now taking quote lessons from JoAnna (I just make 'em up) Smiff.

The actual quote is, "I never had sex with that woman."

You might actually find this interesting. While most of us might actually think of oral sex as sex, the legal teams agreed it was not. (I know, I know, that falls into the "I swear I'm not making this up" file, but it's absolutely true. Anna Molly, what is it with you legal guys? Not sex?) That was part and parcel of the legal wrangling going on prior to President Clinton giving his sworn testimony. THAT is the reason that Clinton DID NOT perjure himself.

Desperate leftists attack Caine with wild sourceless allegations because Obama's mad spending spree and business killing big government agenda has not generated jobs but MORE TENT CITIES FOR THE HOMELESS, MORE FOOD STAMPS, MORE NATIONAL DEBT and MORE SPENDING than any other President in history. The Obama-loving MSM to cover for the Failure-in-Chief CALLS the NEW OBAMAVILLE TENT CITIES "OWS PROTESTS."

John B., Iowa: Now back to the real world. I couldn't care less about the Politico Cain story, though I find his absolute refusal to face the issue directly to be most interesting.

You couldn't care less, but you find in interesting. Make up your mind.

Mr Cain also signed a confidentiality agreement. These two women have broken the agreement, so are you suggesting that Mr. Cain should do the same? Or do laws and contractual agreements not matter to you?

Now comes Smiff, whose posts remind me of a certain Gary Larson cartoon. In the first panel a dog is sitting outside his dog house at night going, "Bark Bark Bark Bark! Bark! Bark Bark Bark! Bark Bark Bark Bark! Bark Bark!" Above the second panel is a caption that reads: "What dogs are really saying." And now the dog is going, "Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey! Hey Hey Hey! Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey! Hey Hey! Hey Hey Hey!Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey! Hey Hey Hey! Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey! Hey Hey! Hey Hey Hey!Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey! Hey Hey Hey! Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey Hey! Hey Hey! Hey Hey Hey!"

I don't think this will hurt Bill Clinton (Herman Cain) with Democrat (Republican) primary voters, as we all know lefty liberals (conservatives) have forgiven worse sexual improprieties before, like the Hero of Chappaquiddick.

Fiesty, I love how you are willing to discuss unsubstantiated claims when it benefits your politics but since you are from Illinois, I am sure you have heard the Obama rumors that never get picked up right? Michelle's time at the law firms before she quit the law? Why dont we repeat those? What about Obama's penchant for a certain type of woman outside of Michelle? Do you want to repeat those? What about his relationship with Tony "the fixer" Rezco. The chicago machine and media have certainly left him alone on that one havent they? Fiesty, I am sure here in Illinois you have heard them all and you dont pass them on why? Because they are not worthy of discussion unless you have more. If you dont like Cain, then dont vote for him but this need to destroy people personally and bring them down is such a nasty and perverse side of liberalism.

Now comes Smiff, whose posts remind me of a certain Gary Larson cartoon

Gary Larson ROCKS! lol

I'll give Cain the benefit of the doubt for now, but it's not hard to believe. He's arrogant, hungry for power for the sake of power, contemptuous of the average person on the street and shows no compassion for anyone less fortunate than himself. Those last 3 attributes alone differentiate him from Clinton or Kennedy..

I agree Ben.

But they signed an agreement of non-disclosure, so by law, they are not allowed to make or issue any comments about the full facts or the content of the agreement.

The "Democrats do it, too" response to the story about Cain is predictable. Sure, some Democrats get caught in scandals (Clinton, Weiner, Spitzer, et. al.). But the Republicans are supposed to be the party of a certain type of "family values" that are mostly about sex, not the Democrats. And the allegations about Cain suggest that he doesn't conform to those alleged values. Cain makes religion-based assertions that even early-term abortions should be banned because a fertilized egg is a human being. Why should anyone else be forced to conform to what he believes if he can't even conform to them himself?

Aside from that, the story is really irrelevant because Cain is not really running for president, he's running a book-selling tour. He's got very little in the way of a campaign organization in any of the important primary states like Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida, and has done little campaigning there. His lead in the polls in those states had already slipped away before this story of alleged harassment broke. There was zero chance he was going to win the nomination before and he can't get lower than zero, no matter how hard he tries.

Gee, I wonder why all the libs are upset about these rumors about Cain, but don't seem to care about the rumors of Obama and his "little boys."

Too bad the authors of this article, like those of the politico article, are no longer reporters, but part of the Obama PR machine. I guess they are nothing more than a bunch of Woodward and Bernstein wannabes, but without any guidance. Don't they teach journalism anymore. You know, the who, what, when, where, how and why? This gossip is totally void of anything of substance. I guess they have at least read Allinsky to know that you don't need facts to rouse the communists.

You'd think they'd at least come up with what it is he supposedly did or said. It's well established that the anti-men group NOW would be offended if a man called one of them attractive. In light of the origination of the story and the fact that it is totally devoid of facts, I, and any woman or man who bases their opinion on facts will just sluff this off. Of course, we all know it is a diversion. Would you rather have someone in the WH who appreciates the appearance of a good looking woman, and thus MAY be a little politically incorrect, but who has the policies to straighten out the economy, or a PC person who has been driving the country into the ground for the last 3 years? The answer is obvious! Regardless of the useless dirt that the dems are so desperate to dig up on the repubs, any of the repubs are better than the current occupant in the WH. The filth and slime and destruction of the country by Obama are already front and center and are what this election is really about.

Well JAS1 -- It's interesting to see Rove coaching the republicans through the media. Does he do this because he supports a candidate or does he do it to highlight flaws? These allegations are an example as Rove is in the media "coaching" Cain. These allegations should be addressed today. It appears to be republican infighting. Is Politico a non-partisan entity?

It has been established by Bill Clinton that sexual activity or inactivity has nothing to do with being president.

Feisty!

We know that some GOP-TB's are Neanderthals, but there is a difference between draggin' yer knuckles along the ground and draggin' yer schlong. The truth is that Clinton managed to get it blown for every subsequent candidate and the electorate (wisely) no longer issue mulligans on this sort of behaviour. If Cain was lilly-white, then why the hush money?

David Walker:

Chef Sean says, "Halloween is teaching our kids to be liberals.....because we're teaching kids to knock on other people's doors and ask for a handout."

Is this guy totally nuts? What self-respecting conservative would call for fewer candy and costume sales, thereby shooting an entire industry in the foot? Don't candymakers advertise on Fox, for heaven's sake?

For anyone interested, my response to the Cain allegations appears on the next thread.

I confess to not being impressed by Cain's denials.

Albany Joe:

I don't think this will hurt Bill Clinton (Herman Cain) with Democrat (Republican) primary voters, as we all know lefty liberals (conservatives) have forgiven worse sexual improprieties before, like the Hero of Chappaquiddick.

Just how many wrongs DOES it take to make a right, Joey?

Are we there yet?

The feigned indignation on the right today is laughable. It's called "Opposition Research". All campaigns do it and all candidates are aware of what opponents can learn about them.

PS - Who said it was someone a Democrat who spilled the beans on the allegations regarding Herman Cain? Who says it wasn't one of his opponents running for the GOP nomination?

To the Liberals, this story on Cain is like calling "Sooey" to them and have them run to their little piggy trough to feed.

And yet it's Conservatives who are doing all the talking about this topic...thus proving my points from 1.25.

Now, what's the GOPTP doing to help the jobs picture?

witchrunner: you win the red herring, make up charges award of the day--your fellow dittoheads would be proud if you had any chance whatsoever of being believed. Keep trying though...the birther thing kept the country distracted for a while...you never know what this new absurdity might do...particularly in the ranks of the far right wing nut faction of the Republican party.

It's interesting to see Rove coaching the republicans through the media. Does he do this because he supports a candidate or does he do it to highlight flaws? These allegations are an example as Rove is in the media "coaching" Cain. These allegations should be addressed today. It appears to be republican infighting. Is Politico a non-partisan entity?

Great point, Dcia. I notice this hits Politico, origin of "Drudge rules our world" just as Rove is out with an editorial highlighting what he sees as his unsuitability as a general election candidate. It's commonly accepted though never proven that he was the source of rumors surrounding John McCain's supposed mental instability during the 2000 primary campaign.

Put it all together and it isn't hard to see this as a product of Republican dirty tricks politics, but it's obvious they'll blame it on the Left in order to rally their troops around the eventual candidate.

All of which is hypothetical, of course. No one knows for sure.

What's the GOPTP doing to help the jobs picture?

John B:And yet it's Conservatives who are doing all the talking about this topic...thus proving my points from 1.25.

Umm, it's the topic of the story John. And are you calling Feisty a conservative John? You owe her an apology.

John B: Now, what's the GOPTP doing to help the jobs picture?

Get rid of Obama and make Reid the minority leader in the Senate.

Either that, or we can do it Obama's way, and keep spending trillions of borrowed dollars on union jobs in the states. How's that worked out?

John B: Put it all together and it isn't hard to see this as a product of Republican dirty tricks politics, but it's obvious they'll blame it on the Left in order to rally their troops around the eventual candidate.

All of which is hypothetical, of course. No one knows for sure.

Is this what the voices in your head are telling you John?

Herman Cain just like the original Cain....liar and scumbag. Now i understand what that Cigarette smoking ad was all about!

New Tax Plan..... 69, 69, 69.

...and, by the way, shouldn't the GOP be more concerned with whether or not the allegations are true than who exactly squealed to Politico? The fall will kill you, Sundance!

@ Wilberta:

Shame on you.

And shame on me for giggling. ;-)

Da Noid:

The fall will kill you, Sundance!

One of the best movies EVER.

Na na hey hey GOOD BYE na na hey hey GOOD BYE !

ap: Not a very good rebuttal of the allegations. Guess they must be true! Who said I made anything up. I had as many facts and sources listed as politico and MSNBC.

John -- I see nothing being done in Congress that's for sure! ; ) The GOP'ers are running a campaign against a majority, the middle class, for a small minority, the upper quintile. Pretty telling where their interests lie.

Jas:

Mr Cain also signed a confidentiality agreement. These two women have broken the agreement, so are you suggesting that Mr. Cain should do the same? Or do laws and contractual agreements not matter to you?

What proof do you have that 'these two women have broken the agreement"? How quickly you come to conclusions.

I hope Cain does become the nominee. Ron Paul could run as a third-party candidate. This election might be very interesting.........

When I think of politics today, I think of the Wal Mart Halloween Commercial.

You have a young man sitting at a door, signs reads "Take One Please or Only", he takes ones sits there and thinks about taking another piece of candy.

A Little girl walks up, doesn't look that young, but takes a handful, the young boys says " the sign says, take 1 only", little girl looks up and says "I can't read".

She has been told what the sign says, but decides to blame her education on the reason she just takes as much as she wants.

You decide which one is doing the right thing and which one isn't. Which one would be conservative and which one would be liberal. Which one is a GOP, which one is DEM. Try and support your thoughts.

JAS: Get rid of Obama and make Reid the minority leader in the Senate.

So conservatives are still going for the negative approach. Nothing positive. No actual plans to create jobs.

Well I am going to wait until the real facts come out regarding Mr. Cain.

But what I do find very curious is where is his family? Where is his wife? Has anyone seen him campaigning with any member of his family?

@ Big Bear --

The one who's democrat (liberal) is the boy. He has a conscience.

Right on, Anna Molly!

Jack in Portsmouth: "..and (Cain) shows no compassion for anyone less fortunate than himself. Those last 3 attributes alone differentiate him from Clinton or Kennedy.."

Jack, I wouldn't be touting anything Kennedy's done.

It only brings back nightmares, for most Americans, of a woman lying at the bottom of a lake dead. I know it's Halloween but we'd rather forget.

@ Feisty Red: I can't believe it. I actually agree with you for once. You said "Given Herman's demeanor when he doesn't get his way, I'm inclined to believe he's more then capable of being guilty of these accusations". You are probably right. Let the skeletons fall wherever they may.

By the way, Ron Paul doesn't have any skeletons. Sorry, I had to get his name in there at least once. RP for prez 2012.

Anna Molly, when did cheating blaming others and having no personal accountability be equated with having a conscience? Under your theory, letting the priests who enjoyed diddling little boys off with a slap on the wrist is having a conscience after all he was doing it in the name of religion and couldnt help himself right? He shouldnt be held accountable for his personal choices and actions, as it was the 1% percenters fault they forced him into a life of pedophilia. While you like to make it seem as if holding people accountable for their behavior and choices is lack of compassion, its really compassion for the victims of your views which is the rest of society.

Umm, Kirk,

Wow, what a rant. But perhaps you should re-read the analogy,...

Imagine Feisty being the first on the board against a Republican! She is such a liberal tool!

Ha, Thanks Clara, true my bad.

Kirk:

Anna Molly, when did cheating blaming others and having no personal accountability be equated with having a conscience?

Huh? Are you sure you read my answer?

Once again, the boy, who didn't help himself to the extra candy, is the one with the conscience -- ergo, the Democrat.

Another way of analyzing it still yields the same conclusion. The boy read the sign and figured the rule must exist for a reason, like maybe to ensure that there would be enough candy left over for others. Although he wanted the candy, too, he hesitated to take it because he was conscious of the needs of others.

The girl, on the other hand, ignored the rule because it got in the way of her personal greed. When detected, she feigned ignorance of the rule and blamed others in order to avoid the responsibility for her actions.

Sounds just like Wall Street to me.

She's obviously a conservative.

In your guts you know that this Radical Right are nuts.

most times these claims are cheaper to just pay off rather than fight! Doesn't make him either guilty or Innocent just a smart business decision.

Anna Molly, you got me I was wrong. Although I disagree on the liberal versus conservative but it definitely could be Wall Street. The only comment I disagree with and you label as conservative is "she feigned ignorance of the rule and blamed others in order to avoid the responsibility for her actions" So far that seems to be the Obama viewpoint and many on this blog. I wont defend the actions of a few people in NY or banks or Wall Street as people like to refer to it as. But Obama bailed them out as too big to fail and then didnt make sure whatever behavior he expected them to live by was followed. But if they did wrong punish them dont use this as an excuse to allow everyone else to avoid the rules and blame others so they dont have to be responsible for their actions. I dont see too many posters from the left on here emphasizing self reliance, personal responsibility and being held accountable for your actions or behavior. I would tend do say as a political platform, the left and many of the bloggers on here dont believe in self reliance and personal responsibility so not sure thats liberal as you tried to point out. I also dont find too many liberals having a conscience with their own pocket books generally they like compassion and charity using someone else's money. So I dont think this is a very good example that a generalization can be made to apply across the board

See, this is why I do not post much anymore on these forums. All the blatant, idiotic drivel being tossed back and forth over political partisanship has gotten old. And nearly everyone on here is to blame.

Feisty, please don't even bother to try to veil your political bias. We get it.

Joe in Albany, you as well.

Most of the "old crew" here on FR have their own immovable positions politically. Does anyone honestly think that by slamming rhetoric, or the infamous copy-and-paste, will do anything to change anyone's point of view?

As for Cain, well, I honestly couldn't give a sweet f--- about him. If we can't manage to discredit this guy simply on his political views as of LAST WEEK, then why even bother trying to persecute him with this trash?? His 9-9-9 plan was enough for me to say, "no, thanks".

I personally do not care if he sexually harrassed anyone or not. I simply do not care, as it will NOT affect me personally whatsover. If you are someone who feels strongly enough about this to not vote for him on this basis alone, then fine. You have that right, though I would suggest you grow up and stop worrying about petty things. And this IS petty, folks. In the grand scheme of things, it does not matter. Clinton's little rendezvous with Lewinsky did not matter to me. Thomas' penchant for hairy cokes does not matter to me. Ted Kennedy's lack of inebriated driving skills does not matter to me, though I do feel for the death of the young woman he was with. But none of this matters. What really matters is how well they can administrate our nation, and provide leadership for all things political. Period.

Lastly, many of your here seem to have a drastic need for a chiropractor or orthopedist, considering the sheer volume of knee-jerk responses.....

......I have not read anything to suggest that this was a "liberal attack" or smear campaign. This "info" could just as easily have come from another Republican contender. During this phase of our BS political election system it is not uncommon for intrapartisan rivals to flame their opponents with lame, extrinsic crap like this. And it's not like the Republican party has been outstandingly moral in their versions of smear against Democrats. Hell, the Swift-boat issue became so pretentious it even was afforded verb-status (eg- "Hey, that guy is trying to swift-boat me again!"...). Or maybe the entire issue of Obama's birth certificate rings a bell. What exactly do these accusations have to do with a politician's ability to lead? NOTHING.

Back during WW2, there was a famous leader who smoked cigars almost nonstop, drank plenty, even while on the job, and had a reputation for womanizing.

There was another leader who was straightedge, did not drink at all or smoke or do drugs. He was monogamous, faithful, and dedicated. He worked from sun up to sun down, and rarely took vacations.

Did you guess?

The first person was Winston Churchill.....the second was Hitler.

Grow up everyone, and stop playing games. You ARE old enough to know better, right?

David Walker -- Excellent posts as always.

Here is a challenge to conservatives: Research the bios for right-wingers like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, etc. and compare to bios for progressives like Rachel Maddow, Larence O'Donell, etc. It's day and night. Maddow and O'Donnell's education and career accomplishments are impressive. Hannity and Beck's not so much.

I'll never understand why conservatives worship these hacks, or worse why they actually prefer idiots, I guess because they can identify with them. But for the love of America, why Teapublicans would elect anyone in the current GOP/TP presidential field, I'll never know. The bar is low.

EvaPeron -- Politco is right-leaning. You just assume the attack on a GOP/TP candidate would come from the Left. Stop assuming--Google is your friend. The attacks against Romney's religion, or against Perry's shenanigans, and now a "witch hunt" of a sexual nature (sound familiar?), these attacks come from the right-wing.

I repeat: Media Matters for America accused Politico of having a "Republican tilt."

About the holiday obsession, first Bill O'Really and his Christmas drama, and now Sean Insanity and his Halloween drama -- This is just more nontroversy distraction like campaign buses, $16 muffins, and listen to this... Now the right-wing is getting their undies in a bundle about ACORN again. FAUX Noise and Hate Radio = low-information voters.

I also dont find too many liberals having a conscience with their own pocket books generally they like compassion and charity using someone else's money.

This is exactly why I normally don't truck with you, Kirk.

I suspect you don't even know any liberals, much less what they do with their private pocket books. You obviously don't know what I do with mine.

Anna Molly, I live in Chicago and Illinois so it's impossible to not be around liberals all day long. I work with people who know Obama personally and Chicago politicians who have worked with him for years. I have worked with bill daly when he was at Mayer brown and have debated the issues discussed on here for years with many colleages. I have admitted many times when i was wrong for example voting for bush the first time and not voting for clinton the first time. I have met hillaryand find her very impressive. I also know that besides the idealogues on this blog, I can't tell you the number of Obama supporters who have had buyers remorse. People who hate his economic policies and find his bail out mentality and class warfare rhetoric, lack of holding people and business accountable for their actions to be despicable while being diehard liberals themselves. You may find me a bad taste in your mouth but my economic views are definitely more mainstream than the idealogues here who won't admit error if it bit them in the face. I am sure you mean well Anna Molly but so do most bleeding heart policies that make things worse rather than better.

That sexual harassment he did is just a joke. Those women he harassed just need to lighten up. (/sarc)

The Cain campaign is the REAL joke.

He'll be back to motivational speaking gigs for the Koch brothers in no time. (his job since 2005)

witchhunter,

I haven't heard those rumors or know anyone who has. Who started it, you?

And as for your trying to justify sexual harassment as simply not politically correct, that is appalling.

IR, thanks for sharing this historical reference article. You bet Wall Street and the Bankers fear the idea of the Tea Party and Occupy Movement being on the same page.

You think Jefferson believed that people should have their acquired debts forgiven- simply because they don't want to repay them?

I've heard some convoluted arguments from the left, some pretzel logic, plenty of co-opting positions and quotes, then twisting them beyond all reason to fit a certain narrative- but this beats all of them.

no joe: you missed the point. The common ground is about disparity of income in the US...but I'm betting you know that and choose to just look for an excuse to use "pretzel logic". course with the dwindling acceptance of the TParty, I wouldn't think the Wall Street Protestors have anything to gain by joining ranks.

AP NoJo is the Queen of Missed Points. Careful you don't want to get in the way of her daily rants against all things that make sense. You'll be treated to a lesson in her Superiority in All Things. Jack of all Trades is our Resident Poll Dancer and Master of None.

IR, cheers to that, too.

When was the last time the little guy had anything forgiven? The banks seem to adopt the idea that "their" acquired debts should be forgiven, their fraudulent behavior should be swept under the rug, their predator loans ignored, their betting that home owners fail to repay and selling it as investments, their collapsing of the economy and needing a bailout by taxpayers, their huge bonuses to employees for "failure."

Indeendent Redneck: "...it is strange that Tea Party leaders such as Rick Perry now dismiss the Occupy Wall Street movement as “class warfare.”

There's ONE important difference.

The Tea Party stands for reducing the debt and hence , the tax payer burden for the future generations.

OWS stands for bleeding the "RICH" so there are more hand outs in order to "spread the wealth around" ( Obama) .

They don't compare.

Leona

The Original Tea Party grew out of Ron Paul’s Libertinism.

It was quickly co-opted by the Heritage Foundation and Dick Armey and folks like you.

Consequently it has lost followers and some have quietly decided that that wasn’t what they wanted to support in the first place.

There are some elements of Libertinism in the OWS message. If as I mentioned above you are willing to practice the politics of what unites us rather than what divides us seems like a good place to start.

Independent Redneck,

Sorry but you can't have it both ways.

Are you for reduction of debt ( Tea Party) OR "spread the wealth" ( OWS ) ?

Sorry Leona. You're starting from a false premise on both counts. Do a little research and quit harping platitudes and maybe we can have a discussion.

Seriously Leona,

Debt Reduction and Distribution of Wealth are mutually exclusive. You make no sense at all.

John B, well said.

Is this before or after they kick all the homeless people out of the camp. To be honest the Detroit people left the first evening it got below 40 F. And the London people are daytime protesters.... going home at night to a toasty warm bed.

I have taught non-violent trainings in the past when I was part of a group called COG (Citizens Observation Group). We were strict and anyone who could not promise total non-violence was sent home. One idiot can ruin everything for everybody. One person can throw a rock and then the police have their excuse to attack all of you. Solidarity to non-violence was much more important than numbers.

Non-Violence is the only true God given power. Gandhi says he realized this true magic while reading our bible.

Non-violence is the secret to the 99% winning.

Too bad the republicans who never want war and killing to end can not see the truth written in their own bible.

OWS'ers- pool your resources if you have to, but.....

Buy voting shares of stock in some of these companies.

Attend the annual meetings.

You're entitled to do so.

dbo, I like your approach!

It reminds me that one of the most recent Conservative attacks against OWS is to accuse them of putting their funds in a bank. How DARE they!

Talk about deliberately missing the point. OWS isn't protesting the existence of banks, it's protesting excessive greed on Wall Street and their abuses that actually weaken society by legalized stealing of the wealth of others and the profits of companies who actually DO things rather than being mere money changers. A while back I posted a clear correlation between excessive profits in the financial sector and the timing of recessions. That's the point no matter what defenders of "too big to fail" wish you to believe.

JOHN B: " (OWS) is protesting excessive greed on Wall Street and their abuses that actually weaken society by legalized stealing of the wealth of others..."

Gee, John, shouldn't the OWS protesters be marching outside the White House then? You mention " legalized stealing of the wealth of others." That's sounds exactly like what the Democrats stand for with their "TAX AND SPEND" policies.

We tax payers want our $4 trillion back from the Obama Democrats who are giving it to Unions and "green" companies to make other Democrats rich !

Leona,

The actual number is less than 3T. Ask Bush for the rest. While you're at it, ask your buddy Dubya for the 1T for Iraq and Afghanistan. We could do a little "nation building" right here in the USA.

Dolt.

Plouffe had it right yesterday. Romney has no core.

Dennis, it should be interesting to see how quickly Solyndra fades from the right-wing chatter when the facts begin to point to the GOP. Issa will drop it like a hot potato.

phinephancy, did enjoy Plouffe's perfect description of Mitt Romney--he has no core.

One more time, Jody-

The Energy Act of 2005 had some pretty strict requirements- the most important of which was that, in order for a company to succeed in getting a federal loan guarantee, that company post a bond that would cover the full repayment of any loans the taxpayers guaranteed.

On that basis- the inability to secure such a bond- Solyndra was turned down in early January, 2009. The company could not qualify for a bond because their finances were in such poor shape.

Obama came in and changed the rules for such loans- and the money flowed out the door, into the pockets of his big dollar donors, leaving the taxpayers on the hook for billions.

Subpoenas have been issued for all White House correspondence regarding Solyndra- including emails to and from Obama's Blackberry. Hell undoubtedly fight it- lose- and those emails will become public sometime next fall.

Bye, bye, Obama. Too bad we, the taxpayers, cannot sue him for malfeasance.

All this is over 1.3% of $38 billion in loan guarantees to all energy companies. Companies would not need a Government guaranteed loan if it isn’t a risky loan.

No Joe seeks more action on the corrupt actions of this administration yet Daryl Issa, after 11 months, has not been able to find a single ethics violation made by them.

Truth is, that compared to the Clinton and Bush 43 Administrations the Obama Administration is scandal free.

Plouffe had it right, George Will IS right (I mean literally!) and Mike Murphy wants an apology?

Really, Mike? I don't think so,...the only thing a straddle will get you is splinters in your tukas,...And Romney would certainly KNOW about that.

It isn't often I agree with George Will but lately he's been hitting some "truth" balls out of the park. Perhaps Mike Murphy could apologize for all the lies his own party speaks everyday about President Obama and democrats--it seems Plouffe and Will hit a nerve.

Dennis the only reason Obama is scandal free is the lapdog media. Can you say Eric Holder, Fast and Furious, Van Jones and yes Solyndra

Old Guy, Then why hasn’t Issa found anything substantial after 10 months of investigations and hearings?

has not looked in the right place

OFG

So is that a competency issue or a resource issue,...cuz' lord knows he's looking,...perhaps it's just a fool's errand?

Regardless,...let's spend more tax payer money on THAT endeavor,...

What normal people see instantly takes years for government investigators to see

OFG

Let me guess, you would still re-elect those Issa's because they share your ideology, right?

Perhaps there is nothing to find?

Disturbing yes, but he's got a right to defend himself first (none of this "oh that's all water under the bridge"). Besides, as an Obama supporter, I hate to see Cain sink too early...there's absolutely no body in the field who can even get Romney to answer a question.

Jody, have you seen the economic charts showing that when the middle class was strong it also had a union membership? Once Reagan, and the "hate union" crowd came in, that was the beginning of the end of the middle class. While the GOP can try and blame unions and dems for everything, you cannot deny facts. You keep going, and keep them honest! As my granddaughter would say, you rock.

Jody-- The CBO report on Household Income speaks to the disparity of incomes between the upper quintile and the lower quintiles resulting from tax policies that favored the upper. And the plans Republicans are offering would widen that disparity past the historic level it has now reached. I think this report should be front and center during this campaign season.

Great Post.

phinephancy, Don't carry it all. Yes, I have seen those charts and reports. Thanks for adding to my comment. The income decline of the middle class and poor runs parallel to the decline of union membership. Reagan began the anti-union chatter because unions provided power to the workers where otherwise they had no voice. We owe the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-union, blame the poor for being poor GOP ideology to Ronald Reagan. Today's income disparity is a result of Reaganomics, not matter how conservatives try to slice it. Long-term history will not be kind to Reagan.

Whenever the name of Reagan is mentioned to my 87 year old mother, she gets all fired up and this, tiny, white hair woman, who is the picture of a kindly grandmother, says, "I could just b*%$h slap Ronald Reagan!" I love my mother.

Dont Carry it All--why do you think the disparity of income between the upper and lower quintiles results from tax policy? What role do you think immigration both legal and illegal has played in that gap? What about the education gap? What role do you think that has played? What about the role of government subsidy and reliance on it? What do you think about the states in which tax policy is even more progressive and anti success and working hard like NY, California, NJ and what take aways would you have from those failed experiments in tax policy? What do you think of the university of Michigan study that shows after 16 years 80% of those in the bottom quintile have moved up to the next two quintiles of income? So people do move up and then get replaced by a new group of low skilled, low educated immigrants? Given that tax policy as screwed up as it is, is already very progressive, what do you think they should do different besides eliminating the loopholes etc that make it unfairly applied? Given that the poor and middle class contribute towards their eventual social security retirement but contribute very little if at all to the overall budget of the federal government would you revise tax policy to increase taxes on the rich and make the lower quintiles pay into the system?

Here comes Kirk to throw doubt on what the numbers show clearly...income inequality decreased for DECADES until the Reagan Revolution created a massive trend toward flattening of progressivity in tax rates...and income inequality has INCREASED since then. That trend intensified with the Bush tax cuts

Why would we think immigration played in that gap? Is there some data to support a contention that a massive increase in immigration coincides with the increase in income inequality in the same way that changes in tax policy do? If so then Kirk should present that evidence instead of just conspiratorially suggesting that it "might" be the true cause.

Education gap? A higher proportion of the population has a college degree than ever before, so that one falls on its face.

Government subsidy? Did poverty increase with the beginning of the Great Society programs? No, it decreased DRAMATICALLY. Fail on that point.

As for states that still have some measure of progressive tax policy, the states Kirk mentions are net EXPORTERS of tax dollars in order to support the welfare havens of the Red states...areas that dominate the list of states that spend more federal dollars than they send to Washington. Again, a failure.

Where is his evidence that the lowest quintile consists of immigrants who rapidly move up the income ladder? It's the poorest of Conservative talking points when you look at it in detail. In fact the data show this to not be the case at all;

An analysis of the currently available data shows:

• -Over the 1994-2000 period, poverty rates fell much more quickly for immigrants than for natives. For example, the national poverty rates of recent immigrants (those here for 10 years or less) fell about four times as fast as for natives (11.6 percentage points for immigrants versus 2.9 points for natives); the rate for all immigrants fell 2.7 times as fast as that of U.S. natives.
• -Immigrant families also experienced greater increases than U.S. natives in real median family incomes from 1994 to 2000. After adjusting for inflation, the median family incomes of immigrants rose 26.3% from 1994 to 2000, while the median family incomes of native U.S. families grew half that fast. For recent immigrants, the growth in real median family income was even larger at 40.5%.
• -These gains in immigrant income over the 1994-2000 period were substantial enough to offset the negative impact of the share effect.
• -In a preliminary analysis of the full Census period between 1989 and 1999 for California and New York (two states with large immigrant populations) the increase in immigration added about a percentage point to the growth in poverty over the decade. But absent this effect, poverty would have been unchanged in California and would have risen slightly in New York (still a disappointing result for this period).
• -Immigration’s role has been exaggerated and has crowded out other, more fundamentally economic factors, such as inequality and unemployment, from the discussion. These factors hurt the economic prospects of all low-wage workers, regardless of nativity.

http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp130/

That's why it's important to rely on FACTS rather than talking points. Too often we find the facts don't back up the Conservative talking points.

Well Kirk, I read the report and that is my take on it. I posted Saturday my thoughts concerning some of the things you bring up. You can read that post anytime. As for different states and their tax policies...if one is upset with taxes one should advocate change. It's up to the people of the state to change it. Or move.

Where is the U of M study, do you have a link?

Everyone should contribute to their retirement and healthcare. I would think the vast majority of middle class, my family included, contribute greatly to the federal coffers. According to the CBO report our household income falls into upper middle class, although I would argue differently. Should the poor contribute more? How about we look to Michelle Bachmann's idea and let them pay a dollar.

You know where I fall on tax reform and the capital gains tax. Kinda similar to Huntsman's except I would tax capital gains.

John -- Thanks for responding as well. You make great points.

John -- Great rebuttal. I sometimes struggle with responding to so many issues in one post like Kirk's.

Happy to help, Dcia. You're starting to catch on to Kirk's methods. By throwing out a blizzard of talking points he hopes to send you scurrying off in pursuit of one of those instead of defending the REAL point...that Conservative tax policy deliberately redistributes wealth upward in society.

He'll refuse to post a link to the study you request for the same reason. His pattern is to tell others to look it up themselves instead of supporting his own argument as would be the case with an honest debate.

Rovian Tactic #10: Create Straw Issues

John B, is it remotely possible for you to respond without personally attacking. Do you get paid to do this? Everytime I provide a source, you then ignore that post and choose to not even respond and then you attack me somewhere else and make up these grandiose personal attacks that then overshadows the substance of the discussion which you generally cant stand it when you lose. For the most part DCIA and I have had relatively nice conversations whether we agree or not is different but I respect her ability to leave the personal attack style from her responses.

DCIA, I know you like John B's rebuttal but he has failed to tell you that the education gap is actually a study and report by democratic senators thats probably several months old now that showed that no amount of government entitlements were going to fix the fact that 38 million workers dont have the education and skill set to compete in the modern economy and our education system has failed them. So it wasnt the 1% group that failed them but the education system. As for illegal immigration, thats just plain stupid John B. You know that immigration has dramatically impacted wages and poverty and that your report that you cite doesnt rebutt anything. All it says is that their poverty rates were reduced faster than the population at large and my response is DUH. That is a brilliant observation of the obvious. When you come to this country with nothing, I would expect that their percentage rates of growth and reduced poverty overall would be on a percentage base compared to the US population better. But give me the absolute numbers instead next time ok? As for conservative tax policy redistributing wealth--can you explain how that works? Who are the wealthy taking money from? Give me real dollars of tax being paid by the poor and middle class (real absolute dollars not payroll tax contributions) that are then being given to the wealthy. Dont make outlandish statements without some sources John B. Come on you can do it right?

John B, your problem is that you dont realize that I dont have methods. I actually have experiences that you dont. I actually have standards and principles that you dont. You prefer to live with class envy and an entitlement state and I live in a world of self reliance and personal accountability.

Look, a new blizzard of talking points. Still no links, still no facts, only opinions. All of which I've answered directly to Kirk multiple times in the past, and he continues to bring them up as if they're brand new.

So if someone said without linking to a source "Conservative tax policy deliberately redistributes wealth upward in society" What would you call that? or how about the absolutely almost idiotic comment

" A higher proportion of the population has a college degree than ever before" so there goes that argument" stated in support of there is no education gap. Are these opinions from the uninformed or what? What person would try to tell us there is no education gap creating income inequality without supporting it with a source and how idiotic would that person sound trying to defend that opinion?

I guess with you John, it always depends on the opinion you like or dislike under which you hold your core values or judgements right? It truly is sad that you are such and idealogue that you cant work towards a common goal with people who dont share the exact same opinion as you or even admit when they might have a point on a issue. Your so lost in your class warfare rhetoric and envy of the successful in this country that you blindly follow anyone leading you off the cliff.

John B, I went back and read your post again in which you try to state that you gave facts to respond to my post without facts. Unfortunately as I read it again, I couldnt believe how you failed miserably to even respond on point. Take the state income tax issue. How much money each of these states takes in federal dollars is irrelevant to my point and you have to know that. You try to refute a set of circumstances without much for you to hang your hat on with a federal population welfare response. No, the guinea pig state of California or even NY, NJ or Illinois with high progressive tax rates, high government spending for their state budgets are failing economically. The fact that their residents pay more federal tax than the state gets back in government subsidies has no bearing on this issue. Good try though.

Same with the poverty rates since the Great Society programs. Why didnt you go on a talk about the $16 trillion spent in the last 50 years on the war on poverty? Why not talk about all the money spent on programs that havent reduced poverty by a single percentage point and in absolute numbers are higher than they were in before these programs were created. Just admit they failed.

Finally didnt your source actually support the Uof M study? Sure seems like it so whats your point? I asked a perfectly legitimate set of questions wanting to know why you think tax policy created income inequality and I said how. So far nobody has answered how that happened. Give me real illustrations not your Obama class warfare talking points. Otherwise, I would think you would agree with the education gap as if you dont why do you always want more money for education? Do you really think low skilled illegal and legal immigration has no impact on wages and poverty? Do you really think there is no nanny statism at all? Come on John, you can do it give a real response not one filled with personal attacks and opinion that isnt based on a talking point but personal experience. You have it dont you?

Your so lost in your class warfare rhetoric and envy of the successful in this country that you blindly follow anyone leading you off the cliff.

Says the guy who's accusing others of personal attacks. Think back. I had plenty of civil discussions with you until you turned to that sort of rhetoric. Blame yourself if people are starting to play hardball. Politics ain't beanbag, put on your big boy pants and deal with it.

By now you should know better than to challenge me to back up my assertions, especially when you won't. I stated that the proportion of the population has been increasing and you demanded proof. Here 'ya go, chief; http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RDfqDWD9kC8/SkUctOEKUBI/AAAAAAAAACU/jfxxYl0yFFk/s400/bac_over_hs.jpg

Take the state income tax issue. How much money each of these states takes in federal dollars is irrelevant to my point and you have to know that.

Wrong again, it's VERY relevant because the states you disparage because for their more progressive tax structures are in continually better shape than Red states and send tax money for the maintenance of those states.

Why not talk about all the money spent on programs that havent reduced poverty by a single percentage point and in absolute numbers are higher than they were in before these programs were created. Just admit they failed.

Why would I admit they failed, when the Great Society programs decreased poverty by FAR MORE than "a single percentage point." http://www.growthology.org/.a/6a00e5521200878833011570b87d83970b-800wi

Finally didnt your source actually support the Uof M study?

How would we know that? You still haven't backed up your contentions with links or citations.

I'm sorry you consider facts to be personal attacks. Considering the pattern of actual facts not backing your arguments I guess I understand your distress.

What drugs are you on? Cal, ny and Illinois are better off than red states? What have you been smoking? Are you kidding me. There is no one whonthinks the war on poverty has been any more successful than the war on drugs. Next thing you are going to repeat is that there is no education gap. Sorry no distress on personal attacks it's just pointing out that it's the method of debating when you can't win on the issues.

There you have it folks, another demonstration of how Kirk operates, free of facts in his own writing while insisting that facts presented by others aren't relevant. I like to engage in one of these exchanges occasionally just to demonstrate how far he'll go in that direction. And he wonders why people keep accusing him of having no credibility.

Kirk -- Here is copy of the full report I referred to in my original post. Please read in its entirety and tell me what the CBO says are the reasons for the disparity. That was my original argument.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12485/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf

Do you have a link to the U of M study you referred to in your response? Please post so I can get context to your statements to me. Thanks.

John B, what audience are you posting to. Thats your problem. Your posting to some phantom audience who gives a Sh*^T what you say. If you spent some time critically thinking to me, you wouldnt have this problem. Your response is another non response. Its not that your facts arent relevant, its that they arent indicative of anything nor responsive directly to my post. Lets take an easy one, you try to counter the fact that California is a highly progressive tax state and its unemployment and economic woes are well known and not changing anytime soon. You try to tell me that California is actually doing better than the other states because its citizens pay more federal tax than benefits they receive from the federal government. Do you really think thats a valid response? Do you think that counters my statement? You really think anyone else reading this thinks I have no credibility because somehow your argument shut me down? Do you really think people believe there is no education gap? Do you really think people believe the war on poverty has been a success? John you certainly didnt do anything to hurt my credibility yet and if you stop pandering to an invisible audience and thought for yourself maybe you could have an intellectually stimulating conversation for once.

Nonsense Kirk, if you believed that you'd stop posting the same disproven talking points to the same posters over and over and over and over again. You're posting for the thousands of daily visitors to FR who are reading in search of valid opinions, the vast majority of whom don't post. So am I. The only difference is, I'm honest enough to admit it and trust the intelligence of those readers enough to give them real information for validation.

I'm quite willing to have back and forth conversations with people who are willing to have a reasonable discussion. You're not that person. You only try to appear to be that person.

DCIA--I read the CBO report and you should read it closely because it doesnt say anywhere that the cause of the income distribution changes are as a result of tax policy. In fact quite the opposite. The first assumption page tells you right off that this report only applies to static points of time and doesnt factor in changes within quintiles and specifically says that the group in the lowest 20% isnt the same group in the low 20% in 2007. Movement within quintiles is not factored in. The University of Michigan study did that its under the Panel Discussion of Income Mobility and there are several reports. Cornel in an April 4, 2008 report also provided an indepth discussion of income mobility. Google both of these and you will find these reports. You should know that I am not advocating anything but its impossible to make conclusions about income inequality without making sure all the various factors are included not just the ones that make the progressives feel better nor the ones that make the conservatives feel better.

In the following paragraphs, the CBO report also indicates that most of the income distribution impact to the top quintile comes from labor market distortions. Dont you think the education gap contributes a significant part of that? The report even says that the reason for the addition gains to the top quintile are not very well understood and that labor gains for superstars, executive comp policies like incentives for performance based equity pay and finance related gains might be reasons. It also said what I have been saying all along and that is the bigger overall wealth redistribution is coming from the younger generation more likely to be in the bottom quintiles to the senior population more likely to be in the upper quintiles. It concluded that wealth is being redistributed to wealthier seniors (this is an dirty secret nobody wants to touch). Thus one additiona reason which I didnt mention but this study does is that our aging population and baby boomers are an additional reason for the income inequality--not tax policy. If you go to page 13, it specificallys says (sorry John B), that the education gap is a bigger reason for the hourly wage change during this period as the demand for skilled workers has outpaced the demand for unskilled labor and that the pool of skilled highly educated workers has gotten smaller increasing their wages (John B, you understand supply demand economics right?) I think progressives should read pages 28 and on dealing with the progressivity of the federal tax system and maybe all of the squealing about the rich taking money on the backs of the poor and middle class will stop. I would conclude that if there was any redistribution that it went to the elderly and seniors. Since the Bush tax cuts there was a drop in the revenue that impacted after tax income of the top quintile so it was a factor but it clearly demonstrates that federal tax policy is highly progressive and that income inequality did not come about as a result of tax policy.

John B, and you think your that person? Give me one example in which you have backed off your idealogically based rhetoric and admitted that someone else had a point. You totally ignored the substance of my post above and responded as if I am unreasonable and addressed your audience rather than substance. If you just once said, Kirk your right about California or the education gap or gave an inch on facts that dont have to be partisan maybe you could be credible yourself. Unfortunately your stuck in the mode of defending talking points that will help reelect Obama instead of honest critical thinking of an issue. See, I will admit when I can vote for a democrat like Clinton or hate a GOP president like Bush. You cant do that. I am ok with being in the middle, you are so far left you cant see the middle. Its ok though if you just debated honestly.

Kirk will address your post later.

Kirk, why would I admit to your point about California? The people there are well enough off to become net exporters of federal tax revenue needed to provide welfare support to Red states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. Why would I admit to your point about an education gap? I've provided evidence that the proportion of the population with a college degree is at the highest level ever.

When you provide some facts I'll accept them. At one time I was critical of Herman Cain for taking Godfather's Pizza into bankruptcy. When presented with facts it was apparent that Cain actually rescued Godfather's from bankruptcy. I admit to being uninformed and my opinion didn't square with the facts. You've never done that, only come up with reasons why the facts are insignificant. When asked for sources your argument is "look it up for yourself." That's not my role in the argument. My role is to support my own points.

You've taken every opportunity to justify your points based on claims of superior business experience. How far do you get with your superiors if you walk into a meeting and express opinions without supporting information? I've been in management long enough to know the answer -- you get chopped off at the knees. I live in a world where I don't get away with "the Wall Street Journal said it some time...look it up if you don't believe me." If I can't provide a source it isn't a fact.

So, you believe tax policy has had nothing to do with growth in income inequality. Please quantify the variables that you believe have created the growing inequality and provide sources. "It must be the immigrants" just doesn't cut it.

John B, I dont have to provide you any additional sources for the variables that create income inequality as DCIA did it for me. Its above and the CBO's report. I never said tax policy had zero impact. The report indicates that tax policy does have an impact at least since the Bush tax cuts in after tax income inequality but also goes on to provide the data on current tax policy is already extremely progressive. The report mainly discusses the factors that create income inequality in the first place such as the education gap that I have already discusses, wealth redistribution to seniors via government subsidies or transfers as they call it for social security and medicare. There are a variety of other factors but certainly tax policy didnt create income inequality thats for sure.

John, you make some of the worst responses to my posts as I could reply to myself better than you. Being a net exporter via federal income tax policy has nothing to do with the general economic conditions of California. Since federal income tax dollars are overwhelmingly paid by the wealthy and on an absolute dollar basis almost exclusively paid by the wealthy, what you are saying is that while progressive tax states like california wallow in unemployment, bankrupt cities and municipalities, corporations leaving in droves, environmentalists destroying any job growth that the wealthy remaining in Cal are subsidizing red states with better overall economies? How does that help your constituents the middle class and poor in california with no jobs? You pick one statistic thats barely applicable to argue that California is doing well? John you really can do better than that. So because the college graduate rate is growing, that explains the education gap between the incomes of those with degrees and those who dont? Those who dont cant climb out of the poor and middle class because they dont have relevant job skills but you want to respond with college grad rates? John how stupid do you think I am. What you dont seem to get is that supporting your own points without given credit where you could be wrong or didnt know, is not a fatal flaw--its just bad debating. What I dont get is that what I have raised doesnt even cut across partisan lines but it hurts the class warfare rhetoric. Having an education gap that is a factor in income inequality isnt a progressive or conservative issue--but it does quiet down this desire to punish the successful while refusing to reign in spending. The factors I raised dont even cut across partisan lines. You just dont like to have to address them in the context of class warfare.

As fpr superior business experience--I have no idea if my experience is superior or not nor do I claim it as. But I do have experience. Trust me I have never been chopped off at the knees and never had a problem with my performance ever.

John B,

I give a sh!t what you have to say,...

Kirk -- Where to start....Well I did re-read the entire report once again. I'll confess I was watching a really exciting football game when i first read it, lol. For the most part my conclusions remain the same. I will address a few of the issues you bring up related to the CBO report which is what my original post is about. A quick synopsis of my thoughts below. Keep in mind it's just my opinion, lol.

1. Immigration and it's impact; the report says it had a modest impact.

2. Imports have a bigger impact on wages as we produced less and imported more.

3.. "Other researchers have noted large declines in the rate of union-ization in the United States, especially in the 1980s, and have shown that the decline has reduced the equalizing effect of unions on wages."

4. Lower quintile has seen income decline because of such factors as a minimum wage, after being adjusted for inflation, has not adjusted accordingly. Additionally payroll taxes, regressive in nature, have a greater impact on this quintile. ( Couple that with a regressive state tax and you can see why those in that quintile remain the "working poor".) Just imagine the numbers without the tax credits.......Much work to be done here.

5. Lack of skilled labor has put upward pressure on some wages thus contributing to the increase income of some in the upper quintile, but so has the rise of "S" Corps, and the fact that some derive most of their income through capital gains. And yes, a few of these things are a direct result of tax policies.

Looking at the Summary Figure 3 Kirk says it all. After tax income and the disparity between quintiles is clearly shown here. The uneven growth tells a story.

This report with variables, snapshots and data provide an overview or roadmap on where to begin in reforming the tax code. I sure hope they get busy soon. ; )

I'm done with this subject for a while anyway. : P

BTW John's a great guy and knowledgable. Lighten up! Helpful hint: start adding links to data that support or gives context to your argument. Yes, we agree to disagree sometimes and you should afford John the same courtesy.

Till next time.

Correction should say educated skilled worker instead of skilled labor in #5

Dont Carry it all--just like all debates, the answers generally lie in the grey nuanced areas and I have never claimed an all or nothing approach to my opinions or conclusions. In fact, I generally am trying to argue that the conclusion is more nuanced than some of the more progressive bloggers like to claim. So if we took your points and mine we would come up with a whole list of factors that are causing income inequality. I indicated that I agreed that tax policy did impact after tax income but it has had no impact on the initial income inequality as its being generated. And if John were being truthful, he knows that I have never said that I am against tax increases or scaling back the Bush tax cuts (although I would prefer wholescale tax reform). I think tax increases though need to be only enacted with serious spending reform which unfortunately politicians of all stripes are loath to do or promise. So the end conclusion is that this report supports my original opinion that immigration, illegal immigration (dont forget the report said it couldnt establish the impact the cash economy has on wages with illegal immigration but we know that whatever that answer is--it depresses income), especially the education gap is huge right? As for the S corps, I have seen studies which I gave to John awhile ago and actually with the cites that show that since this data was derived from tax returns rather than census data, that the income disparity is skewed because people like Bill Gates used to earn all of their income via increase in value in the corporation they started and owned. Now 70% of all businesses are owned via flow through entities like S Corps so the income that used to be generated and shown on Microsoft's tax return is now shown on Bill Gates return artificially making it look like he had a huge income increase. Not sure how much that accounts for but certainly is a factor as your point 5 indicates. Finally the wealth transfers of social security and medicare that account for a huge disparity in the income from 1979 to now, is really wealth redistribution to wealthy seniors another factor in the income inequality equation as the country ages.

I would give and have tried to give John credit in the past but he doesnt want to debate he wants to conclude that rich are stealing off the backs of the poor. That may be true in some cases but its a wrong generalization. I am also not such an idealogue that I accept anything GOP as positive as he accepts any Obama as perfect and right. But I will try harder especially if he shows up and now admits that I was correct and that this CBO report supports my opinions. I have given links to support in the past which John then discards and moves on the next response of attack. My best example, is he once stated that this recession was worse than the Carter recession which is obviously an opinion that cant really be proven by either of us. But in that statement he said unemployment and GDP deficit and recovery were much worse and better in this recession. I provided him links showing that unemployment was worse in the early 80s, inflation double digits and interest rates at 20% with GDP deficit and recovery far better under Reagan. He ignored my post and provided links to deficits and other statistics that showed that I was clearly wrong. Now if he had responded and said, Kirk, the Carter recession was worse on those measures and I was wrong about unemployment but in my opinion, this government deficit based great banking recession is still worse for the following reasons, then we could have had a good debate. I dont have a problem with people disagreeing with me but at least give me some credit for when I have either correct facts or valid reasonable conclusions or opinions that you just disagree with.

Either way, thanks DCIA for a nice chat

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

~Jesus Christ

GM

I think #13 stands out when ya think of Grovers Pledge which all teabaggers are "required" to sign

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Isn't it ironic that the first Republican president was a Communist?

Gingerbread Mamma. Excellent post of historical quotes! Here's one more.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." President James Madison

sreeeeminglib.......Yes I agree. There are many good thought provoking quotes here, I hope by posting them some will reuse them as they see fit. We must always remember the times past and how we can learn from them.

Nice to see you posting, keep up the good work.

Gingerbread Mama--thank you for sharing those quotes! A nice beginning for the day!

Auntie--right on the button! Have not figured out why so many of the so-called "christians" ignore the teachings of Christ! Where ever did these people get their warped version of Christianity?

"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly

Auntie Fascist--do you even know what that quote means? Do you know what it meant back in the day for a camel to go through the eye of the needle? The eye of the needle was the entrance to ancient cities that were fortified and there would be the need for the rider to put his camel on this knees so he could push the camel through the entrance. So they were indicating that it was a difficult but certainly not impossible process. I love all this hatred of success. Has this what its come down to? Instead of self reliance and personal accountability, you want to be bailed out, take something thats not yours and be envious of someone else's ambition hard work and success.

No one hate success. Then you talk like we didn't bail out the banks. The fact is we did and the banks took something that was not their to take then gave huge bonuses with our money.

Now taxing those same people is taking something that is not ours. Now you are right, I am just envious that they got rich off of bail out money not earned by hard work and success. There was no self reliance or personal accountability by the rich banks, but you expect it of the poor people.

19.) “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.”
~Franklin D. Roosevelt

#19 is for your Kirk.

Kirk, it is quotes like the following that show why people ignore you. "I love all this hatred of success."

If you love people who hate success, then you are already in the right place. There is no greater success on this planet than that of President Barack Obama. You may not like his policies or his party, but rising from his roots to the Presidency is the epitome of success.

A camel through the eye of a needle? You don't like that? There's plenty of quotes warning of greed and avarice that come from the mouth of Jesus. You might want to check out the Great Beatitudes. Try something from one of his followers, Timothy: "The love of money is the root of all evil." The love of money is the foundation of today's GOPTP.

Don't start arguing about what the Bible does and doesn't mean. You and your ilk don't have a clue.

Fantastic quotes. I'd like to add this one;

“This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in.” --Theodore Roosevelt

Kirk:

I love all this hatred of success.

The only success that progressives hate is successful swindling, like the success of the swindlers on Wall Street who nearly collapsed the economy by 2008, got bailed out by the government to prevent another Great Depression, and then gave themselves huge bonuses and raises with the bailout money. Nobody I know of hates the success of people like Steve Jobs, who succeeded by creating things of value, not financial "products" whose function was to move money out of the pockets of the middle class investors and into the pockets of the swindlers.

David and American First--yes I have a clue it just bugs you that my clue is different than yours. Again, you guys respond by not responding. Its always easier to attack me personally than show you have any personal experience or clue as to what you are talking about. First, banks are not people remember? So bailing out banks is not the same as rewarding people for the life choices they make. Furthermore, I never supported the bank bailouts. Lets assume that you guys are correct in that there was some bad behavior with the bank bailouts for individuals within the banks, not sure how you apply that across the board. I dont support bad behavior out of anyone and I think self reliance and personal accountability applies to every single person. There are always people you can point to that abuse the system no different than the person scamming welfare or unemployment or wealthy. Bad apples are everywhere and you can make rules that apply to everyone based on a few bad apples.

American First--what point are you making? Where was I ever against human kindness? I think advocating personal responsibility and accountability is totally different than kindness. I also think you should be kind with your own money, time and resources first and not mandate that someone else is kind.

David, again you can never reply on point. Obama's personal success or lack thereof is irrelevant to this conversation or post. I highly respect him for his personal accomplishments which has nothing to do with be against his economic policies. I dont mind the eye of the needle quote. Have no problem with it. What all those quotes do is create a personal moral obligation on all of us but they dont create a personal government mandate do they?

Ok Houston, I have no personal stake in going after a few people in Wall Street. I dont even understand what swindlers everyone is referring to. Give me some examples. Madoff? ok. What else. Wasnt it Obama who bailed out the banks right? To prevent a collapse of the banking industry. So we have some employees at these banks who made more money than you wanted them to. How many people are you talking about? If they did wrong, the Obama administration should go after them. I dont really care about that issue because its such a small minor thing in this issue. At the same time because of these few people, you want to advocate whole sale hatred of success across this country? You want to tax the successful business owner and the working wealthy more than 50% across the board in this country because your mad at a few bad bankers in NY? Instead of doing something productive and trying to narrow the education gap through real reform, attacking illegal immigration or doing something that will actually make a positive difference you want to complain about NY bankers and those evil successful people.

Kirk-2957282

Ok Houston, I have no personal stake in going after a few people in Wall Street. I dont even understand what swindlers everyone is referring to.

So, you haven't heard anything about Citigroup paying a 200 million+ fine for talking people into investments it knew would fail while it made money by shorting the same investments? You've heard nothing about the "robo-signing" scandal concerning home foreclosures? You must watch Fox too much.

Actually I havent heard of the Citigroup fine. I find the robo signing to be the typical state attorney general extortion scheme. I am not going to defend the robo signing as a process but so far they havent been able to find anyone actually harmed by it. The homes that were being foreclosed by the robo signing were going to be foreclosed anyway. Its like the breach of contract in which you cant sue because there are no damages. I dont find the robo signing to be a case of bad behavior as bad process. Give the fox news thing a rest as thats just plain stupid as I am on a MSNBC blog arent I. Again its easier to be personally offensive than win a debate isnt it. So lets assume for a second both scandals should be punished and it looks like they will be, you are still advocating a class warfare policy and agenda that punishes success across this country made up of 300 million people not just a few hundred bankers in NY. The anger is misplaced

Houston, Houston, Houston:

Whatsamatta U? Citigroup did NOT make an admission of guilt. They just paid the $200,000,000.....well, just because.

It's sorta like that Herman Cain thing. They paid those settlements and extracted a promise of silence from the recipients.....well, just because.

Ok Houston, I have no personal stake in going after a few people in Wall Street. I dont even understand what swindlers everyone is referring to.

Keep in mind that Kirk has identified his business as being a consultant to the financial industry with involvement in the mortgage market.

Naturally he sees no swindlers around him. That's where he gets his paycheck.

John B, I have answered this for you before. I am not a consultant of any sort especially to the financial industry again making up BS to personally try and belittle me or reduce my credibility. Its the Saul Alinksy playbook you use over and over again. You cant win the debates on the issues so lets personally attack. Let me give it to you one more time. I grew up in a small town in the midwest, child of a small business owner. Went to a private university out east and law school in the midwest. Practiced at a large firm here in Chicago, then practiced in house at a corporation before being hired by a family office and became the CFO of one of their portfolio companies. I left with my boss the CEO a couple of years ago and have a small real estate investment company. Because of my past, I interact or have relationships within the banking and private equity world. So what part of this past dont you get and is confusing to you. By the way, neither you nor Houston have provided me with any swindlers yet even though thats not what I said. Clearly the robo signing had nothing to do with swindling and not sure the Citigroup fine did either but I would have to check.

Kirk-2957282

John B, I have answered this for you before. I am not a consultant of any sort especially to the financial industry again making up BS to personally try and belittle me or reduce my credibility.

What credibility?

Clearly the robo signing had nothing to do with swindling and not sure the Citigroup fine did either but I would have to check.

Clearly, you don't consider taking money from people or throwing them out of their homes under false pretenses to be swindling if nobody goes to jail. Luckily, corporations can't be thrown in jail even though the Roberts Supreme Court considers them to be people.

Houston, it wasnt under false pretenses those arent the facts. They failed to follow established procedures in terms of authorized signers, there is no evidence that the people who were being forclosed on werent legitimately being foreclosed on. Totally different facts and you know it. If they were taking people from their homes that didnt owe the money or werent behind on their payments then you are correct, its swindling but I have seen no evidence and none has been shown that those are the facts.

Kirk - not only is there evidence of people not even eligible for foreclosure being foreclosed, there have been homeowners who didn't even HAVE mortgages who had their homes seized in foreclosure actions. BofA has had a number of such settlements they have had to pay from the Countrywide properties. In addition, there have been violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act across the country, violation of modified payment agreements and foreclosures by lending institutions who either no longer held the mortgage on that property or never actually did because of the sale of these instruments. It's enough of a problem of fraud that states, individually are establishing criminal statues to give the wronged homeowners recourse. But then, you would actually have to look at the evidence before declaring there isn't any. Declaring no evidence when you have deliberately avoided looking for eviidence does not mean it does not exist. Assumptions are a bitch, aren't they?

Then prosecute them. There is no evidence of widespread fraud and abuse greater under robo signing than before the crisis. I think I saw one figure of 28 potential errors in millions of cases. The accuracy rate is estimated to be greater than 99 percent. You can always point to the one egregious case to make your case for the whole right. Good try though.

And the attacks of the conservative media is pure? Give me a break.

Gee Bob lots of numbers, you are more grumpy than usual....did the Steelers pee in your cornflakes?

Oh Bob, you are so funny. If you knew anything at all about the media, you'd understand why the vast grand conspiracy nonsense is just so ridiculous.

You brain dead teatards are a predictable bunch. Whenever a sex story about a Republican like this comes out you always make to the same two points. First you blame the “liberal media” and talk about how the “liberal media’ is out to get conservatives. Then you bring up Bill and Monica like that’s some kind of a justification. But this is the deal teatards --- this story was very, very likely leaked to the media by a Republican --- probably Karl Rove or perhaps Romney. Neither Bachmann nor Perry are smart enough to pull it off so I doubt either one of them leaked it. And – brining up Bill and Monica reminds me of my grandkids with the idea that two wrong make a right. Bill and Monica trading favors in the White House is NOT AN EXCUSE for Herman Cain or anyone else to play grab-ass with anyone they feel like.

They don't "pay" off people for no good reason, just ask Bill O'Reilly.

Really, you mean that Insurance companies only pay people who win cases? They never settle out of court, because well, its cheaper? I do want to see the women step up and lay it all out. At this point in my life I want proof of anything before I believe it!

Well Jolly ol': if the terms of the settlement were not to talk about it...how are the women to "step up and lay it all out"? The story can be told without them...the legal record of the agreement needs to be opened. (Seriously: you think the only time companies pay off those making charges is when they're false???)

JOS, they usually only settle out of court when they fear a jury, and when there is obviously something to the allegations. Please note, there is no "Herman Cain is guilty" in my comment, merely pointed out the obvious, where's there is smoke, their is fire.

And twice at that. Paid off two different women.

I was at a corporation where I saw a guy get fired after being with the company for 20 years, but never saw the woman get any money.

You don't pay employees money and make them sign confidentially contracts if there is nothing there. I am not sure Cain is guilty. But it definitely bears watching.

Last time I saw this at a firm...the woman who actually had EMAIL proof of the harrassment was simply given one month's severance and asked to leave. She did. The man who harrassed her (her married boss) is still there (but was given the horrible punishent of having to go through 3 days of "sensitivity training".)

Rick #'s

That is downright funny!

@Marlon -- Your repeated "same" posts on this string and other strings are childish and immature -- not to mention spam according to the COH. Just saying and no I am not trying to be the Newsvine police before any idiot tries to make that statement.

How is raising a legitimate question childish and immature?

I don't want Cain for many other reasons. His treatment of women, if true, would be just another reason in a long list to not like Cain.

1. He wants to raise taxes on 84% of Americans.

2. He want to give millions and millions in tax cut to the richest in America.

3. He want to kill social security.

4. He want to kill health care.

5. He wants to eliminate the minimum wage laws.

6. He thinks if you lost your house, job, 401k it is your fault and blame yourself.

7. Cain stands only for the 1%.

8. Cain wants to kill EPA.

9. Cain has worked for the Koch brothers for years and seems to expound their very thoughts.

10. He thinks if you don't think like him, it is you that is brainwashed.

Obama/Biden 2012

Just saying and no I am not trying to be the Newsvine police before any idiot tries to make that statement.

Seems like the statement has already been made. Sorry for you ben, i think you just insulted yourself.

Hey, baby, wanna see my pepperoni!!??

Mr. Cain, keep your hands off my mushrooms!

How bout dem Lions?

WHOO HOOO!

Bears win yesterday?

It was our 'buy' week - I'm suffering some serious withdrawal right now! ;o)

At least you guys have teams that can score. I live in "Jaguar Country". :(

I live in "Jaguar Country". :(

You have my sympathies! ;o)

It could be worse - you could be a Colt's fan... lol

phinephancy........just as bad as Dolphin country where I am, thought not a fan, Sundays are not happy days here anymore.

Congratulations to SF on her Steelers beating the crap out of the Pats! LOL

OY,....... Jacksonville? Hope you guys can replace your governor next election.

Says a lot about our division. The game between the Colts and Jags will be the most boring of the year. At least I should get a good nap during that one!

GOP, we are certainly going to try. That guy is just plain creepy.

GOPisexcinct........we're working on it, word is Alex Sink will be running again and this time she'll really 'sink' him.

Not that I'm gloating or anything but "How 'bout them Steelers?!" What a game yesterday and we face the Ravens this week!

You know what i liked the most about the Dallas Defensive Coordinator's remarks last week about Philly? We beat teh Cowgirls 34-7. Ha ha. I hear egg on the face is not so enjoyable.

Cain rose to the top because Rick Perry failed miserably at being the anti-Romney, Knight in Shining Armor candidate who would save the party. Can't see Cain surviving the scrutiny for long.

Because he's not Romney??

AP no, because he's Cain! This guy is the ultimate straw man, he was never meant to poll well, he is as unprepared as any man pulled off the street.

Houston, well said. It is amazing how the media goes looking for opposition to a liberal view but does not look at what even the GOP candidates are saying as opposition to Romney. If the media spent as much time "fact checking" the GOP candidates words instead of letting their accusations stand, we'd all be better off. Romney doesn't stand for anything because he has no core, no real values, no real ideology--it is whatever way the GOP wind is blowing.

My guess is that the anonymous Democrats whom the media can always count on to criticize Obama are people like Senator Ben Nelson, who follows the Republican party line on almost all issues. I'm sure he gets lots of calls from the media any time an Obama supporter says something that doesn't fit the corporate media narrative, which now seems to be that Obama should do nothing except continue his futile attempts to find common ground with Republicans while they continue their quest to destroy him up to the Nov. 2012 election.

Let's face it, winter is coming and not even the cops want to be out there everyday with the OWS protesters. How long will they gather for the George Soros hot food?

LEONA-2986819

How long will they gather for the George Soros hot food?

Here's a question for you: How does this allegation you made up relate in any way to the fact that the media is downplaying a story about an Iraq war veteran who was gravely injured by what appears to have been an act of unwarranted police violence?

It's interesting how little concern people who probably slapped "I support our troops" bumper stickers on their cars when Bush started his Iraq misadventure seem to show for the actual soldiers who were in Iraq once they get back to the US.

BTW: The veteran in question was NOT out of work, like many veterans from Iraq. He has a good job in information technology and just showed up at the protest because he believed in what it represented.

Houston: "...an Iraq war veteran who was gravely injured by what appears to have been an act of unwarranted police violence?..."

The operative word here is " appears."

Sorry, but I don't believe the liberal media stories without also seeing proof. Their standard tactic is to use the word "appears" so they'll be blameless when we find out the story is FAKE and used for propaganda.

um Leona...do you have a daily paper where you are? Did it not cover the launch of the investigation by the CHIEF OF POLICE in Oakland on the beating of the veteran (cracked skull...he's in serious condition)...or at least carry a wire story about it?? Seriously...this is your defiinition of propaganda...something you don't see on right wing media???

AP,

Oakland ( the land of Liberals ) would never " launch an investigation" into whether the POLICE were the actual victims.

Did you not read the part about how the policeman claims he was provoked?

Sorry if you believe the police officer just picked someone out of the crowd and started beating him. Again, I don't believe the liberal media stories without also seeing proof.

Why don't we both just wait for the end of the "investigation?"

I was at a protest in the late 60's, a peaceful protest in a small park in San Francisco. The police circled us with riot gear on and some on horses and started to close in on the crowd from 4 sides with their batons raised. On the news that night I heard how we provoked the attack.

From experience I have found that the news is not necessarily true. You can count of faux on always being the censored news.

Just like the Vietnam protest the OWS protest are right and especially the republicans want to silence our voices in the same way their voter suppression is designed to do.

The republicans have signed a pledge to Norquist to never raise taxes and now we have people marching in the streets demanding they do something for the people. If this goes on the republicans won't be able to win and be able to kill America for Norquist and his rich backers. Hence there push to make the Occupy Movement the bad guys.

Obama/Biden 2012

LEONA-2986819

Sorry, but I don't believe the liberal media stories without also seeing proof. Their standard tactic is to use the word "appears" so they'll be blameless when we find out the story is FAKE and used for propaganda

The "liberal" media didn't use the word "appears." I used it because the questions of who tossed the object that fractured the man's skull and what was thrown hasn't been settled yet. But unless the injury was to the back of his head, the object was most likely coming from the direction he was facing: toward the attacking police.

The "liberal" media isn't saying anything much at all about this, just as little was said about the high-ranking cop at the Wall Street protest several weeks before who pepper-sprayed two women right in the face who were clearly doing nothing at all but minding their own business. Only the real actual liberal Lawrence O'Donnell focused on that story.

Houston!: "Only the real actual liberal Lawrence O'Donnell focused on that story."

Enough said.

We try NOT to listen to the sniveling from O'Donnell. He's a sorry role model for liberals and one wonders how he sleeps at night.

LEONA-2986819

Houston!: "Only the real actual liberal Lawrence O'Donnell focused on that story."

Enough said.

Uh, O'Donnell presented the video clearly showing the cop pepper-spraying the two women, who started screaming in pain. There was no doubt about it. The cop was "disciplined" by having some vacation time revoked. In other words, police misconduct was PROVEN. What you don't like about the small minority in the media who really are liberal media is that they present inconvenient truths. That's why you have to throw a tantrum and start name calling.

Enough said.

Houston,

I have not thrown a "tantrum" , maybe you have? What's your answer to the protesters being asked to leave an area and then NOT doing it?

You liberals always start the name calling when you're on the wrong side of the issues.

When you said, "What you don't like about the small minority in the media who really are liberal media...." Ummmmmm.............you need to substitute the word MAJORITY in the "Main Stream Media" are liberal..........and maybe you'll have some credibility.

Did you happen to know that the new head of the NY Times is a woman who used to work for Democrats? Nice objectivity we'll get from the Socialist rag!

LEONA-2986819

Houston,

I have not thrown a "tantrum" , maybe you have? What's your answer to the protesters being asked to leave an area and then NOT doing it?

I would think the correct answer is not doing what Bull Connor did to civil rights protesters during the the '60s. Do you?

Did you happen to know that the new head of the NY Times is a woman who used to work for Democrats? Nice objectivity we'll get from the Socialist rag!

If that proves a lack of objectivity, then what about Fox News, with its stable of would-be Republican presidential candidates for talking heads? What about the Washington Time?

The NY Times recently published an article attacking Obama for having people with his campaign that the article said were lobbyists even though they weren't actually registered as federal lobbyists. That's certainly not liberal bias. It looks more like the usual corporate media framing of issues to favor Republicans that DO appoint lobbyists to their campaigns without a second thought. The NY Times follows the corporate media narrative more often than not, and that's not objectivity. But it's certainly not what would be expected from a socialist rag, either.

The video clip here is a gift for Leona. http://readersupportednews.org/video/4-video/8104-occupy-oakland-iraq-veteran-shot-in-head-with-teargas-canister

Yellowdog: "Global warming is real..."

Of course , more propaganda coming from UC Berkley. We get this "scientific" study...........Here's the reason why.........THey are PAID to say whatever Obama wants.......Read up.

"President Barack Obama's stimulus package is already stimulating innovation and jobs at the University of California, Berkeley, with more than 130 projects underway. The work is being funded by nearly $65 million in new money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)."These extra research funds are a big plus for the campus, enhancing its research agenda ..."

Doesn't "research agenda" = Obama's agenda????

LEONA-2986819

Of course , more propaganda coming from UC Berkley. We get this "scientific" study...........Here's the reason why.........THey are PAID to say whatever Obama wants.......Read up.

I hate to throw cold water on your nice conspiracy theory, but his research was paid for by an organization funded by the Koch brothers, the same folks who fund Astro Turf teabag organizations. They expected his conclusion would support their financial interests in unregulated carbon pollution, but he stuck to his scientific principles instead and admitted he'd been wrong in the past, which always takes some courage.

And he wasn't the first climate change skeptic to change his position. There was a climate scientist from a Scandinavian country who was a popular guest on Fox shows because he though climate change, while real, was not going to pose a serious threat. He's since concluded that the evidence indicates that climate change is indeed a serious threat requiring serious action and so, of course, has not been seen on Fox ever since.

Leona, just keeping buying what the right sells you; head in sand ideology is always good for America. Climate change is real--some is cyclical but man is speeding up the process. One doesn't keep polluting the air, land and water and not have an impact. The earth should not be treated as a toxic waste dump.

Leona: Yes, right, we never landed on the moon, sasquatch is on the loose, and the earth is really flat except for the holigrams the government keeps projecting to fool us. Really, you are kind of a walking poster child for the "no-nothing" extremists in your party...with friends like you, who needs enemies?

AP: "Really, you are kind of a walking poster child for the "no-nothing" extremists in your party...with friends like you, who needs enemies?"

Ummmm, no name calling....remember what "savior" Obama said about "civility", after G.Giffords was shot.

Sorry if you are completely taken in by the "green" machine and it doesn't bother you that these "green" advocates are only making Al Gore (D) and N.Pelosi's (D) brother in law RICH and are KILLING JOBS.

That's ONE GREAT OBAMA AGENDA........................KILL JOBS WITH "GREEN".

I thought that article was interesting because the researcher was very specific in his studies.

Is there global warming? Yes. Is it purely natural, purely man made, or a hybrid of the two? No comment.

His research was solely about verifying the existence of climate change and not the cause. As a result, he didn't want to comment on the subject. However the Koch Brothers were going to fund his further research as he delved into the subject of why the climate is changing. It'll be interesting to see if his eventual answers upset the Koch Brothers.

"savior"??? You think Obama is the religious head of the Democratic party? Gee, I hadn't heard that one before. Interesting interpretation you have there of civility too...required only by others?

Not sure WHAT point you're trying to espouse by dismissing green energy. The solar and wind industries were about the only ones doing alright during the Bush recession. Guess you missed the part (before the election season) of those jobs (including Solandra) getting widespread Republican support. Interesting take though...that anything environmentally smart kills jobs??? I'd float that one by your Republican platform committee and see who salutes.

LEONA, dear, do TRY to get your HYPERVENTILATING under CONTROL. None of us CAN come to your AID if you suddenly BLACK OUT.

("Where's Leona?"

"I don't know! She hasn't posted in awhile."

"I hope nothing has happened to her. She's so. . . ."

"Bubbly?"

"No."

"Entertaining?

"Err. . ."

"Boring?"

"Well. . . perhaps 'predictable' would be a kinder word.")

AP,

The EPA regulates in favor of "green" companies. At least 4 "green " companies funded by tax dollars went bankrupt.

That's a bad bet for the tax payer and an election "burden" for Obama.

Facts are annoying, aren't they?

Jack: ""Where's Leona?" She hasn't posted in awhile."

HAHA, YOU WISH.

I never tire of this stuff.

You LIBS have all the snarky answers ......... too bad the name calling takes up most of your answers because you're "LIGHT ON THE FACTS".....

You libs always use words like "appears" and "annonymous" to "PROVE" your points.

The kool aid is stronger than usual today. Maybe it's Halloween?

I hear Obama bought a costume today................He's going to be a "President."

As your hero Reagan would have said: "There you GO again."

ummmm, Jack, "There you GO again."

LOL

And there screams the hypocrisy of Leona; ranting remember Giffords and play nice, but cannot make a statement without using "OBAMA" and "KILL" in the same line. Which is it Leona?

RedDevPS: "...using "OBAMA" and "KILL" in the same line. Which is it Leona?....

hey RedDev, Sorry if the words "job killing" offend you. You Dems call it "infrastructure" and "stimulus" when your programs sink millions into Union bailouts and "green" company LOSERS . LOL

If you are that squemish, then, I assume you won't be defending Democrats who are constantly accusing Repubs of "allowing Seniors to die " because they are calling for cuts to Medicare. All the while, Obama is the one who cuts Medicare with the infamous Obamacare.

HYPOCRITES.

Looks like you just did. Thanks Leona-numbers.

I'll bite!! I can say desperate. I can spell desperate. I can even use it in a sentence. Desperate right wing posters are making desperate claims that democrats are acting desperately by calling desperate Romney a desperate flip-flopper.

RedDev,

Now that you mention " flip-flop"............let's reminisce on some Obamaism's:

"I will not have any lobbyists in my White House!" ( come in the back door, wink wink)

"I will bring the 2 parties together and rise above the politics." ( as long as the Repubs sit in the back, wink, wink)

"If we spend $780 billion, the unemployment rate will go down to 8%" ( the money will really be spent on bailouts for Union pensions and "green" projects, wink wink)

Right on Steeler Fan - how many times have I said' Democrats have LOST many elections by taking the 'high road'?

Make no mistake, this is a battle for the continuing existence of the middle class...

Steeler,

too bad Obama can't and won't just be President. This country needs a REAL President, not a Campaigner-in-Chief.

SF... I say hooray for the WH and David Plouffe, as if they should sit there and be a punching bag for the right. Times have changed and the campaigns are starting earlier, and of course will be nastier than ever.

There are so many on the right who think they have a divine right to ALL the power and with that thinking they always overreach and end up shooting themselves in the foot.

Leona, Of course he is going to campaign and use all the trappings of the Presidency...eat your heart out.

Gingerbread,

I repeat........too bad Obama can't and won't just be President.

Steeler Fan, Gingerbread mamma--cheers, well said! And cheers to David Plouffe for speaking the truth. Disappointed with FR's weak attempt to undermine what Plouffe said.

Perhaps Leona would care to describe Romney's "core" for us. If it is an unfounded claim, the right should be able to provide proof that Romney is more than a hollow man who holds his finger up to see which way the GOP wind is blowing on a given day.

Leona: Course he can't compare in your mind to the "mission accomplished" guy who started two wars on some made up charges and then couldn't make good on that "bring it on" thing, but gee, ending the nearly 9 year old war Bush started, bringing the country back from the brink of the Bush recession (oh yes, some of us don't think the world began the day Obama took office) I'd say, is pretty good Presidential bonafides. I could go on about all the Presidential accomplishments, but I'm not sure what language they speak there on your planet.

AP: ".....bringing the country back from the brink of the Bush recession...."

I only wish we could go back to " the Bush recession!"

LOL

Don't read much, huh? Not aware of how many jobs were being lost under Bush? How many jobs are now being added? LOL..Seriously...try reading a newsource that even you might consider "news". Reuters? AP? Philadelphia Inquirer? St. Louis Post Dispatch? LA Times? anything?? Then you can filter it through your biases about why it would be true...but yes, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, the recession began under George Bush.

Leona, I'm glad you are amused and long for the Bush Recession taking us to the brink.......that is about the dumbest post yet Ive seen on the disasters from the Bush Presidency. You only make yourself look foolish answering just because you can.

Make no mistake, we are not going back to those days, as that is where any of the candidates for your party would surely take us.

No Thank you.

EARTH TO "AP" and "Gingerbread",

Obama = 9.1% UNEMPLOYMENT and $ 4 trillion debt ( in just 3 years)

Leona, the world didn't start and the unemployment didn't start on the day President Obama was elected. Everyone but you seems to know we were in a recession and that bush seemed to not have a clue as to what to do other than give blank check money to the banks.

Then we have republican who want nothing more than to kill as many jobs as they can. Right now we can't have a jobs bill because we can't tax the wealthiest 1% on everything above their first million.

Bush tax cuts with wars created the debt and you and I both know it. Republicans always like to forget that Bush carried the war debt off the books (That means Leona that it did not show up as part of the debt during Bush's presidency). President Obama thinking it was too much like Enron bookkeeping put the entire amount of the years of the bush wars debt, went on the debt during Obama presidency.

Now republicans like Leona like to pretend it was all President Obama's debt. Look how fast the debt grew, look at bush his debt didn't grow like that. Who needs facts when they have a talking point to push.

Obama/Biden 2012

LEONA-2986819

Obama = 9.1% UNEMPLOYMENT and $ 4 trillion debt ( in just 3 years)

Now, that's a strange equation. I suppose you think that Obama caused the BP oil spill disaster, too, because it happened "on his watch." Your explanation of the cause-effect relationship between Obama being president and the sluggish economy seems to be lacking. What you're doing is like blaming a doctor for the heart problems of a couch potato who's been living on a steady diet of pizza, cheeseburgers, fries for 40 years.

Americans First: "the world didn't start and the unemployment didn't start on the day President Obama was elected."

You are so right. In the Bush days, UNemployment rate was at least 2 points LOWER and we had $4 trillion LESS debt.

Here's an ALERT to all kool aid drinkers.............................."BLAME BUSH" doesn't work anymore. We are now in the YEAR 2011 and in case you haven't heard ........Anthony Weiner got fired by voters and is no longer sexting pictures of his private parts !!!!!

Leona,

What we are trying to tell you, without calling you names or labeling you, is that the debt under Obama, in large part, is attributable to an "accounting error" (for lack of a better term) that was perpetrated by the previous administration. Not just BUSH, his WHOLE CABINET.

Are these words you can understand Leona? Are you able to follow what i just laid out?

The Teapublicans are famous for omitting the "accounting error" when talking about the debt!

Bush hid the cost of the wars and the Medicare Part D in a black box in the Cheney bunker and when Obama brought those cost to the light of the day, Fox News and friends screamed about how Obama ran up the debt!

Cajones on steroids!!!!

Hey Sheila & Bryan,

I know the kool aid is strong, but sit up and shake it off and try to concentrate......

History: Obama was HIRED by the American people to "fix some things", we know.

History: He made things WORSE.

Time to move on.

Leaders do not BLAME others, they "fix things."

In other words, if it's too HOT, get the heck out of the kitchen !

Bryan E., PA

What we are trying to tell you, without calling you names or labeling you, is that the debt under Obama, in large part, is attributable to an "accounting error" (for lack of a better term) that was perpetrated by the previous administration. Not just BUSH, his WHOLE CABINET.

It's also due in large part to the revenue shortfalls caused by the Bush recession and the firing of tens of thousands of public sector workers who are now unemployed and no longer pay taxes, and who no longer spend as much money in the private sector as they used to, causing more private sector workers to lose their jobs and not pay taxes. But we can't let facts get in the way of blaming Obama, can we?.

LEONA-2986819

Leaders do not BLAME others, they "fix things."

In order to fix what Republican obstructionism has prevented him from fixing, he would have to dissolve Congress and put himself above the Constitution. Leaders like that are called "dictators."

Houston, did you catch Bill Maher two Friday nights ago? He paralleled that the success President Obama has had in the International 'theater' where he hasn't really been subjected to Republican Obstructionism can only make us wonder just how successful he'd be in the Domestic arena without all the static and noise from the Party of NO!

I tend to agree with that perception of things.

Guess going out on a high note is too good a notion for him to pass up.

Always go out ON TOP!

Clara - Grrr I mean - Congratulations to cardinals. :{

Um, do you remember Karl Rove and his attacks on McCain in 2000? Before saying the women were the leaks, maybe, just maybe, look toward Mr. Rove.

So now you are trying to say it's Rove's fault? haha

You people are shaking out all the innuendos you can ....anything to erase the obvious responses.....

You know the truth about the Obama campaign......... it's a SMEAR CAMPAIGN from Democrats ( Obama) who are desperate .

Did you forget the Dems said this 2012 election would be an "attack" campaign because the Dems have nothing else?

They sure can't say " Vote for Obama for more UNEMPLOYMENT."

Gee.....a republican complaining about a smear campaign.

TheRealChris,

Did you forget the DEMS said this 2012 election would be an "attack" campaign because the Dems have nothing else?

In other words, they're sinking to the level the Republicans have always been at.

Have you forgotten the 2008 campaign? And the 2004 campaign? And the 2000 campaign? And......

and Lee Atwalter on his death bed apologizing for running the types of campaigns he ran.