Conservative Christmas Wish List:

1.Ask only easy questions with yes or no answers and no follow-up questions during our remaining Republican debates. It's just too hard to remember what I said two minutes ago and besides, I don't want to confuse my conservative base.

2.All electronic devices (cell phones, i phones, blackberries, cameras, laptops) be disabled until November 2012. How can a politician flip-flop on issues when there is a record of was said at my last campaign stop?

3.Wish for a very cold winter to discourage those scientists who believe in global warming and climate change. Besides, it will get those pesky OWS to stay home so I can pass favorable tax legislation and those wealthy bankers can add to my campaign war chest.

4.Thinking of OWS, my Christmas list could include modifying the First Amendment to limit peaceful assembly and freedom of speech. Those folks need to clean-up after themselves, get a job, and stop saying things I don't want to hear. It's hard to win an election when 99% of the population disagrees with you.

5.Politicians wish to continue to be exempt from insider trading laws. After all, how can I get rich like the 1% who work on Wall Street? With my "me first' philosophy, my wife and kids need a new car for Christmas.

6.But you know what conservatives would really like for Christmas? A return to the days when their 1956 Chevy or Ford was king of the road, my black and white Zenith with rabbit ears could get three free TV stations, radios were made by RCA, white men were bosses, wives were barefoot and pregnant, minorities knew their place, and my food was picked by illegal immigrants. As Archie and Edith Bunker would sing, "Those were the days".

Today’s WSJ has an article that says Barry’s Justice Dept, under the piss-poor leadership of Eric Holder, will not be pursuing very many, if even any, criminal prosecutions from their investigations of wrongdoing by financial executives during the financial crisis.

WTF !?!?!?

What a bunch of incompetent morons Barry has running his Justice Dept. If these clowns can’t put these crooks in prison, they should all be put in prison themselves for criminal stupidity.

From the WSJ:

Financial Crimes Bedevil Prosecutors

A former top U.S. official in charge of investigating the financial crisis said the government has concluded that many inquiries of wrongdoing by financial executives can't succeed as criminal prosecutions.

"There's been a realization and a more deliberate targeting by the Department of Justice before we launch criminally on some of these cases'' said David Cardona, who was a deputy assistant director at the Federal Bureau of Investigation until he left last month for a job at the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Justice Department has decided it is "better left to regulators" to take civil-enforcement action on those cases.

Newt, the man with his business address on K Street. The man who would demonize and sell anybody or any idea for money and power. And the GOP/TP support this guy? When will someone have the guts to take him on? Or Romney? For all the RWNJ's complaining about the President, they better start taking a real long, hard look at their own house!

Hey, Joe in Albany, how do you reconcile demands for prosecution of financial crooks with the Republican demand that we as a nation continue the super-duper deluxe tax cuts for them because they're "job creators"?

How about Newt channeling Reagan yesterday. St. Reagan save us from those terrible Liberals. Oh the agony!

The guy with the morals of a pimp is their choice because he's more conservative? How GOTP of them.

The GOTP the party the flip floppers call home!

Richard Nixon starting the Environmental Protection Agency, Dwight Eisenhower expanding the federal highway system

And what is Obama's signature accomplishment? Taking an overpriced and inefficient health care delivery system and mandating everyone to buy into it.

BTW Fiesty Has that medical loss ratio requirement lowered premiums yet? Still waiting for my $2500 here.

Hey Joe. How can you possible want to prosecute those "free market capitalist" from Wall Street? Aren't they also the same group of folks you want us to give our social securtiy dollars to 'cause they could do better?

Uh-oh lefties, we're busted! We can't define "fair share". Big Bear caught us.

"I just find it amusing that no one on here can say what someone's "fair share" should be."

BB hit me in my manliness. He actually wrote that I was afraid to come up with numbers. Afraid. Terrified. Yep, that's me. (I mean, geez, just look at his icon. If something that looks like Ted Nugent with a hemorrhoid problem doesn't scare you, nothing will.) Guys like us are also afraid of intellectual giants like Palin, Trump, Bachmann, Gingrich, Cain, and of course BB.

Even as I was shaking in my boots, Smiff piled on.

"Come on Libs, back up your rhetoric with some real numbers."

I am feeling stark terror now, so I opt for the "typical lib" approach - appeasement. Yeah, that's it. I'll give them a number, because BB the Brave has courageously come up with a number already. "Well I will tell you--IMO--no one should have to pay more than 9% of their income to the federal or state government combined. All loopholes should be closed, and whatever you make, no matter what you make, 9% combined national/state."

I'll give them an answer, but it would be helpful to know exactly what the components of the budget(s) will be. This is after all, federal AND state. Will that massive nine-per-cent go for Social Security? Medicare? Defense? Debt Service? Schools? Roads? Apparently, based on their responses, asking such questions falls into the realm of evasion, avoiding issues, and such. I just don't know what to say.

I swear I'll come up with numbers. As I said in earlier posts, I really don't know that everyone is going to agree with MY idea of "fair", because that's such a subjective word, and I don't want to get into semantics and relativity and such. (You know, it's like trying to explain the difference between simple, simplistic, and simple-minded.)

So here's the deal. I will appease you guys - especially Smiff - by providing you with "some real numbers". They are 19, 42, 86.5, 37.3, and 24. Would you be good enough to provide some context?

And for BB the Brave, I don't want to be the one to tell a widow trying to squeak by on her $10,000 in Social Security that she's going to have to pay nine-per-cent tax on that princely sum. I don't want to be the one to tell a business person that those nasty loopholes like deductions for employee salaries and rent are no longer allowed. I don't want to explain that depreciation and expensing of equipment is no longer allowed. I don't want to be the one to tell a 12-year-old newspaper boy that we're taking nine-per-cent of his income. I don't want to tell the 8-year-old next door that we're taxing her allowance. You're the brave guy. You tell 'em.

@ Feisty

Well, the men better be starting out as boys cleaning those bathrooms. Maybe when the grow up they can be "master janitors"

@David

You are my hero.

Hey, Joe in Albany, how do you reconcile demands for prosecution of financial crooks with the Republican demand that we as a nation continue the super-duper deluxe tax cuts for them because they're "job creators"?

_________________________________________

What possible connection could putting financial criminals in prison have with the existing tax laws for someone like me, who does not suffer from the debilitating mental illness of liberalism?

I'll give them an answer, but it would be helpful to know exactly what the components of the budget(s) will be. This is after all, federal AND state. Will that massive nine-per-cent go for Social Security? Medicare? Defense? Debt Service? Schools? Roads? Apparently, based on their responses, asking such questions falls into the realm of evasion, avoiding issues, and such. I just don't know what to say.

My God, I do believe David is using the (imaginary) Karl Rove blogging tactic of obfuscation and asking for more information. Was this tactics 2 and 7?

CL, CL CL.......... the sound of one hand clapping!

I have often asked people to read Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism Speech. I have always considered it one of the most under rated speeches that has ever been given in this nation: Here is part of what TR had to say that day:

Now this means our government, National and state, must be freed from the sinister influence of special interests...

For every special interest is entitled to justice, but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a vote on the bench, or representation in any public office. The Constitution guarantees protection to property and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation.

Eerily prescient, don't you think?

I have often wondered, if TR could come back, what that old Bull Mooser would ROAR at the criminal Roberts court who sold this country out to the highest bidder? What would he say to the influence of large, rich donors who have tried to purchase this country for their own pleasure, and put millions of hard working Americans out of work? You couldn't pay for better entertainment than TR roaring his outrage!

Pay attention, those of you who think that MItt Romney, or Newt Gingrinch have YOUR interest at heart. Mitt himself has caused thousands of Americans to loose their jobs as he enriched themselves at their expense. And Newt? The history of Newt is long, with ethics violations galore.

Do read that speech. You will get a message from one of the finest Presidents to ever hold office that reverberates through the ages.

President Obama is smart to remind voters of what the GOP used to be before it was hi-jacked by irresponsible neocons, selfishness and greed. Teddy Roosevelt was a champion of conservation, of keeping the beautiful places in this country beautiful, of preservative. He would probably support cap & trade, clean air and water and the EPA as a means to keep America beautiful for future generations.

Newt Gingrich is a bigger flip/flopper than Mitt Romney and who would have thought that possible. I see he's threatening to sue Nancy Pelosi if she releases "dirt" on him which tells me there's a lot of "dirt" to be found otherwise, the Newster would have no need to threaten a law suit. Sounds a lot like Herman Cain--blame everyone else, never himself. As Morning Joe S said this morning--Gingrich is "not a nice man" politically, he's mean, nasty and practices the politics of character assassination. Don't often agree with Joe S but he's exactly right about Gingrich.

Alan,

Taking an overpriced and inefficient health care delivery system and mandating everyone to buy into it.

I just posted this elsewhere, but I'm going to repost it here.

I disagree vehemently with the legislation passed by Congress. Many said it was a "first step". I thought it was flawed from the start.

The only way to contain health care costs is through a single payer system. So long as the health insurance industry is a for-profit system, costs will continue to steeply rise. There is absolutely no incentive for private corporations to reduce their profits.

I spent a couple of years living in Canada (once in the mid-70's and then again in the late 90's) and I will tell you this: if you could superimpose their health care system intact on the U.S. today, and could keep it there on a trial basis for four years, 80% of the people in this country would never want to go back to the current system. Twice I had sports-related injuries, and both times I received excellent, immediate medical attention at virtually no cost out of my pocket. Obviously, society is paying for those costs, but my point is that if you go into an emergency room in this country some of the trauma you will be experiencing is the fear of how much it's going to cost--even if you have a good health insurance policy. (Members of Congress don't experience that fear if they have to go to the emergency room, do they?)

I've had similar experiences when I've lived and worked in other countries, with the same result.

As for your $2,500 . . . nothing is free. But with a single payer system you have more peace of mind and few "unwanted" surprises.

Dan Quale endorses Romney. The kiss of death. Quale has never done anything to help his Party, let alone a candidate.

And The Neuter, going to sue Pelosi if she says naughty things about him. Must have lots of dirt in those 1000 pages. Lots of luck Neuter. LOL.

Obama in 2012.

Hey Joe. How can you possible want to prosecute those "free market capitalist" from Wall Street? Aren't they also the same group of folks you want us to give our social securtiy dollars to 'cause they could do better?

________________________________________________

As long as it was voluntary, I see nothing wrong with allowing individuals to take charge of a portion of their SS funds to invest on their own. I'm doing fine investing my IRA and 401(k) accounts and I would definitely choose to take charge of investing a portion of my SS funds on my own.

You are demonizing the whole group because of the misdeeds of a few. That's like me saying that because a few of Barry's cabinet selections were found out to be tax cheaters, all his administration's appointees must be tax cheaters. Would you agree with that?

By the way. When we concentrate on what Newtie (aka Scrooge) said about putting poor children to work as janitors, we miss the first part of the statement: something about getting rid of union janitors.

The war against the middle class continues.

Seriously, has the GOP lost their ever-loving minds this politcal season? Seems like the only thing they are any good at is hawking their books and calling the President and other Progressives names (socialist is getting a little boring guys).

Joe in Albany

"What a bunch of incompetent morons Barry has running his Justice Dept. If these clowns can’t put these crooks in prison, they should all be put in prison themselves for criminal stupidity."

Yeah!!! To hell with rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence! Hey, maybe we can waterboard them!! Dammit, I KNEW they were keeping Gitmo open for a reason!

I am FLOORED by the lead Gingrich has obtained. The MOST important quality a man has is his integrity. If the GOP will skate that one core attribute to draw blood then they are DOA. Un-BELIEVABLE!

You will get a message from one of the finest Presidents to ever hold office that reverberates through the ages.

That's why his face is part of a national monument.

Great post ND.

@Jack

Contrary to what candidate Obama promised health care negotiations were not transparent and open. This Administration cut back-room deals with pHarma, AMA, private insurance and AARP to keep the current system in return for their support to expand coverage using what I believe is an unconstitutional mandate. Whether you have private insurance or single-payer is irrelevant unless you go after provider costs. In fact given the current delivery system, private insurance is probably preferable as they have an incentive to cut provider costs.

In fact I would argue that if you introduced single payer on top of the current system of paying providers, costs would go through the roof. Not Medicare for All but Medicare on Steroids.

Speaking of "Eerily prescient, don't you think?" Who else here watched "It's a Wonderful Life" with Jimmy Stewart the other night and couldn't help marvelling at how modern the story sounds. There was Obama (Stewart) fighting to give middleclass Americans (including immigrants like Mr. Martini) a hand up, while the Republican Congress (Mr. Potter) seeks to exploit them for the profit of the 1%.

At election time, in 2012, the citizens of this country will rally around President Obama, like his neighbors rallied to support George Bailey, and we'll show the Republicans what they can do with Pottersville.

The MOST important quality a man has is his integrity. If the GOP will skate that one core attribute...

Well they did elect W and Dick twice and Tricky Dick and Spiro the attack dog as well.

DOA? Most Americans have the attention span of a gnat. Newt and the Tea Bags are dangerous I wouldn't count them out just yet. The district gerrymandering and the voter suppression is in full swing in GOTP controlled legislatures.

As CT would say, To Vote!

Obama\Biden 2012!

Thanks, devie. You can't know how often I re read that speech as well as TR's Man in the Arena speech.

Yeah!!! To hell with rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence! Hey, maybe we can waterboard them!! Dammit, I KNEW they were keeping Gitmo open for a reason!

_________________________________________________

The results of the Justice Dept investigations revealed wrongdoing by financial executives. Holder's Justice Dept is just CHOOSING not to step up to the plate and pursue criminal cases in front of a judge and jury where all the rules of evidence and the presumption on innocence will be followed.

They are taking the easy way out by pursuing civil cases instead. It's just incompetence and laziness.

Alan, NJ

if you introduced single payer on top of the current system of paying providers

Who the hell's talking about putting a single payer system "on top of the current system"? I'm talking about replacing the current system 100% with a government-run health care system. And, yes, that means changing the way we deliver medical services. But that's a much larger topic. . . .

This Administration cut back-room deals

And that's a much larger topic, too. It's the way D.C. does business, no matter who is in control. Congressional Republicans were notorious for it during the Bush administration.

RON, IN, enjoyed that wish list and I'm betting its pretty accurate. DAVID WALKER, good one, now the right is scrambling, deflecting. NEWDAYD, like you I wish TR could return for a visit and bring Abraham Lincoln with him. I'm guessing Teddy Roosevelt would chew the current GOPers up and spit them out one by one; and Lincoln would have a great deal to say about demonizing minorities and the poor.

Good morning, everyone. Reading today, and not much writing, except for one comment.

You are so right, Amy, about the parallels between now and IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. Here in my own hometown, home ownership is down, while apartments are now in scarce supply. At the same time, Republicans in the legislature are trying to curtail drastically the rights of renters. I never thought I'd see the day when my "pretty how town" (e.e. cummings) would end up as Potterville.

There was a moral to that story, but like 1984, Brave New World, and Fahrenheit 451, Republicans evidently missed it.

Who the hell's talking about putting a single payer system "on top of the current system"? I'm talking about replacing the current system 100% with a government-run health care system. And, yes, that means changing the way we deliver medical services. But that's a much larger topic. . . .

...and one the current Administration ran from while introducing their "f...ing big deal". (Joe Biden).

So out of curiosity how much do think single-payer will save?

I don't see it saving anything, in fact I think it will increase total costs due to expanded coverage of poorer and unhealthy patients.

The other issue is that aside from the demagoguery I think you have cultural issues that affect end-of-life care, and until that is addressed costs will rise due to demographics; 20% seniors in 2020.

Alan, NJ --

...and one the current Administration ran from while introducing their "f...ing big deal". (Joe Biden).

Don't blame the true liberals for that.

The sell-out was to YOUR side, remember? Be proud.

Jody, I have no doubt that TR would leave the Republican Party all over again.

@newday and Jody,

I think a lot of the Republicans past would either leave or be kicked out of the party of nuts today!

Don't blame the true liberals for that.

The sell-out was to YOUR side, remember? Be proud.

My side? I'm an independent. I want a system that is cost effective and sustainable. I am for death panels as end of life care is where the saving are. I was appalled by the Teri Shiva tragedy. I have lived in other countries where the health service is on budget and Doctors make life and death decisions, and quality of life is one of the criteria. They understand that $100 spent on pediatrics is better than $100 spent on geriatrics.

The problem was that this Administration went for the political expedient of "creating a legacy" rather than creating a sustainable health care system. For example, Fiesty yesterday crowed about the medical loss ratio being enforced by HHS. What if there is a President Romney or President Gingrinch next year? Think HHS will enforce that ratio? What about all the waivers granted? Think a Republican Administration will grant more or less waivers? The whole legislation is flawed and will be chewed up because it did not get bi-partisan support (hell it barley got Democratic support).

Alan, NJ --

I don't see it saving anything, in fact I think it will increase total costs due to expanded coverage of poorer and unhealthy patients.

Well, that's because you haven't been paying attention. We pay those costs now, although at elevated rates, because of the rules regarding emergency rooms. If everyone had access to care, maybe there wouldn't BE so many "unhealthy" patients. Because we would be able to lower emergency room costs, and because single payer would undoubtedly run on lower margins that private health insurance, we would almost inevitably SAVE money.

But honestly, the way you say "poorer and unhealthy," it makes me think of the Indian caste system, as if they are somehow unworthy of care and even unworthy of continuing to live. You seem totally unable to grasp the concepts of compassion and charity.

I do hope you don't masquerade as a "Christian" because Christ would not understand what you just said.

"If our founding fathers could see what the GOP Tea-Retards are doing to this Country they would spit on them, end of story !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Amy, great point in comparing today's GOP to Mr. Potter in "It's a Wonderful Life". Didn't see it yet this year but I always look forward to watching it again.

Jack in Portsmouth, nice post. I would have preferred single-payer or at least a public option but it wasn't going to happen in that Congress. I do believe it is a step forward with good changes that impact people's lives. I also believe that the "waivers" are a way for States to do single payer which is exactly what Vermont has passed into law--single payer. Vermont's plan will be successful and, in my opinion, other states will take a good look at it. Economically, single payer is the best option but because we have such a huge complex of private insurance businesses with lots of employees, it makes sense to begin the process of phasing out the private side over a period of time. That's where requiring private insurers to spend 80-85% on actual health care will assist in ultimately achieving a single-payer system. Frustrating as it is, sometimes one step at a time is required in order for Government to catch up with people.

Alan,

cultural issues that affect end-of-life care

Cultural issues with more than just end-of-life care. It's all-encompassing, but I think it's a national dialogue we should have.

I already said I don't agree with the health care system that came out of Congress, so I don't understand why you keep harping on it.

Jody,

Despite my misgivings with the new system, I agree with all that you said above.

@AM

OMG this brings out the bleeding heart in you doesn't it. What I want from politicians is an honest discussion of what we can, and cannot afford. Unlike you I understand there are finite resources and as such we have to direct them to what brings the greatest rewards, hence my comment on pediatrics versus geriatrics. Costs would go up because the emergency room does not cover chronic or preventative care. I am not arguing whether it is a good or bad but I do not like it when politicians lie to my face by claiming that they can expand coverage to 50m people AND I will pay less.

At the end of the day we need a less specialized and more general health care system that guarantees a certain level of care to all. I know that this system means that I personally will have less access to resources than I have at the moment and it will probably cost me more. I have no problem with this if politicians would lay out their plans and explain the pro and cons in an honest fashion because I could care less for their legacy.

BTW I'm an atheist. I don't believe in fairy tales.

I already said I don't agree with the health care system that came out of Congress, so I don't understand why you keep harping on it.

Because most people on this site think single-payer is a silver bullet with no concept of what the details entail. I think you have a better understanding than most and that rationing (another dirty word) is required in such a system.

Joe in Albany

"The results of the Justice Dept investigations revealed wrongdoing by financial executives. Holder's Justice Dept is just CHOOSING not to step up to the plate and pursue criminal cases in front of a judge and jury where all the rules of evidence and the presumption on innocence will be followed."

Yeah, and where you'll need unanimity among 12 jurors to get a conviction. I can just see 12 jurors of average intellligence (which is the brightest either side wants jurors to be) taking several weeks following the money through the twisted, circuitous routes that it traveled. Hey, Joe, I wish YOU were there. After the first witness testifies for 10 minutes, your eyes would glaze over and you'd run screaming from the room!

The "Grinch" will "Lynch" the Middle Class, Hes a 1% wall street boy that needs a "Bath" ( Is new't all trump up ? ) New't said I'm a insider - "Her" More family values. The T-Retards are now backing up this lowlife. The GOP is all about Hate, Wars & Lies.

Alan, NJ

rationing (another dirty word) is required in such a system

I'm an atheist, too, so we have that in common. But I'm not an Independent because I could never, in a million years, vote for a Republican--especially today's Republicans.

Rationing, yes. But it's impossible to talk about health care reform without placing it in the larger context of how we raise revenue and what we spend that revenue on. In that sense, I don't necessarily agree with you that it is impossible that we as a society and even individually could pay less for health care under a single payer system.

First Kennedy, then Reagan,and now, Obama is trying to channel Roosevelt. Poor, pathetic, man, trying to be anyone but the radical , progressive, America loathing, socialist the American People have come to know Him to be, ...........Too late.

J.D. Still,

Poor, pathetic, man, trying to be anyone but the radical , progressive, America loathing, socialist the American People have come to know Him to be

I just love your the way your mind works--it's impossible to know whether you're talking about Obama or Roosevelt. Which is it? And why the capital "H" on Him? Is one of the two of them God?

If you're talking about Obama, he is far from being a radical or a Socialist. If you believe he's the latter, then you have absolutely no idea what a Socialist is. Try picking up the dictionary once in a while.

I am a Progressive and am far to the left of Obama. He is a liberal, and a moderate liberal at that. You only betray your ignorance when you make foolish, hateful statements. If you want people to listen to you or take you seriously, educate yourself.

Dawn,

Fantastic post regarding TR. That's where I was going today, but no need, you've got it covered. Nothing more to say so I'll just give you my Christmas List while there are still shopping days available.

(Sound up on "Jingle Bells")

1. I want to see the Justice Department investigate Koch Industries, Haliburton and News Corp. Also the Koch Brothers and Rupert Murdoch as individuals.

2. When the investigations are complete and the verdict is handed down by a jury of their peers (We the People) I want them fined all the way to hell and back. I want their companies broken up and sold to the highest bidders and all that money used to fund Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and any left over funds can be used to pay down the deficit. They have flaunted our laws and robbed the American people and I want them to pay. *Merry Christmas boys)

3. I want the President to reinstate the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE in broadcasting. That will be the end of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and all the other hate mongers and propagandists. Oh they can still write and rant, just not on the public airwaves without equal time being provided for opposing views, like the truth.

4. This should really be number one, but here goes, I want the President re-elected in an historic landslide.

5. I want the Democrats to regain the house and shore up their majority in the senate.

6. I want the electoral college GONE. It is an anachronism that disenfranchises voters like myself and millions of others.

7. I want Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld charged with Crimes Against Humanity and remanded to the Haage for prosecution. They cooked the books and started two unfunded wars and nearly drove the worlds economy off a cliff. They should pay.

8. Sell Texas to the highest bidder. I'll bet the Chinese would pay a pretty penny for Texas and we could retire our debts to China and use the surplus to pay down the deficit. Let's see how the Chinese feel about the Texas mythology.

That's about it. That's what I want for Christmas.

Oh, yeah, and World Peace.

Happy Holidays everybody.

Obama/Biden 2012

What's more amazing is how an inept and inexperienced chump like Barry Obama got elected? Says a lot about what voter fraud/suppression can do for a basically unknown can do. The Manchurian Candidate.... created by George Soros and their workers at Acorn! Sign of the Apocolypse!

ABO, more than ever 2012

Alan, NJ --'

OMG this brings out the bleeding heart in you doesn't it.

Just keep digging, Alan.

In this case, all you're doing by that derogatory deflection is highlighting the TRUE differences between liberals and lip-service "compassionate" conservatives, who talk about compassion and act ONLY in their selfish best interests.

I'm proud of my bleeding heart. What are you proud of?

Unlike you I understand there are finite resources and as such we have to direct them to what brings the greatest rewards, hence my comment on pediatrics versus geriatrics.

Death panels, you mean.

Because that's what happens when we pick obscene profits for insurance executives over health and happiness for the poor, "unhealthy" and the meek.

Embrace it, Alan.

I know that this system means that I personally will have less access to resources than I have at the moment and it will probably cost me more.

That's absolutely ridiculous. I don't think that I'm the one who doesn't understand.

Costs would go up because the emergency room does not cover chronic or preventative care.

Covering chronic and preventive care would PREVENT the more expensive emergency room care.

Capiche?

BTW I'm an atheist. I don't believe in fairy tales.

LoL Obviously, that's ALL you believe in. The ones you hear from Republican politicians and insurance executives.

And you obviously don't understand how the private health insurance system is gouging you, while at the same time depriving less worthies of care altogether.

Health care only for the healthy. Now THAT is the fairy tale.

Compassion and charity are NOT fairy tales.

Joe in Albania #1.19: Good morning. Please tell me who takes care of the folks that put their Social Security $$ in the stock market and their investment tanks?? My life savings was totally wiped out due to the companies I was led to believe were "good, solid, not get rich quick, etc." going bankrupt. They came out of BK as private companies and now are doing quite well, thank you. All the previous stock holders got NOTHING. I must say, I am not a very sophisticated investor, as I had to work all my life to provide for my family, therefore I relied on the advice of what I now know were "pump and dump" specialists. Now in my dotage, all I have is my Social Security. Thank you in advance for clearing this up for this old fool.

Hey, did you see that FOX NEWS thinks the new Muppet Movie is a commie plot to brain-wash America's young???? And that Sesame Street is likewise a commie liberal plot to destroy America????

The Muppets, a gentle, family friendly satire of humanity and all it's foibles while extolling the very virtues promoted by the Christian religion and their Bible. Uh, hey, aren't you GOP folks supposed to be the "Holier than thou" Party? Don't you recognize the teachings of your own religion?

Wow, simply wow.

Gosh I hope somebody on the Colbert Report or the Daily Show is slapping together a Muppet version of FOX NEWS.

Please, please, please. Just add that to my Christmas list above. I wonder how they feel about "Sam" the Bald Eagle Muppet?

Happy Holidays

Obama/Biden 2012

skip: I regard what you said about the TR post as high praise indeed.

I think you have a reasonable shot at getting what you want for Christmas. Santa is one of us you know. Gives away free stuff, doesn't ask people to work for it. Yep, a definite Lib.

The only thing I would add to your list is that the Walker recall is successful as a caution to the right wing!

Later, my friend.

Good morning. Please tell me who takes care of the folks that put their Social Security $$ in the stock market and their investment tanks??

__________________________________________________

No one. That's the risk you take in return for the possible reward of a higher retirement payment. That's why I would support private accounts for SS only if it's for a limited portion of it (say up to 50% of your own payroll deduction, leaving 75% or more of the combined employee/employer amounts in traditional SS) and if it's 100% voluntary.

Many people, maybe most people, should not do it. I have worked all my life also, but, I enjoy investing and have spent a lot of time and effort educating myself and getting experience. I've had my share of bad decisions and losers, but, in the long run I've had more winners than losers. I'm OK with taking that risk. You obviously should not.

Jack in Portsmouth

We are making progress! , for a self confessed lib such as yourself to even hint at admitting that another socialist is anything but right down the middle, mainstream, Mom and apple pie, is very encouraging indeed, Now, as far as the definitions, that's a good idea !, let's turn to Webster's shall We?

Socialism-a theory , principle, or scheme which is based on the belief that wealth should be equally divided and that most large businesses and industries should be controlled by the Government,(hmmmmmmmm! could also be known as communism lite or communism on the installment plan).

Communism- a social order under which private property is abolished , the form of Socialism developed in the USSR.

Radical- One favoring fundamental, basic, change, as in the economic or political structure of a society, (now, Who was it that said He was going to FUNDAMENTALLY change the United States of America?).

Now, I won't go over in great detail, for such a highly intelligent and obviously well informed person of such superior intellect, such as Yourself, what is known of Obama's background, but there might be others who are still struggling to learn, so bear with me. Obama's mother and biological father were both radical's, when His mother married another radical from Indonesia, She ended up sending Young Obama home to Hawaii to be with her parents,(Who were also radicals) because she found her new husband to be insufficiently radical and thought he would be a bad influence on the Young man. In Hawaii Obama found another surrogate communist mentor,known as Frank in Obama's book,(very famous radical, look him up, I'm sure You wouldn't believe me if I told You), but Obama did find time to run the streets , become a drug user, and it is suspected, a drug dealer. This is where Obama's past starts to get hazy, He goes to school but We can't seem to find any grades or History, (whenever the mainstream media, which can find information on a Republicans one night stand from thirty years ago, can't find any information on someone, it is an automatic red flag) and then We get into Obama's Community organizing,the radical Church which taught Black liberation Theology he attended for over twenty years but the main stream media couldn't find out anything about that either, (strange eh?), and then his rapid, guided rise through the Chicago political machine, and finally, his anointment by Harry Reid as the Dems candidate because He was "a light skinned Negro with no accent",to where He is today, but I am sure a highly intelligent fellow such as Yourself can easily explain why someone with such a background would not be considered a radical? and finally if You have the Time , please explain how facts are hateful, silly me, I always thought facts were just facts.

Aaahhh, the liberal circle jerk is out in full force today .... perhaps, Mr.Soros gave them a raise !

The article is about Obama trying to fashion himself after one famous President after another.... Lincoln, Reagan and now Teddy Roosevelt ! LOL !! Can't you just imagine Obama riding a horse and charging up a hill in Cuba !!!

But then, the libbies turn this into a personal attack venom fest on Newt Gingrich ! Yes, the left will pour out their venom and pour it out often. When will they discuss ISSUES ? When will this site be anything other than a snakepit directed toward ANYONE and EVERYONE who will challenge Obama ??

I guess, next week, Obama will be comparing himself to John Kennedy. Oops, I forgot, that 17 day Hawaiian vacation may get in the way with that.

6. I want the electoral college GONE. It is an anachronism that disenfranchises voters like myself and millions of others.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

Federalist 68

Publius

First Barry quotd Lincoln; then Teddy R. Why does he like to quote and equate himself with good leaders of their time?

I equate his jaw-thrust with that of the Italian leader during WWII. Arrogance is a virtue with Obama.

JD Still,

We are making progress!

Sorry. We're not making any (progress). Bernie Sanders is a Socialist. I've known Bernie since the late 60's and shared the stage with him during anti-war rallies. If you told him Obama was a Socialist he would laugh his ass off.

Plus, I told you--I'm a Progressive, which is to the left of Liberalism. There is a difference of degrees, as Jody or AM explained earlier (I can't find it--must be on another post; but you can search around if you're interested).

All your nonsense about not being able to find Obama's grades, etc. is just plain nonsense--you're just parroting people on the Right Fringe. And saying it doesn't make it so. Frankly, you just sound stupid when you say those things.

such a highly intelligent and obviously well informed person of such superior intellect, such as Yourself

At least you got one thing right. ;-)

I'm proud of my bleeding heart. What are you proud of?

Death panels, you mean.

Because that's what happens when we pick obscene profits for insurance executives over health and happiness for the poor, "unhealthy" and the meek.

Of course I'm taking about death panels. Somebody has to decide whether you get treated for an illness or not whether medicine is private or public. I know you know about NICE in the UK. They actually put a cost on treatment and then decide if the NHS will for it. There was a highly publicized case regarding liver cancer. The drug was $90K. The average life expectancy was 6 months. They said no. How else could they decide? In your world of infinite government resources everybody would get every treatment they wanted? Millions of Terry Shivos? And don't put up your bleeding heart as having more compassion. Unless you're Mother Theresa having given up ALL worldly goods you're just another bleeding heart that wants to spend other peoples money on trying to right the world's wrongs.

Costs would go up because the emergency room does not cover chronic or preventative care.

Covering chronic and preventive care would PREVENT the more expensive emergency room care.

Another fallacy to support the argument. If 50m have health care that includes preventive and chronic treatment it will cost billions more than what it costs to apply emergency treatment. Why do think providers got behind this plan? Now they have 50m more regular customers to give MRIs, drugs, diagnostics etc. You really believe that costs less than a trip to the emergency room? If so then you do believe in fairy tales, along with the one that government run health care won't have death panels.

BTW I am FOR death panels just in case I didn't make it clear.

On the topic of this administration cutting backroom deals...

Jack in Portsmouth

And that's a much larger topic, too. It's the way D.C. does business, no matter who is in control. Congressional Republicans were notorious for it during the Bush administration.

Hey Jack... what about that Hope and Change thingy? This administrations vowed to change the way Washington does business... remember?

(show me the clown nose, fisty!)

Dawn

Awww, shucks ma'am, t'weren't nuthin'.

And I agree on the Walker recall, I shall add it to my list!

Happy Holidays

Obama/Biden 2012

Quoting from 'Hollywood" by Gore Vidal: 'At the heart of "Empire" the great

political duel was between William Hearst and Theodore Roosvelt. Was it

the publisher who invented news----and history---or the president with a

plan who created the Spanish -American War that gave the United States the

Philippine Islands and a world empire?" Anyway, if President Obama is

channeling T.D. he must have a Plan. And that's good guys!!!!

"And you could argue that getting the benefit of the doubt will be difficult for Romney with a political press corps and Democratic Party ready to jump on any perceived change in position, no matter how small/nuanced it is."

Especially when the 'political press corps and Democratic Party' are both on the same side - Obama's.

Jack in Portsmouth

I could care less what old Bernie thinks,It doesn't matter, I have witnessed first hand the results of applied Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, Progressivism,Liberation Theology, whatever it is You want to call it,around the world, and it is not near as pretty as the theory sounds, again, it's all communism on the installment plan, or cover for those who do not have the courage to state their true beliefs or intentions, now, I responded to Your post with facts, dispute them, (with facts), if You can,if not, don't waste my time, in the words of a truly self proclaimed great thinker, just saying it doesn't make it so, it's time to put up old boy, show me the evidence of the grades, the papers, the background, etc., that contradict my assertions.

David,

Can't believe that you are shaking in you boots, it must be cold where you live.

And for BB the Brave, I don't want to be the one to tell a widow trying to squeak by on her $10,000 in Social Security that she's going to have to pay nine-per-cent tax on that princely sum. I don't want to be the one to tell a business person that those nasty loopholes like deductions for employee salaries and rent are no longer allowed. I don't want to explain that depreciation and expensing of equipment is no longer allowed. I don't want to be the one to tell a 12-year-old newspaper boy that we're taking nine-per-cent of his income. I don't want to tell the 8-year-old next door that we're taxing her allowance. You're the brave guy. You tell 'em.

First of all I love the way that you say we are going to take money from everyone, especially since you included two under age individuals--you must have went to the Newt Gingrich School of Work. Really times have changed since you and I were in school--I don't know many paper routes still using 12 year olds, and the allowance thing, wouldn't you be taxing her parents, because they give the allowance, not her. Mainly, because your always "poor me" stories really aren't realistic--because she probably is not self employed through her parents and because even today labor laws wouldn't allow it, but whine all you wish.

So back to the numbers--9% Federal Income tax--which means we are taxing a person's income, not wealth, not Social Security, not sales taxes, just plain ole federal income taxes.

From 2009--the most recent year with all documentation.

There were 137,982,203 individual income tax returns filed--which paid into our federal government $915,000,000,000--When all the taxpayers were averaged out by percentages at tax rates, it came out to be 11% overall--(IRS, Wikipedia, & Tax Foundation are sources)

So what I am saying is that by taking out the deductions & loopholes 9% would be a fair number.

Even last year I even did this at 9, 13, & 17% on here.

As you know, these are averages and not everyone makes the same, but the 9% would still bring in as much or more than the federal government brings in today, using it's progressive tax system, with its thousands of deductions & loopholes.

I have this all on spread sheet and would love to share it, if you can tell me how to email it to you. You can put in any percentage, based on the 2009 and 2008 IRS numbers. I can and will easily add the 2010 numbers once I have time to research them.

Big Bear:

I'm not the one who said we would tax ALL income. That was you. Now, you say you want to exclude from taxation, people who are under age. What is the age at which people start having their income taxed? It doesn't matter that a child's parents hand out the allowance. The source of the income is irrelevant. It's income. Period. Your rules, not mine.

I note that suddenly your 9% tax only applies to federal tax. Yesterday, that was federal AND state.

The income tax revenues you show in your post total less than one-trillion-dollars for 2009. Based on your figures, if you fund the defense budget, there's far less than a half-trillion dollars to run every other agency in the government, pay our Social Security benefits and cover Medicare. Again, I ask what do you plan to fund? In the alternative, what do you plan to cut?

My point is that until you know what programs you are going to fund, it is a fool's errand to suggest ANY rate or amount. You MUST know what's in your budget before you know how much it will cost.

You keep coming up with exceptions, yet you demand a one-size-fits-all rule.

Lastly, humor me. Direct me to one of those "poor me" stories to which you allude. One will be enough. Then after you've found one - just one - you needn't read any more of them. Is this a great country or what? That freedom of speech thing means you don't have to listen to other people's speech.

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED @1.15

EXCELLENT Post!

If Teddy came back today, what he would do would look so much like god throwing the money changers out of the temple, EXCEPT, he would do it with the Rough Riders. (I have this vision of lobbyists flying in every direction.

That was an excellent speech, I hope Obama is using it because he has learned from it, rather than using it as justification for taxing the rich. If he does, that would be taking the speech out of context.

You know back in the day, Ron Paul used to quote from that speech. It carries a lot of wisdom, common sense and practical progressive philosophy. (remember, back in those days, the republican party was the early progressive party in the US, the democrats were the conservatives) Today the roles are reversed, the Democrats lay claim to the "Progressive" label while the Republicans lay claim to the "Conservative" label.

One must understand that today's political parties are nothing like the parties of TR's day, on either side. There is more pure libertarianism in that one speech than in Ron Paul's entire brain. (and Ron Paul is no slouch as a libertarian) Back in TR's day, Republicans would be what the Libertarians are today and the Democrats would be what the Republicans are today.

Anyone wants to read the entire speech, here is a URL.....

www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/12/06/archives-president-teddy-roosevelts-new-nationalism-speech

Maybe if either side could heed to this I might rejoin one of the parties, but if they can't I'll remain an independent libertarian. But do me a favor, if you do read the speech, realize it has a lot of points in it that the current liberals and conservatives will NOT like.

For you unionists out there, this is the speech that really began the collapse of the wobblies as a political force, so if you do read it don't get your panties in a bunch you were warned.....

Joe post #1.2 - Figure it out. They won't be procecuted for several reasons. 1) There was no Federal Law broken. The loans were approved by Freddie and Fannie - i.e. they met the federal criteria for giving loans to people. You would have to prove that they knew the loans were bad - what they did was resell the loans they were sold by using the very same reports the loans were sold to them with.

2) Even if there is Federal violations 66% of Wall Street money went to Democrats in the 2008 election. Do you really think they are really going to crack down on the their supporters?

Thanks, Egilman: that speech is poetry, is it not?

Your welcome, Newday

It is absolute poetry.... like many of the words and speeches of our great leaders, should be required reading before entering politics.