"CAPITALISTS WITHOUT CONSUMERS ARE OUT OF BUSINESS."
Venture capitalist and entrepreneur Nick Hanauer wrote "we have rigged the economic system in a way to destroy my customer base."

Hanauer says adding a surtax to millionaires will make the wealthy richer, not poorer.
By putting more money into middle-class pockets e.g. via the Payroll tax and Unemployment benefits, we will buy more products. And in this way, we will feed the cycle of demand that profits the wealthy.

He does not advocate raising taxes on folks like him because he "loves" us - but because he values us as potential customers.
More purchasing = sell more products = more money in the pockets of the wealthy.In reality the wealthy lose out by not lifting up the middle class and giving them more purchasing power.

No sale = no stock = no 8-salary figure.

Hanauer argues strongly for making the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share and contribute revenues, so as to create an affluent middle class that will spend more money. Affirms that just putting more money in the pockets of the wealthy by not taxing them, DOES NOT CREATE JOBS. Says the spending power of the middle class is the 'lifeblood" of America - not rich folks like him. He says business people spend their time creating cost containment & sales, but not creating jobs:

"The only time that businesses create jobs is when middle-class consumers essentially put a gun to our heads, in the form of orders for products that we can't make ourselves...
and THEN we hire people and create jobs."

More demand for products is created by more spending power. We must press Congress to get on with extending our Payroll Tax and Unemployment Benefits before they expire on December 31st.

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/10/143508437/just-what-do-the-rich-have-thats-taxable
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-07/raise-taxes-on-rich-to-reward-true-job-creators-nick-hanauer.html

Picture a U.S military infantry company, 100 souls strong. Imagine that half the company is made up of the “I, Me, Mine” crowd. Now picture that company successfully defending our nation. You can’t? Neither can I.

One of the consequences of the abolition of the military draft is that the vast majority of us are isolated from the personal sacrifices made daily by our military personnel and their families—specifically, we are spared the “ultimate” sacrifice.

A corollary consequence is that the “We’re all in this together” spirit that made this country great is foundering. Personal gain is trumpeted by a noisy minority, who scorn those who have dedicated their life work to the betterment of the community in lieu of higher paying jobs.

A digression. But important for what it tells us. Place a group of liberals in a locked room and inevitably they will have a heated political discussion over social and economic issues. But if a grenade were tossed into the room—and escape were impossible—one of them would fall upon it. Place a group of the “I, Me, Mine” contingent in a similar room and they will march in lock-step—but if a grenade is thrown into the room they will look around for the weakest guy and throw him onto it.

You may think this is hyperbole. Or a metaphor. Or meant to be humorous. It is none of these.

One night in Viet Nam, I wondered whether I would have the courage to fall on a grenade, as another Marine had done the night before. In virtually every combat situation there is at least a 1% chance of survival—or so our minds tell us. But smother a grenade with your body and you’re dead. End of story.

I had just arrived in the country and the thought was terrifying. But with the passage of time and experience I realized a more terrifying truth: throwing oneself on a grenade has nothing to do with courage. It is reflex. Pure, primordial instinct. The taking of a spear in the chest at the mouth of the cave so that others might escape and the tribe live to fight another day. Choice does not enter into the equation. Dwell on that a moment.

The “I, Me, Mine” camp has sublimated this instinct. If they ever had it.

Those dedicated to the building or strengthening of communities are not necessarily born that way. Sometimes they are made. A not insignificant number of veterans returning from war possess a sense of purpose greater than themselves. The paragraph below is taken in its entirety from “The Heart and the Fist” by Eric Greitens, a SEAL who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“On the frontline—in humanitarian crises, in war overseas, and around some kitchen tables at home—I’d seen that peace is more than the absence of war, and that a good life entails more than the absence of suffering. A good peace, a solid peace, a peace in which communities can flourish, can only be built when we ask ourselves and each other to be more than just good, and better than just strong. And a good life, a meaningful life, a life in which we can enjoy the world and live with purpose, can only be built if we do more than live for ourselves.”

In the November 27, 2011 New York Times Book Review, there is a pen and ink drawing of the Lower 48 States, represented as a fleshless skeleton. All ribs and bones, bleached by the desert sun. Instantly I thought of the unholy alliance and greed of Wall Street bankers, corporations, and past and current members of Congress who have cannibalized this great nation.

And then I thought of the “I, Me, Mine” crowd who rides in their slipstream.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Good Morning Feisty

5 Reasons To Be Glad You Didn’t Watch The ABC Iowa Republican Debate

http://www.politicususa.com/en/abc-iowa-republican-debate

================================================================
here are my two favorites in descending order: Get It?

5). The GOP Candidates Couldn’t Spell Poor If You Gave Them The P-O-O-R . Mitt Romney was forced to admit that he grew up rich, has been rich, but he has seen poor people before.
=========================================================================
I can't stop laughing at MITT. Hello! I sure hope Mitt sees poor people somehow before he starts all those budget cuts. Dang, I do not know which was funnier Mitt seeing poor people or Michele Bachmann saying she beat President Obama in a debate? Hee Hee When? Where? How? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL Tee Hee Tee Hee Tee Hee

4). Newt Gingrich Claims He Told The Historical Truth About The Palestinians Being An Invented People.
=======================================================================================
Actually, it is my worst. Gotta Love Ron' Paul's retort to Newtie when he said "if that is the case Israel is invented". I just wish Ron Paul could have taken it little further though when he told Newt we should let Israel mind their own business. Ron then said we have to stand by Israel. Dangnabit; there they went again; poor little Israel. Israel wants "US" to nuke Iran. Has Ron Paul forgotten that little covert war we may or may not be in with Iran?

Ron Paul is supposed to be all are anti-war. I wish he hadn't started acting all crazy again. I sure hope he isn't giving those "chicken hawks" even more reason to lay it on with the scarey Muslin s^%#t.

More to the point, Newt is a faux historian; my reason for disdain toward Newt's racist comment. Moreover, either Newt is trying to either rewrite history or didn't work hard enough on that Phd.
christine Arpmour on ABC disproved newt Palestine is invented. They has been arounf

Palestinians were in the Ottoman before the Ottoman Empire was the Ottoman Empire. It was the Palestinians land which was invaded by the Ottomans. A Black Muslim General, Amr ibn al-As, in 641 AD conquered Egypt. After the death of the Prophet Muhameed, the eruption came about in Middle East, India, and even Spain where the Jewish people were. The Spanish people re- conquered their land in the 1400s; and kicked the Jewish people, & Arabs out.

http://urduseek.com/node/141

Newt's history both personally and academically will be his final verdict.

One more thing $10,000 is trending all the over the world. The world is laughing at "US" thanks to these fools.

Circus of clowns...

Is Newt Electable?

That sure is a hot topic in Republican circles, and by many accounts Democrats are salivating at the prospect Newt might be the nominee. But just how bad is his electability problem? I'll stipulate that during a long public career Newt has managed to alienate enough folks that the animus towards him from the Republican establishment is palpable. And he's got the multiple marriage problem, and the image of a classic Washington insider. But does this mean he has too much "baggage" to be elected president?

Back in the day, when Richard Nixon left office after his tenure as governor of California many if not most folks thought the guy couldn't get elected dogcatcher even in a parallel universe. Of course, that didn't stop him from winning the presidency twice. Then there was Ronald Reagan who was tagged as a know-nothing movie actor who was in way over his head. With the same result—two winning campaigns for president. And let's not forget the grand marshal of the baggage parade, none other than Bill Clinton. The women who came out of the woodwork to document that guy's flaws made the Herman Cain episode look like amateur hour. Besides that, we all know he never inhaled.

So we have a long history of electing folks with "baggage." The reality is that a message that resonates with voters trumps the imperfections of the candidate, whether those imperfections be real or imagined. So the Republican long knives that are out for Newt run some risk of allowing their emotions to cloud their judgment about who might be the best man to take the fight to Obama. And if Newt continues to make a calm (dare I say disciplined) case for why Obama is bad for the country. And if he continues to express his views in the context of a broad philosophical approach to conservative governance. Then he might be on to something, something that could put enough wind in his sails to carry him all the way to the White House.

The real issue is Newt has the potential to carve Obama into a thousand pieces, which is Job One from the Republican perspective. The sooner we get past this "baggage" nonsense, the sooner the long knives can be pointed where they belong -- at the failed president who so richly deserves it. And the sooner we can get Americans to focus on the real question: is Obama electable?

P.S. Anyone notice that when given the chance in Saturday's debate Santorum refused to trash Newt on the multiple marriage issue, saying it wasn't necessarily a disqualification to be president? Then later, he pointed to Newt as being the inspiration that led him to get into politics. For his part, Newt returned the favors by praising Santorum for his persistent vigilance in warning us about the dangers posed by Iran. Can anyone say Gingrich-Santorum ticket? Or better still, how about Santorum as Secretary of Defense in the Gingrich administration? You heard it here first.

Tim Tebow 2012.

Ask yourself this, do they represent the 99% of American's who are only 2 paychecks away from bankruptcy?

___________________________________________________

Nasty: Got any verifiable, credible source to back up that " 2 paychecks away from bankruptcy" stat? Or is it just another lefty liberal talking point?

BTW, thinkprogress doesn't meet the "verifiable, credible" criteria.

The GOP Is A Threat To Democracy

The stupid RWNJs, think they can continue to Fox-ify the electorate. The payroll tax cut extension is not about the President as the RWNJs trouting out.

It's about the American people. But, John Boehner and Mitch McCConnell would rather not give a surtax on millionaireis. The Klowns in the GOP Klown Kar can/will not think of keeping an extra $1,000 in the pockets of the average American family. But, they favor the millionaire surtax that would hit relatively few household which the Klowns in that car want to accompany the payroll tax cut extension and the XL Pipline.

The fact is that:
Even Republican governor of Nebraska does not wan the XL Pipline due to enviromental concerns. Besides , most of the jobs will be for Canadians. It's been proven by thinkprogress "50"(fifty) jobs only will benefit Americans.

On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) what he made of characterizations of the GOP as the party that defends millionaires, given that more than half of McConnell’s caucus has repeatedly voted against a tax cut for the middle class. McConnell LAUGHED at the assertion before saying the GOP is “not here to defend high-income people.” As proof, McConnell told Wallace that the Republican plan took such drastic steps as to prevent millionaires from receiving unemployment benefits or food stamps.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/11/387103/mcconnell-gop-isnt-here-to-defend-high-income-people/

=================================================================================

LAUGH on McConnell & OTHER RWNJS you have proven to everyone you are a bunch of clowns as evidenced by the candidateds you have put forth and your incessant desire to NOT admit the truth. That'd be you RWNJs are failing and becoming more and more irrevlant to most Americans.

For example, Gov Brokeback Mountain antagonist, Rick Perry, Admits His Tax Plan Slams Low-Income People And Lets The Wealthy Pay Nothing

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/10/386504/perry-admits-tax-plan-nothing/

Joe.

Elections are about choices.

The choices the GOP is offering are sub-par.

So....it doesn't matter how much the right wing has been able to use the down economy to convince people of their B.S. Even if they are convinced now, they may not be convinced in a year, and/or they may not be convinced enough to vote for the clown who gets the GOP nomination.

This election should be fun. You might learn something about politics as well.

Stick around.....

Morning All,

These Candidates are all forwarding the same agenda of the Ultra-Right.

I mean, the Ultra-Fright.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; there is no way the Republican Party is dumb enough to let Newt get the nomination.

Sure, I make fun of the idiocy of First Read’s wingnut trolls, they are uneducated fools who spout the nonsense they hear on Fox News and Hate radio without an ounce of critical thinking. But contrary to what we might assume, given our wingnut troll’s comments, not ALL Republicans are stupid.

Indeed, quite a few members of the Republican establishment are intelligent, and they know who Newt is. They will do everything they can to bring Newt crashing to the ground like the Hindenburg. The question is will they be successful? Will Newt pull a Christine O’Donnell or a Sharon Angle? And if the Republican establishment has lost its mojo what does that say about the future of the GOP?

You know, for a group of folks who beat the "Republican talking points" line to death, you all seem to have really grabbed on to this 99% thing pretty well.

I guess I'll toss in the "Fox Lies" talking point as well since nisl has already hit it this morning.

You all really don't understand the meaning of "hypocrisy" do you?

So our intrepid fourth estate is trying to make an issue out of Romney's offer to bet Perry $10,000. It shows how out of touch the wealthy Romney is with average Americans during these difficult times, they say. Good grief says I, nothing to see here let's move along.

On second thought, maybe there is something to see here – but it's not what the pundits with air time and column space to fill would have us believe. Because rather than a gaffe that demonstrates too many degrees of separation from the common man, maybe it speaks more to the class resentment stoked by a left leaning MSM.

Imagine a liberal father watching that exchange with his son: "That man Romney is so out of touch with folks like us. Some day he'll get his comeuppance and learn what it means to struggle to make ends meet." While a conservative father watching that same exchange might tell his son: "That man sure is different from us. But if you work real hard and apply yourself, some day you too will be able to afford to make a $10,000 bet."

The difference is that for most of us, accumulating greater wealth is a worthy aspiration that can inspire exceptional achievement. While for others, any wealth that exists which they don't have is just proof that life is unfair – and should be made more fair by bringing down those who have succeeded.

For my money, I'm betting most Americans would prefer their kids be inspired by the rewards of achievement, not burdened by the bitterness of class resentment. And since we are at heart an opportunity society, that's just one reason why Republicans will have a winning message to carry into 2012. Anyone out there want to take that bet?

Bill.

The real issue is Newt has the potential to carve Obama into a thousand pieces, which is Job One from the Republican perspective. The sooner we get past this "baggage" nonsense, the sooner the long knives can be pointed where they belong -- at the failed president who so richly deserves it. And the sooner we can get Americans to focus on the real question: is Obama electable?

The Rebublican perspective is not exactly the nations perspective.

In addition, it may not be as easy to convince the nation of the delusion the right wing has blindly bought into, once the campaign starts rolling.

All of the delusional B.S. you base your arguments on will be scrutinized more in an election.

We shall see......

(Clowns...all of em LOL!!!)

Feisty, well said. Couldn't convince myself to watch Saturday's latest GOP debate but did see a few clips and read what the paper said. Poor old Mitt, he forgot that he should have said he'd bet $10 because he's used to dealing in thousands.

Backhouse, terrific information. It explains why when Clinton and Gingrich raised taxes, it did no harm to the rich. It is true when the middle class do well, when the poor get an opportunity to step up to the middle, it benefits ALL Americans including the rich. The middle class is the economic engine that drives the country's economy. The GOP policies of the last 30 years have diminished the size of the middle and made the poor, poorer. Eventually, those policies will impact even the wealthy and especially American industry.

Bill.

Imagine a liberal father watching that exchange with his son: "That man Romney is so out of touch with folks like us. Some day he'll get his comeuppance and learn what it means to struggle to make ends meet." While a conservative father watching that same exchange might tell his son: "That man sure is different from us. But if you work real hard and apply yourself, some day you too will be able to afford to make a $10,000 bet."

LOL!!!!

An example of a deluisonal projection used to keep the spoon fed delusion alive.

Try thinking for yourself...and less cable news, jr.

Silver linings for Romney? More like silver spoons, and they ain't playing well to Republican voters, I don't think.

If I'm right, polling numbers are going to break even more distinctly in Gingrich's favor. That debate performance by Romney was pathetic. It was so awkward watching him trying to look spirited, that for his sake I was wishing each time he'd just stop talking so they could point the camera at someone else.

Gingrich wasn't at his best, but he wasn't at his worst, either. That gave Republicans an opportunity to see him under fire. In that debate, he seemed to hold up pretty well. So now the party membership is being told, "no, don't trust Gingrich because he'll implode at some point," and they see him not imploding. In fact, they see him almost enjoying the scrap - and they contrast that with the other candidate (Romney) who doesn't seem comfortable scrapping at all...

The party leadership is out of touch with its membership right now. The leadership wants a safe candidate. The membership wants a fighter.

The Truth-O-Meter Says: John Boehner is a LIAR.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/10/john-boehner/boehner-equates-taxing-millionaires-hurting-small-/

John Boehner equates taxing millionaires with hurting small businesses

Boehner said, "Over half of the people who would be taxed under this plan are, in fact, small businesspeople."

Boehner is wrong on two points -- the "half" and the "small businesspeople."

Of the business income reported on tax returns, half of it would have been taxed at the top two rates, the Joint Committee on Taxation found. But that doesn’t mean half of the earners are paying those rates.

And it’s incorrect to call small business owners and millionaires who would see a tax increase one and the same. The Joint Committee as well as the Tax Policy Center have given credible evidence that for top earners who report business income, it is often just a fraction of their total income. They are not the folks operating small manufacturing plants or neighborhood pizza parlors. In fact, only 0.5 percent of small businesses make that kind of money. More often, small businesses are small in every sense -- most have incomes of less than $50,000 and almost all have profits of less than $1 million -- and they wouldn’t be affected by the millionaires tax. We rate the statement False.

This Week with Christiane Amanpour, criticizing President Barack Obama’s jobs bill.

===========================================

How much more evidence is need to prove the "FACT" that Boehnor and the rest of the Klowns in the cars on that train are crazy, crazy, LIARS?

Thanks Jody,

What Norquist is promoting is just a myth = That it helps the affluent when they don't contribute taxes into the revenue pot.

In reality, the wealthy make more money by empowering the middle class to buy their products.

Screwing everyone else over doesn't make more money for the wealthy class.

Who died and left the idiot from Albany the 'source' monitor?

This coming from the moron who gives us his daily cut & paste from Politico & the WSJ... lmao

Get over yourself, little buddy!

As Americans file for bankruptcy in record numbers and credit card debt
explodes, more workers are a paycheck away from losing their homes. Now the
frail economy is pushing them over the edge. With 9 million unemployed workers
in July, the face of homelessness is changing to include more families shaken by
joblessness.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=2%20paychecks%20away%20from%20homeless&source=web&cd=7&sqi=2&ved=0CE0QFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fmoney%2Feconomy%2F2003-08-11-homeless_x.htm&ei=0A7mTorxAYTqgAfanp3vBQ&usg=AFQjCNHtRHu_jbdC7Cn_sFfUy_tEVCXZkA

I stand corrected for being too generous in claiming they are two paychecks away...

Make that ONE!

*waves to Bev, Jody & Backhouse* Good Monday morning ladies!

Hey, nisl,

I posted the below on Friday, but you weren't around so I'm re-posting it.

You did a great take-down on Spanky yesterday. I hate his cruel, unrelenting taunting of others, and it was good to see him twist and turn as he got some of his own medicine. Maybe now he’ll understand how others feel when he does it to them. Not that he’ll change. It seems inbred in him, due to some childhood trauma, no doubt.

Poor old Mitt, he forgot that he should have said he'd bet $10 because he's used to dealing in thousands.

Hi Jody!

Remember a couple of months ago?

When some little kid asked Willard for a dollar, all he had in his pocket was $100 dollar bills?

Uh huh - he's just an ordinary working stiff... lol

Feisty:

As Americans file for bankruptcy in record numbers and credit card debt
explodes, more workers are a paycheck away from losing their homes. Now the
frail economy is pushing them over the edge. With 9 million unemployed workers
in July, the face of homelessness is changing to include more families shaken by
joblessness.

What's really funny(sad?) is Feisty thinks this is good news for Obama!

Bill in Fairfax - Democrats should be careful what they wish for. Gingrich is a wild card; Republican leadership doesn't want him because he really might implode, and Democratic leadership doesn't want him because he might not.

It's fascinating, but at the rank and file party membership levels, it seems like both Republicans and Democrats do want Gingrich as the nominee.

Me, I want Gingrich as the nominee, because it will add to the spectator value of this whole thing, and that's really all I'm here for. In the end, we've got too much debt and too not enough economic activity. That limits options too much, so as to really make the question of which party is in power rather inconsequential.

Feisty hit it right on the head. Exactly what have the Republicans accomplished since their windfall election in 2010? Exactly nothing. Certainly nothing for the poor and middle class folks of this Country.

Cut taxes for the rich and increase taxes for the rest of us. Cut benefits and Health Care Services for those of us who can least afford it.

Who are these clowns that we have allowed to dictate to us how we should live are lives and bend to their demands?

Wake up America and vote these selfish rascals out.

Obama in 2012.

Joe in Albany

As a matter of fact, I LOVED the CBS interview with President Obama, especially coming on the heels of the Republican debate. I thought President Obama framed the coming election just as Republicans do, as a choice for the American people between the rightwing ideology of low taxes and a shredded safety net, or the Democratic direction, of lower taxes for the middle class, higher taxes on the uber rich, and investment in education, the development of alternative energy sources, and a healthy regulation of the financial sector so the crisis of '08 never happens again. I would think you'd welcome that debate, as opposed to pointing out the personal flaws of the Republican candidates. Clearly, Obama is the more likeable, gifted and moral candidate, but this election is about the issues, not personalities, isn't it?

I could use a couple of answers this morning.

Newt said his issues with serial adultery required him to go to God for forgiveness. How does he know that God forgave him? I wonder if Newt is tithing at the stated 10% rate. With his connections to God, I wonder if he'll lobby for a tithe cut for the poor, or only for the rich.

Is Newt's God the same one who requires Mitt Romney to wear magic underwear? Is this the same God who says Jews are His chosen people?

Was God's son Jesus just kidding when he listed the Great Beatitudes? Christians can decide for themselves by going to this link: http://www.biblepath.com/beatitudes.html

Is Michelle Bachmann God's idea of a practical joke?

And I have a question for Rick Perry. Rick, you said your marriage was a vow to God. Did you shake hands on that? Come on man, you can't expect us to believe He just took your word for it after what Gingrich has done.

Help me out here.

Beverly, thanks for the debate chuckles and especially thanks for the true "historian" explanation of Palestine.

Jack, Portsmouth. Terrific post and I agree. When I wrote my Dec 7th post, I touched on a similar thought about the USA's ability to be what we were in WWII only from a different angle.

As for Bill Fairfax's thought that democrats are salivating over the prospect of Newt Gingrich, that might be what the pundits and TV chattering says but most democrats understand that no matter who wins the GOP nomination, it will be a tough fight. Romney and Gingrich have strengths but they also have many weaknesses.

Feisty thinks this is good news for Obama!

Reading the tea leaves again eh?

Don't quit your day job! ;o)

Jack - Thanks. Spanky is a fairly typical wingnut troll; he is a moron incapable of critical thought. He is also a liar, there is no way that goof is a high school graduate, much less a lawyer. His M.O. is to come here and ask stupid questions any first grader should be able to answer. Administering a Troll Beating on such a specimen is as easy as continually asking the same question the troll repeatedly demanded an answer to. You just keep doing it until they answer their own question truthfully or until they go away.

David: have some personal experience with a "dad" who put his dying wife (my mother, fortunately she came to me) out of the house after almost 60 years of marriage, and brought his mistress in, I can tell you that men like this are capable of endless self delusion. My "dad" said "God told him it was all right to do."

Haven't spoken to him since.

Feisty,

The $10,000 bet is a good example of Romney & Co. being out of touch with the American people.

That is a LOT of money to most Americans.

Remember, these same guys want the rest of us to:

TIGHTEN OUR BELTS, OR LOSE OUR SAFETY NETS.

As Americans file for bankruptcy in record numbers and credit card debt
explodes, more workers are a paycheck away from losing their homes. Now the
frail economy is pushing them over the edge. With 9 million unemployed workers
in July, the face of homelessness is changing to include more families shaken by
joblessness.

______________________________________________

Gee, Nasty, you claimed 99% of Amercans are in this situation:

"Ask yourself this, do they represent the 99% of American's who are only 2 paychecks away from bankruptcy?"

Nothing in your response says anything about "99% of Americans"??

Sounds like it's just another steaming pile of lefty liberal hyperbolic BS.

While I doubt I am welcomed here, here is my two cents, (Sorry, I don't have 10k). Feisty, your story kind of goes to what I have been thinking all night. The GOP now reminds me of the theocarcies of today's world, and the repressive totalitarian governments of the past. In today's world, the religious right of a country tries to form their morals and their God to their own ideals. Our forefathers had wanted a government where a person faith was personal. The government was here for the general welfare of its citizens and for the defense of its citizens. Today it is all about protecting the few and their wealh and to legislate their morals on the most of its citizens. This is how the theocracies and 3rd world countries now behave. It is sad to see the right adopting its policies here today.

Obama/Biden 2012

As one of us spent four days observing the GOP race in Iowa, it was hard not to see parallels between Mitt Romney’s campaign and Hillary Clinton’s four year ago. There’s a vulnerability in the air for Romney -- just as reporters began to sense for the Clinton campaign in Dec. 2007.

Who writes this @!$%#? Haven't you guys observed that the Republican voting base have been looking for anyone BUT Romney during this entire primary?

I, like so many others who aren't paid by the DNC, blog-o-sphere, 'newsvine' or simply so blind as to see that there is no difference between the rich democrats and the rich republicans deciding our fates everyday in the White House and Congress can't help but laugh at people like the redhead from IL.

Why would anyone vote for one of the GOP clowns she asks. Well, the other question would be just as simple, "why should anyone vote a second term for the chief clown now occupying the WH"? She acts as if only republicans represent wealthy people. Wrong. Obviously, the rich democrats holding office are backed by and will support the wishes of their wealthiest backers.

With the country still in financial turmoil and no hope in sight, why stay the current course? Isn't it the liberal agenda to continually change what's wrong and to improve things to make our lives better? If so, then the solution is simple. Get rid of the current president, dump the current congress in full and move forward.

I couldn't care less which rich politician occupies the congress or WH as long as they can set aside their priorities and focus on those of the people who elected them. It has been a very long time since anyone has followed through on their promises. Again, it is time for the American people to let politicians across the country know that we will throw them out of their comfy seats and onto the streets if they fail to help us.

Backhouse

"CAPITALISTS WITHOUT CONSUMERS ARE OUT OF BUSINESS."
Venture capitalist and entrepreneur Nick Hanauer wrote "we have rigged the economic system in a way to destroy my customer base."

In the business world as in biology, there are symbiotes that are mutually beneficial to other organisms, and then there are parasites that drain the life out of the host organism until it dies. The Republicans are the party of the parasites.

[What's really funny(sad?) is Feisty thinks this [below] is good news for Obama!]

As Americans file for bankruptcy in record numbers and credit card debt
explodes, more workers are a paycheck away from losing their homes. Now the
frail economy is pushing them over the edge. With 9 million unemployed workers
in July, the face of homelessness is changing to include more families shaken by
joblessness.

WCA, if you believe this, you STILL aren't paying attention. It seems the only ones that are banking on this being good for Obama (in that negative, self-centered sort of way) is the GOP/Tea Party, which is the very reason why they choose to do very little or nothing about it.

Hey phinephancy, I know you don't need to here this from me, but you are, obviously, always welcome.

I would like to pay you a compliment. One day last week, you posted that you had spent some time reading all the comments and felt the need to post.

I give you a lot of credit for that. Most of your friends here have put anyone with a dissenting opinion on ignore. We may not agree on much, but at least you haven't completely shut out people with a differing view and at the end of day, listening to each other is the only way this country is going to move forward.

It must be Monday, Fiesty is the first to post again haha. I think I know the days she has off now. How much do they pay you for your daily first read diatribes? I am thinking about taking some writing classes and switching careers. I can be a lib, or a neocon, it doesnt matter.

Really WCA: "Most of your friends here have put anyone with a dissenting position on ignore"..

Source?

Here's your reasons:

Why would anyone want to keep this no-good "Community Organizer" in the White House for another four years, when he was never qualified for, nor ever the deserved his first four year term in office??!!
Instead of posting mindless ramblings which don't even make any sense and confirms just how much of a blind, Leftist, Liberal, Socialist, Democrat follower you truly are, why not defend B. Hussein Obama's RECORD AS POTUS?? Hhhmm??!! Anybody can attack another person and try to divert attention away from Obama's THREE YEARS OF FAILURE & ZERO POSITIVE RESULTS ON THE U.S. ECONOMY.

And like Obama, say things that divide Americans and promotes class warfare and pits one American versus another, but what good has Obama done in the THREE YEARS that he's been in the White House? What has improved under his watch?

Obama, the Leftist, Liberal, Socialist, Democrat party and their followers, all think that the American people will simply just re-elect this Marxist, Socialist by ignoring his entire 1st four-year term of FAILURE as POTUS and "blame Bush." He's not a uniter or a solution seeker at all. All he knows is how to pit one American class versus another, one American industry versus another, one American corporation versus another, one American religion versus another, one race of American versus another, etc. etc. etc.

That's all this Radical, Left Wing nut-job of a President has, because everyone knows that NOTHING'S IMPROVED UNDER OBAMA, not the U.S. Uemployement rate, not the toxic housing market, not ever dropping property values, not the credit crunch for small businesses getting bank loans, not healthcare costs going down (they're actually higher now and will go up since Obamacare passed), not keeping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, not increasing home mortgage foreclosures, not record number of Americans on Food Stamps, Medicaid, etc. This joke of a President is the worst one in a generation, if not since Jimmy Carter. He not only DOES NOT deserve a 2nd four-year term, he never deserved the 1st one!!

If his "hope & change" horse manure ideas worked, we'd be seeing SOME IMPROVEMENT in the U.S. Economy in the THREE YEARS he's been President, nothing's gotten better under this "community organizer" EVERYTHING HAS GOTTEN EXPONENTIALLY WORSE, however, ten times worse than under former President Bush.

Houston,

Yes.

Republicans are setting themselves up in a parasitic relationship with the 99%.

They do not seek to create a symbiotic relationship with us.

Well New Day, I don't have the time or inclanation to go back and search through the myriad of left posters bragging about putting people on "ignore", but if you have paid any attention here, you know it's the truth.

Ben lotsanumbers:

Thank you for your very thoughtful and well-reasoned analysis. I just can't understand why I didn't vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin. After all, didn't John tell us the fundamentals of the economy were sound? The following week when he discovered he was dead wrong, didn't he offer to suspend his campaign to fix the problem that didn't exist the week before? What a guy!

Doesn't Palin's command of history reassure us that we are not doomed to repeat it?

And of course, with us being a trifle overstretched in Afghanistan and Iraq, well, bomb, bomb, bombing Iran would have been a well-need distraction and diversion. Hell, almost a vacation, wouldn't you say?

I just don't know what came over me. I'll be sure to vote for a good Republican candidate this time around. Let me know when you have one.

Christine Amanpourn ABC disproved Newt's Palestine is invented. The term has been used longer than the so-called beady eyed "historian" says.

AMANPOUR: And it is historically incorrect. Because, you know, way in the 1800s, they were called the Palestinians.

But here's the point. The point is that that kind of brashness, that kind of conviction, is playing -- is playing, so isn't that a worry, for instance, for -- for your party?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-jon-huntsman-analysis-abc-news-iowa/story?id=15133117&page=7#.TuY1GPLNm4Y

Palestinians were around before the Ottoman Empire. You'd think Newtie , being a historian and all that, he'd know it.

What is invented is Newt's ego. Suddenly Newt has reconciled as he claimed in the last debate. Really??? What a disgusting joke I saw no change at all as evinced by the asinine things he said. I'm willing to bet thousands and thousands of Americans as well as millions around this planet did too.

Putting little children in toilets to clean them instead of the classroom to learn is not productive or a display of any reconciliation on Newt's part. Neither is spewing racism about Arabs.

As expected all the looney liberals are bashing the hell out of the Repub candidates while ignoring the fact that their guy has been a total failure. 75% say we are heading in the wrong direction!! Gee, the libs would have us believe that all 75% must be wrong!!!!!!!!! Nothin like a liberal explanation.......................

The only thing that would have made Willard's bet look worse is if he'd actually pulled the money out of his pocket. LOL

Joe in Albany - Did you not notice that the reference article that Fisty gave was from August 11 th? Oh yes and did I metion it was August 11, 2003!!!! ROFLMAO

So what if Mitt was lying through his teeth. Even if someone calls him on the bet, it's only a measley 10 grand for cryin' out loud. The average wealthy family gets a subsidy of $130,000 a year from the GOP tax cuts, and Mitt gets more than that. He can lose 13 bets a year and still come out ahead.

Besides, I hear he's suing the company that makes flip-flops for violating his trademark.

nisl

Jack - Thanks. Spanky is a fairly typical wingnut troll; he is a moron incapable of critical thought. He is also a liar, there is no way that goof is a high school graduate, much less a lawyer. His M.O. is to come here and ask stupid questions any first grader should be able to answer.

I've been say for a very long while Spanky is a FAKE. so are his best buds Dr NO aka No Joe All Blow, Lady Sniff 1, Joe in Albany, etc.

I love CHRISTMAS LIGHTS—

they remind me of liberals. They all hang together, half of them don't work, and the ones that do aren't that bright.

backhouse, nisl, bev, the corrupt organizer, carrot top.... and other koolaid drinkers prove this description of liberals everyday at FR! (credit to George H on this one!)

I know carrot top's posts serve no purpose but to stir up sh1t. (Someone said her comments are like a plate of lasagne.... mostly noodle beds but little meat or cheese!) but do the rest of you actually believe the crap you post? Do you actually believe obama is acually a better president than good ole Jimmy Carter? Do you actually think obama deserves a second term?

No, WCA, I don't know that it is the truth. It may be YOUR truth, it may be that you want the perception out there that those of us of a liberal persuasion can't take in views that oppose ours, but like all generalizations, yours falls apart upon challenge.

So: Answer the following: Provide the sources requested that liberals avoid posts purely because they disagree with us.

Do right wingers have posters on ignore? If so, why? Is it more palatable to you if a right winger does it?

I have exactly one person on ignore. Spanky. The reason is not that he disagrees with me, but that he is disagreeable, and I don't like trolls.

You?

wca,

Most of your friends here have put anyone with a dissenting opinion on ignore.

Not true. You post nothing but dissenting opinions, but people are responding to you, aren't they? Ergo, you must not be on Ignore.

But having posted that lie you should be, because the liars are among those we put on Ignore.

"Consider, for example, that a puny 3 percent surtax on incomes above $1 million would be enough to maintain and expand the current payroll tax cut beyond December, preventing a $1,000 increase on the average worker’s taxesat the worst possible time for the economy.

With a few more pennies on the dollar, we could invest in rebuilding schools and infrastructure. And even if we imposed a millionaires’ surtax and rolled back the Bush- era tax cuts for thoseat the top, the taxes on the richest Americans would still be historically low, and their incomes would still be astronomically high."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-07/raise-taxes-on-rich-to-reward-true-job-creators-nick-hanauer.html

Nope NDD, I haven't got anyone on ignore. See, I figured out how to use the scroll button on my mouse. (I usually scroll past the cut and pastes. I prefer peoples own words most of the time.)

If you think I am wrong about the Libs here and the ignore feature, then you really are blind.

Hmmm - The Democrats took over the House and the Senate on January 3, 2007 at the start of the 110th Congress. First time the Democratic Party controlled a Majority in both chambers since 1995. Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee - and what part of the economy stated the meltdown 15 months later? BANKING & FINANCIAL SERVICES.

Speaking of Budgets - Democrats controlled the process for 2008, 2009, 2010 & 2011. See a budget lately??

Still all Bushes fault - (The Obama and patron rallying cry)

I will not allow you to put that back on me, WCA: You have made a statement that you claim is fact. Support it, or apologize.

Or are you exempt from providing data to back up a statement you have made?

But having posted that lie you should be, because the liars are among those we put on Ignore.

don't know Jack in Portsmouth, your statement is consistent with the liberal philosophy of ignoring any facts that don't suit the liberal agenda. Progressive my a$$!

I'm done with this NDD. I am exempt when the posters who I have attributed my claim to have chosen to hide all their past posts.

So quit worrying about my simple comment, because I really don't care whether you believe the truth or not.

Hallelujer, Jack

I ignore only those who are liars and thieves. I have historically NOT ignored wca; but if this is where he's heading with this rabbit hole,...it can be arranged.

It isn't dissent that is ignored. It is HATE. Some are so blinded by their hate that their posts have NO merit. Second verse, same as the first. They just carry on and on with the same fabled responses. Oh, or they are thieves. They know who they are. They feel justified in their behavior because it's apparently okay to steal from their enemies. I find them morally bankrupt and reprehensible and engaging with them as though they are 'normal' human beings is not worthy of my time.

Obviously, I don't have him on ignore; but it can certainly be arranged.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Viet Sem Fi

By your logic,...the Presidency doesn't matter, right? I mean if all that the Dems did was SO evil,...why didn't Bush veto it?

Get real. Some of you act like a multi trillion dollar economy is as fluid as a 24,000/year income. These things don't just TURN around in one year, or two years or even three years - although you can see TRENDS. The fact is, the FIRST stimulus was needed in early 2008 - and it came due because of the reckless spending, without asking Americans to sacrifice, by Bush 2001-2007,...

ndD..R: I will not allow you to put that back on me, WCA: You have made a statement that you claim is fact. Support it, or apologize.

My, how forceful.

Plenty of Libs have said they put me on "Ignore", but still respond to my postings. It's not clear that they understand what "Ignore" means. Walker, Annie Molly, skip (who I think holds the record for the number of "Ignores") and Surfer Jack come to mind as recent "Ignorers".

It's just too much for them to handle I guess.

Got your underwear in a wad already Dawners? It's just Monday and already you have fallen off the deep end telling people what to do.

Me? I read them all - You Libs are way too goofy to "Ignore".

don't know Jack in Portsmouth, your statement is consistent with the liberal philosophy of ignoring any facts that don't suit the liberal agenda.

To put it bluntly, you're full of c**p. You seem to possess neither Pride nor Joy.

Clara,

I find them morally bankrupt and reprehensible and engaging with them as though they are 'normal' human beings is not worthy of my time.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Several weeks ago all of you so called progressive posters were talking about income inequality and how tax policy caused it or the rich caused it and how GOP policies eliminated the middle class. Then the CBO report came out showing how the income impact to the various quintiles since 1979 but since that report provided all of you with the data to scream to the heavens, none of you site it and you have gone back to your trite class warfare punish the rich, pay your fair share (with no definition of what that is), blame the GOP talking points. What was clear from the report was that first and foremost, the education gap was and continues to be a huge reason for income inequality and what party has been blocking education reform for years? Cant blame that one on the GOP and in fact, the democrats fear of the teacher's unions and their unholy economic alliance has caused more damage than anything else in terms of reform. So second cause was the shift of government assistance over time to seniors who are no longer in the lowest quintile. Since we continue to provide seniors who control 80% in the aggregate of the nations wealth, we are providing assistance to the wealthy and that is exacerbating the income inequality problems and will continue to do so as the baby boomers age and retire. Which party is blocking entitlement reform? Not the GOP? Then you have the impact of illegal and legal immigration continuing to bring a new influx of workers into the bottom quintile as people move up into higher income quintiles. Who continues to push that agenda?

Its hard from the 60 minutes interview to tell whether Obama truly believes what he says or if he is just campaigning. Its truly scary if he doesnt see that his policies have made things worse not better and he hasnt learned from his economic mistakes.

Viet Sem Fi:

You might want to check your sources on that "Democratic super-majority" misstatement. You conveniently left out some pertinent information.

When are we gonna get this, it will not really matter who the Puppet in the White House is going to be for some real changes in the economy, jobs and foreign relations, it's whether the lobbyists are going have the same rights and powers as before or not!

Don't be fooled by all the shows they put in front of you, these are to distract you from the real issues so they can continue having their ride for another four years! They'll ride us as long as they can as far as they can to fill their pockets as much as they can. Demand for lobbyism to be abolished or at list to be limited as much as possible so that no president or congressman can be affected by lobbyist power.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says President Obama's 2009 stimulus package continues to benefit the struggling economy...

By CBO's numbers, the $800 billion stimulus added up to 0.9 million jobs in 2009, 3.3 million jobs in 2010 and 2.6 million jobs in 2011. As the effects of the stimulus wind down, Obama has been pushing Congress to enact a $447 billion jobs bill that includes infrastructure spending and tax cuts."

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/195181-cbo-says-obama-stimulus-still-helps-economy

(From the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office on the President's Stimulus Bill.)

And there you have it folks: when challenged to provide a source to support a generalization, WCA hides. He prefers his prejudice to fact.

What is so hysterically funny about it is that WCA admits that he "scrolls" past certain, thereby ignoring them.

Hypocrisy this early in the morn..don't you love it?

And I see poor smiffy has popped in. Smiffy, here is what is true about people ignoring you. It has nothing to do with dissent. It is simply that you are such an unpleasant person, people don't like their day ruined by reading your various smears and insults.

Trust me; nothing you post is worth reading.

Navy Dude: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says President Obama's 2009 stimulus package continues to benefit the struggling economy..

What was the CBO saying about the economy and it's future in, oh, lets say, 2007?

NewDay: And I see poor smiffy has popped in. Smiffy, here is what is true about people ignoring you. It has nothing to do with dissent. It is simply that you are such an unpleasant person, people don't like their day ruined by reading your various smears and insults.

Kind of like you?

In 2007, it said Crystall Balls Not Included.

The data just provided from the CBO is reporting the facts on what HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.

This President stopped the Bush Great Recession from sliding into a Great Depression.

And No thanks to the Do-Nothing-But-Kill-Jobs-Kill-the-Economy Leaders in the Republican party.

Wow, smiffers, that is weak even for you!

And I see poor smiffy has popped in.

Here comes the old nag to defend her BFF WCA!

Why, isn't that special? lol

For the record, I have 5 posters on ignore - it takes a certain 'talent' to make my special 'list'!

Wow, smiffers, that is weak even for you!

She hasn't had her oats yet! ;o)

@backhouse -- let's say for the sake of argument that the CBO's figures are correct (which they usually aren't since they only reflect what the administration submitted to them). That would work out to 188,888 jobs per month but the bottom line is the other policies have killed more than 400,000 jobs, added to more food stamps than ever, etc.

The argument that unemployment would have been worse without the stimulus is a dog that don't hunt. Blow that argument out your pie-hole.

People who put others on ignore and/or collapse postings are immature, closed minded, weak minded scared little people. They are scared of being wrong. They are scared of other ideas. They are what is bad and wrong with America. Like little kids with their hands over their ears going NANANANANANANANAN I can't hear you. Real mature huh.

This President stopped the Bush Great Recession from sliding into a Great Depression.

That certainly is the talking point, but is so far from the truth. Obama and his crack economic team did predict that unemployment would be below 6% by now, did they not? Obama did say that if he didn't have the employment situation in control by the end of the third year, it may be time to get a new President, did he not?

Because these wonderful things never happened, the Left needed a talking point, something that could not be proven, one more thing they could chant, and it turned out to be "Obama saved us from a Great Depression". No proof, no facts, just leftwing rhetorical bs for their uneducated followers.

And you certainly bought into it.

Tell you what NDD, you get your friends to stop hiding their comments and I'll prove it to you. Why don't you see if you can get Feisty to put it on the agenda for your next "strategy" meeting.

I also see you entirely miss the point about scrolling past cut and pastes. Doesn't surprise me.

Let's see if this makes sense:

If I want to know what Think Progress has posted I will go to Think Progress. No need to keep putting their work up at First Read.

Well, lookey there, I guess I wasn't quite done with this.

You're drowning in Waffle Land.

Entertainment/NoEthics/MoneyforBrains right wing politics has no use for the facts.

And Graham said this about Gingrich to Politico last week: “He really does seem to have grown.”

Uhhh. . . In which way, Lindsey? I guess when you feed at the pork barrel trough. . . .

Charles said it best!!!!

"In the first month of his presidency, Barack Obama averred that if in three years he hadn't alleviated the nation's economic pain, he'd be a 'one-term proposition.' When three-quarters of Americans think the country is on the 'wrong track' and even Bill Clinton calls the economy 'lousy,' how then to run for a second term? Traveling Tuesday to Osawatomie, Kan., site of a famous 1910 Teddy Roosevelt speech, Obama laid out the case. It seems that he and his policies have nothing to do with the current state of things. ... Responsibility, you see, lies with the rich. ... For Obama, these rich are the ones holding back the 99 percent. ... A country spending twice as much per capita on education as it did in 1970 with zero effect on test scores is not underinvesting in education. It's mis-investing. ... In Kansas, Obama lamented that millions 'are now forced to take their children to food banks.' You have to admire the audacity. That's the kind of damning observation the opposition brings up when you've been in office three years. Yet Obama summoned it to make the case for his reelection! Why? Because, you see, he bears no responsibility for the current economic distress. ... This is populism so crude that it channels not Teddy Roosevelt so much as Hugo Chavez." --columnist Charles Krauthammer

So, it is okey dokey for you, WCA, to have criteria to ignore posts, and that you ignoring them doesn't mean that you are afraid of dissenting information. An objective observer might think that to be the ultimate in hypocrisy. I know I do.

If people who post here ignore some others, it may be for reasons other than a disagreement of views. Would that not be a fair statement?

You may have to think that one over WCA, because to disagree with it puts the lie to why you say you ignore posts.

I know carrot top's posts serve no purpose but to stir up sh1t. (Someone said her comments are like a plate of lasagne.... mostly noodles but very little meat or cheese!) but do the rest of you actually believe the crap you post? Do you actually believe obama is acually a better president than good ole Jimmy Carter? Do you actually think obama deserves a second term?

Bill (1.53) great post, how else could you put carrot top and lasagne in the same sentence? Lasagne is great comfort food and feisty is the stuff you get on the bottom of your shoes when walking thru a dog pound!

President Obama spoke about collective amnesia and rightly so. Apparently, there is an epidemic of selective amnesia concerning the 2009 and 2010 Senate "Super Majority".

For those who persist in the Senate Super majority lie of the 111th Congress and the continuing obstruction of the 112th Congress. So,how did anything get passed?( ie. Healthcare Reform, unemployment benefit extensions, payroll tax cuts) Ah, that dirty word -compromise. Even then and today, every bill needed votes from the Independents, Blue dog Dems and Republicans.

No matter how many times you repeat that Super Majority lie it is still a lie. Did everyone forget the Blue Dog Dems (ie. Evan Bayh, and others?) In fact, they never had a Democratic super majority because of Leiberman(I. Conn), just another pissed off Independent that consistently votes with the Republicans even though he will caucus with the Dems. He backed McCain, didn't he?

There was never a "Senate Super Majority" for any length of time. The GOP/TP has set a historical record for the number of filibusters in this administration and it still continues to obstruct any bills to move us forward.

The Senate Super majority myth

January 3, 2009 - 111th Congress sworn in. 55 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents, 2 vacant.

January 15, 2009 - Roland Burris sworn in to Barack Obama's seat. 56 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents, 2 vacant.

April 30, 2009 – Arlen Specter changes parties. 57 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents, 1 vacant.

July 7, 2009 – Al Franken seated. 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE DEMOCRATS HAD A SHOT AT A
60-VOTE MAJORITY AND STILL NEEDED BOTH INDEPENDENTS.

August 25, 2009 – Teddy Kennedy dies. Kennedy had missed 97% of the votes in 2009 and over 90% in the last half of 2008. 57 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents, 1 vacant.

September 25, 2009 – Paul Kirk appointed to Teddy Kennedy's seat. 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans, 2 Independents.

THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THE DEMOCRATS HAD A SHOT AT A 60-VOTE MAJORITY AND STILL NEEDED THE INDEPENDENTS.

February 4, 2010 – Scott Brown sworn in to replace Paul Kirk. 57 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents.

June 28, 2010 – Robert Byrd dies. Byrd had missed over 90% of the votes in 2010 and almost 50% in 2009 due to illness. 56 Democrats, 41 Republicans, 2 Independents, 1 vacant.

November 29, 2010 - Mark Kirk sworn in to replace Roland Burris. 56 Democrats, 42 Republicans, 2 Independents.

Super-majority? It never really existed because during
two periods when Teddy Kennedy and/or Robert Byrd were unable to vote they still needed to get the votes of every Democrat plus BOTH independents.

FACT: The "Democrat supermajority" is a G.O.P. lie.

FACT: The GOP used every roadblock, filibuster, and secret hold they could think of so that EVERY bill had to have a 60-vote margin to pass.

Hello Cynthia,

Thanks for posting that. I chose to attempt to point Viet Sem Fi in the right direction regarding the "super-majority" myth instead of reposting the facts you so eloquently posted above.

Cyn, you nailed it for us all again. More facts right here:

"Since 1980, the share of the nation's income for fat cats like me in the top 0.1 percent has increased a shocking 400 percent, while the share for the bottom 50 percent of Americans has declined 33 percent. At the same time, effective tax rates on the superwealthy fell to 16.6 percent in 2007, from 42 percent at the peak of U.S. productivity in the early 1960s, and about 30 percent during the expansion of the 1990s. In my case, that means that this year, I paid an 11 percent rate on an eight-figure income."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-07/raise-taxes-on-rich-to-reward-true-job-creators-nick-hanauer.html

Post #1 Again no sign of human Intelligence....

Talk to the Hand

Joe in Albany - Did you not notice that the reference article that Fisty gave was from August 11 th? Oh yes and did I metion it was August 11, 2003!!!! ROFLMAO

________________________________________

I did not notice that. Monday’s are tough. Thanks

LMFAO@U Nasty Redhead!!!!!!!!

Moron.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted 8/11/2003 11:11 PM Updated 8/12/2003 1:45 AM

Homelessness grows as more live check-to-check

By Stephanie Armour, USA TODAY

Homelessness in major cities is escalating as more laid-off workers already living paycheck-to-paycheck wind up on the streets or in shelters.

As Americans file for bankruptcy in record numbers and credit card debt explodes, more workers are a paycheck away from losing their homes. Now the frail economy is pushing them over the edge. With 9 million unemployed workers in July, the face of homelessness is changing to include more families shaken by joblessness.

Are you saying that when Kennedy and Byrd were alive, then technically there was a super majority based on the caucus?

Whew!

The tea baggers finally collapsed me...

I was afraid, I would make it to noon before they managed to suppress free speech! ;o)

Joe in Albany: - Did you not notice that the reference article that Fisty gave was from August 11 th? Oh yes and did I metion it was August 11, 2003!!!! ROFLMAO

If you notice, its a Google address, not the address of the real article. That happens when you "Copy Link Location" before you click on the Google link after a search.

So Feisty was looking for some article to show proof about unemployment, did a Google search, she found her "proof", and just copied the address without opening and reading the article.

Only a complete moron would do such a thing.

JoAnna the perpetually delusional.

Because these wonderful things never happened, the Left needed a talking point, something that could not be proven, one more thing they could chant, and it turned out to be "Obama saved us from a Great Depression". No proof, no facts, just leftwing rhetorical bs for their uneducated followers.

LOL!!!

You ignore the facts, such as the independent economic analysis, in order to preserve the spoon fed delusions you want so desperately to believe.

-----------------------------------

John Makin of the conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute:

The real economy also responded to the massive stimulus but remained heavily dependent on it. In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009.

http://www.aei.org/outlook/100928

Or Mark Zandi, advisor to the McCain campaign:

The Great Recession has finally come to an end, in large part because of unprecedented policy efforts by the Federal Reserve and fiscal policymakers. The cost to taxpayers has been substantial but would have been even greater if aggressive action was not taken and the financial crisis and recession had been allowed to continue unchecked.

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/JEC-Fiscal-Stimulus-102909.pdf

Or the CBO about the third quarter of 2009:

On that basis, CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States, and real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher, than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA (see Table 1). Those ranges are intended to reflect the uncertainty of such estimates and to encompass most economists’ views on the effects of fiscal stimulus.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10682/Frontmatter.2.2.shtml

Or what the CBO said about the forth quarter of 2009:

In sum, CBO estimates that in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2009, ARRA’s policies:
-- Raised real GDP by between 1.5 percent and 3.5 percent,
-- Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.5 percentage points and 1.1 percentage points,
-- Increased the number of people employed by between 1.0 million and 2.1 million, and
-- Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.4 million to 3.0 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise (see Table 1).

The effects of ARRA on output and employment are expected to increase further in calendar year 2010 but then diminish in 2011 and fade away by the end of 2012 (see Table 3).

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11044

On that basis, CBO estimates that in the first quarter of calendar year 2010, ARRA’s policies:
--Raised the level of real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and 4.2 percent,
--Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.5 percentage points,
--Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million, and
--Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise (see Table 1). (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11525/05-25-ARRA.pdf

------------------

Study up, kid.

Ben lotsanumbers:

If you're confused about what Cynthia was saying, re-read the post. It was crystal clear. I'll go a step further to help you. At no time did the Democrats hold a filibuster-proof majority during President Obama's first-term. For that to happen, both Independents would have had to throw in with the Dems. At not time, did Democrats hold more than 58 seats. I challenge you to show otherwise.

Mitch McConnell made it clear that Republicans would short-circuit any legislation that would even remotely assist President Obama's in his re-election bid. Were it not for President Obama's superior political skill, McConnell might have succeeded in his vile plan.

Further, with or without a filibuster-proof majority, it is a fact that Republicans have placed "secret" holds on other legislative issues.

The stark horrible truth is that the right-wing crazies have decided that victory means killing the United States. How very 1984 of you.

And thus goes Feisty!

(show me the clown nose, fisty!)

Hey, Sick,

You and fist-y see any good movies lately?

carrot top's goal has been achieved again.... another collapse of poisonous drool posing as a politcal comment! Drool that makes no sense other than to emulate the class warfare obama has choosen as a political strategy. congrats carrot top, have another boilermaker on other cheap shot artists everywhere!

The tea baggers finally collapsed me...

I was afraid, I would make it to noon before they managed to suppress free speech! ;o)

Seldom Seen Sam, despite feisty's claim, I thing the entire thread (1) was collapsed by left wing wacko's who couldn't defend the points made by all the non- left wing wackos in that thread!

Again feisty is taking credit for someone elses efforts! Kinda reminds me of obama! lol!

Feisty, Can the collapsers and 'Class Warfare Merchants' handle the truth in any form?

Without consumers there will be no entrepreneurs or investors. And vice versa.

Happy customers who have $money coming in -- will create businesses -- and money coming in for US businesses of all sizes.

Backhouse, those are some of the stupidest illogical statistics totally taken out of context you could make. So I assume that Albert Pujols is one of those people whose income is going up dramatically in that one percent. Do me a favor and figure out how much he is going to pay in tax. Explain how he isnt going to pay his fair share? Then you use tax as a percentage of GDP as an effective rate which is just wrong. If you are working wealthy you are paying an effective rate in the mid 40s and closer to 50 if you live in New York. At no time in our history have the wealthy paid a larger percentage of the overall government revenue and of course you forgot to state that right? You forgot to say that with the same rates we have now, the wealthy paid more under Bush because the economy was better, so you forgot to say that too right? You forgot to explain what fair share Albert is supposed to pay when he is a 1 percenter but because he is one of a handful of people in the world who can do what he does so dont you think its merit based? You think we should have an equality of outcome with Albert and everyone else? You forgot to mention Obama's failed education gap right? You forgot to mention that income inequality is happening because of the democrats refusal to touch entitlement reform and the providing additional wealth to the wealthiest segment in our country our seniors right?

Answer: The square on the hypotenuse.

That should take care of those wildly false & disconnected statements.

Jim.

Seldom Seen Sam, despite feisty's claim, I thing the entire thread (1) was collapsed by left wing wacko's who couldn't defend the points made by all the non- left wing wackos in that thread!

Another example of a wingnut rationalization made to preserve the collective right wing delusion.

Dumb, dee, dee, dumb, dumb, dumb....

You forgot to explain what fair share Albert is supposed to pay when he is a 1 percenter but because he is one of a handful of people in the world who can do what he does so dont you think its merit based?

By that logic ballerinas should receive merit-based pay and become 1 percenters because so few can dance the way they do.

'Cants: Or Mark Zandi, advisor to the McCain campaign:

I bet you have a poster of Zandi handy when you pleasure yourself. And it's an "adviser" 'cants. At least try to be literate, okay slick?

So Feisty was looking for some article to show proof about unemployment, did a Google search, she found her "proof", and just copied the address without opening and reading the article.

Only a complete moron would do such a thing.

JoAnnaSmith, we both know that feisty does that a lot. So does Bev, the corrupt Chicago organizer, et al! I've noticed none of the other libbies call them to task on that or any other blatant hypocrisy, but that is no surprise to us, eh? Just libbie talk!

Jack, you wrote:

"Instantly I thought of the unholy alliance and greed of Wall Street bankers, corporations, and past and current members of Congress who have cannibalized this great nation. And then I thought of the "I, Me, Mine" crowd who rides in their slipstream."

Late apologies for not thanking you on your marvelous post, and for sharing personal & insights like these with us all.

Jack--your absolutely right if someone wants to pay them. Isnt that what our capitalist merit based society is all about. Albert makes that kind of money because he is so good at what he does, people are willing to pay alot of money to see him do it. It is no different with any business. Everyday someone is taking a risk and opening up a small business and working their butt off to make it work. They are taking a risk and investing time and money and they deserve all the money they make if people are willing to buy it. Thats the success Obama wants to punish and create equality of outcomes. Where is personal accountability or self reliance? Backhouse's statistics are just wrong and he doesnt want to address it. Because Albert works in a ton of states and cities, I will bet his effective tax rate is over 50% so explain to me how thats not paying his fair share.

Obama we trusted, now we're BUSTED. @ fiesty...I thought the oath was important. You? I thought the founding fathers only wanted us to pick leaders who live the oath. You? We need to get back to the foundation of our country. Wake up and stop advancing false fundamentals. I believe in America first, not the corpses and banksters. That is why I am supporting "The Peoples President 2012" Not one based on the idea that "he seems like a guy to have a beer with" (obama) The record is what matters. The oath is what matters.

Kirk, You are wrong my friend. The tax rates you mention are nominal rates prior to any adjustments, deductions, subsidies, tax breaks, economical incentives etc.

I would challenge you to find anyone who would actually pay that tax rate as a "net" tax rate.

More distortions from the right!!!! They can argue that tax rates are 40%, 50% or even more, but the bottom line is that high income individuals and corporations rarely end up paying more than what ammounts to a 20% tax rate.

For you and I, our rates end up being significantly higher when you figure in Federal tax, SS, Medicare, State tax, and on top of that regressive taxes are huge for the middle class and working poor. Taxes such as gasoline tax, sin taxes(tobacco and alcohol), communication taxes on telephone, cell phone, internet etc.

Keep believing all the lies that the GOP tells you.

"Gingrich’s bombast and hot rhetoric"

Didn't we get enough of this with W. Bush???????????? The last thing we need is some a-hole stirring up trouble.........

Beverly wrote:

"One more thing $10,000 is trending all the over the world. The world is laughing at "US" thanks to these fools."

Bev, The world is watching as Republican leaders block job creation and growing the economy. European citizens watches as they themselves do everything they can to keep their own economies above water. Meanwhile in the United States, GOP/Koch leaders vote No to 2 million jobs.

The world is watching as Republican leaders and congressional refuse to create revenues that would grow our economy and create jobs, while demanding cuts or the end of our safety nets. They refuse even as the majority of Americans of all income levels ask them to raise taxes.

Americans are watching as Norquistian Republican leaders and Candidates attempt to lead us in a Race to the Bottom.

JoAnna.

I bet you have a poster of Zandi handy when you pleasure yourself. And it's an "adviser" 'cants. At least try to be literate, okay slick?

I understand your frustration.

Spoon fed a delusion you cannot support.

LOL!!!!

Dumb, dee, dee, dumb, dumb, dumb....

Thank you, Backhouse. I'm glad you enjoyed it and I appreciate the feedback.

Repulicants,

Lie Brigade out in full Delusional Splendour & Regalia, to your 12 o'clock.

David Walker, thank you. I may not post often, but when I do comment, I back it up with indisputable facts. Anything less would just be an opinion. Therefore, an opinion, any opinion, if based on a lie or a belief of a proven lie, makes the writer of the opinion a liar.

Now, be waary quiet..I'm hunting wabbits reregs! heh, heh, heh, heh, heh! ;-)

Kirk:

You forgot to explain what fair share Albert is supposed to pay when he is a 1 percenter but because he is one of a handful of people in the world who can do what he does so dont you think its merit based?

Sure, merit-based if you consider hitting a scientifically designed, tightly strung ball with a carefully carved and aerodynamically efficient piece of wood as far as possible something meritorious.

Far more valuable than a good teacher, or a nurse, or a firefighter, or a police officer, obviously.

I like baseball, Kirk, and I think Albert Pujols is easily the best player of his generation, but that kind of money for what he does is patently obscene. And you know it, or would, if you could get your head out of ... the clouds.

As for paying his "fair" share, do you suppose that the rich may be paying a larger percentage in taxes than they used to because, relatively speaking, they have so much MORE money than they used to have, while the middle and lower classes have so much LESS money to pay taxes on than they used to have?

No, I don't suppose that has ever occurred to you, Kirk.

Because that would force you to acknowledge that the TRUE re-distribution of wealth is not happening from the top down, but rather, facilitated by policies that you and others like you espouse, from the bottom up.

I found your personal attack on Backhouse to be completely unwarranted, but SO very much just like you.

Anna Molly,

Sure, merit-based if you consider hitting a scientifically designed, tightly strung ball with a carefully carved and aerodynamically efficient piece of wood as far as possible something meritorious.

I agree--and I love baseball, too. I would have said modern dance instead of ballet because some truly creative things are going on there. But I doubt that Kirk is the kind of person who appreciates artistic interpretation. No sense of subtlety or refinement.

Another thing, I don't understand why Backhouse gets so many negative hits from some of these right wing guys like Kirk--totally unwarranted.

There are only two possible scenarios going on here. Either the Republican Party really is this stupid and this unorganized, or...

the GOP puppet-masters are unwilling to put up the kind of money and the kind of candidate it would take to defeat Obama... given that they see that the economy they left him will take longer to recover than they thought, and that they would not be able to spend or push their agenda anyway, they prefer to let Obama have one more totally handcuffed presidency. And given the blocking they can do to assure Obama very little real success, and given that Clinton will not run, 2016 would be for them to lose... at least in their minds.

Otherwise it makes absolutely no sense why they would allow Gingrich to be the front runner.

Anna Molly--well since I am both a Green Bay Packers fan and St. Louis Cardinals fan its been a great few years in terms of team championships and losing Pujols was no fun. I dont understand your argument unless you truly believe we should live in a socialist economy. If we are going to be a market based capitalist economy in which the market determines the income, outcomes in which baseball players make more money than what others consider as more important to a civilized society is always going to happen. However, nobody is forcing baseball owners to pay him that much and no one is forcing fans to go to the games nor forcing anyone to watch them on TV and creating advertising revenue to pay him. Just as no one is forcing anyone to go into teaching, firefighting or police work. Obviously people take those jobs with those incomes knowing full well what they will make. You seem to think that personal choice is left out of the equation.

As for fair share, you clearly didnt read the CBO report that showed that the vast majority of the income inequality comes from the education gap and which party is creating the barriers to education reform? Second, government assistance such as social security and medicare because in 1979, 97% of those payments went to seniors in the lowest quintile and now its 47% because seniors in the aggregate are much more wealthy and control 80% of our countrys wealth. This will continue to exacerbate our income inequality issue as the baby boomers retire and there are many other causes such as illegal immigration etc. After tax income inequality was impacted by the Bush tax cuts but the impact of this is no where near the impact of these other items. So your fair share argument means that you want equality of outcomes regardless of inequality of effort and investment. I am not sure I can debate you on that because we are never going to see eye to eye if thats the starting point.

You know as well as I do and Rob tried to correct me up above and I am not sure why you guys keep trying to do that. I am all for elimination of loopholes deductions etc to make the tax code simpler, fair and yes progressive. But I dont care how much Pujols makes that is way too much in comparison to your view of his value to civilized society as I feel the same about Lady Gaga but in no even should his effective tax rate be over 50%. Rob, the fact that on average there are a ton of retired people who are wealthy and living off interest and dividends with low effective tax rates and of course receiving social security doesnt change the fact that the working wealthy and small business owners pay income tax at the 35% plus phase outs and the state and local city rates that Obama wants to life to close to 50% all in. Thats a big fair share dont you think?

Anna Molly--I noticed that in an argument last week with someone you used my reasoning with someone else but didnt give me credit for it when we debated earlier on cost benefit of legislation. ha. Why did you give me such a hard time for asking why we didnt look at the unintended costs of legislation before making decisions when you turned around and used that same line on someone else. I just dont understand why you think the worst of me just because I am fiscally conservative.

Kirk:

Why did you give me such a hard time for asking why we didnt look at the unintended costs of legislation before making decisions when you turned around and used that same line on someone else. I just dont understand why you think the worst of me just because I am fiscally conservative.

I don't know exactly what you're talking about, but I apologize if you thought I used something of yours. That idea is not new to me, and I didn't get it from you. I normally try not to steal people's thoughts without giving them credit. I wish that same courtesy were always applied to me, but then again, thought should be free, shouldn't it?

I don't think "worse of you" just because you're fiscally conservative. It is isn't what you are, it's how you are.

You don't like me much, either. It's okay.

Jack:

they prefer to let Obama have one more totally handcuffed presidency. And given the blocking they can do to assure Obama very little real success, and given that Clinton will not run, 2016 would be for them to lose... at least in their minds.

Yes, indeed. I am SO totally afraid you are right. Winning in 2012 would not only be just gravy, but on a more sinister level, almost antithetical to their REAL goals of handcuffing government for as long as possible without actually having to do anything. If they win, they'll be exposed again, and probably sooner than they want.

I like the way you think, Jack. ;-)

OOps. I like the way you think, LMarcT. Sorry.

Kirk.

As for fair share, you clearly didnt read the CBO report that showed that the vast majority of the income inequality comes from the education gap and which party is creating the barriers to education reform?

Actually.....

This is what the CBO said:

Why Did Market Income Become Less Equally Distributed?

The market income of households can become more unequally distributed over time if individual components of income become more highly concentrated or if the composition of income shifts so that a greater share of total income comes from components that are more highly concentrated.

Over the 1979–2007 period, the first of those factors was the primary reason overall market income became less evenly distributed: All major sources of market income became more highly concentrated in favor of higher-income households.

---------------

Ok. So notice the bold? All major sources....

Now, it is true that the CBO also said,"labor income was the biggest contributor because it is by far the largest source of income....."

Which, put together with this question an answer in the report:

Why Has the Distribution of Labor Income Grown More Unequal?

Of those factors, increases in the inequality of hourly wage rates appear to be the largest contributor to the increased inequality of cash labor income. That trend in the distribution of hourly wages stems primarily from a growing demand for skilled workers relative to the supply of such workers.

-------------------------------------------

Would make it easy for some right wing website, pundit, hack, etc, to feed you the conclusion that the "the vast majority of the income inequality comes from the education gap"

------------------------------------

I would suggest that you actually read the report next time.....cause you missed some things, kid.

-----------------------------------

Labor income was the biggest contributor because it is by far the largest source of income, even though the increase in the concentration of labor income was smaller than the increase in concentration for other sources.

A shift in the composition of income also contributed to the growing concentration. A decrease in the share of total market income from wages and other labor compensation and an increase in the share from capital gains contributed to the increase in market income inequality because capital gains are much more concentrated among higher-income households than is labor income.

----------------------------------------------------

So...in reality, you really didn't read the CBO report yourself, and you thought you were clever parroting some blog, website, oped, pundit, etc.

Study up.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485

Kirk.

Second, government assistance such as social security and medicare because in 1979, 97% of those payments went to seniors in the lowest quintile and now its 47% because seniors in the aggregate are much more wealthy and control 80% of our countrys wealth.

Another thing the CBO found was that policies such as social security, medicare, etc, had grown steadily less effective over time in respects to income inequality.

"Largely because of the decrease in the share of transfers accruing to households in the lower part of the income scale, the overall redistributive effect of transfers lessened between 1979 and 200."

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485

Kirk.

So your fair share argument means that you want equality of outcomes regardless of inequality of effort and investment. I am not sure I can debate you on that because we are never going to see eye to eye if thats the starting point.

That is your projected starting point, for, as I showed, your argument is weak.

You need to project that the "fair share" argument means "equality of outcomes regardless of inequality of effort and investment."

You need to project in an effort to make your argument appear stronger.

It is still weak.

The real point is that the policies that led to this inequality - deregulation, lower taxes on the wealthy, have led to the income inequality we see today.

No one is saying we should tax the rich, and hand out the money on the street.

However, there is great benefit to the country as a whole if that money is used to fund things like education and infrastructure so the country and individuals have the education and resources to excel in today's world.

alwaysanother.

You are not the first delusional poster to parrot that list of projections.

LOL!!!

Your delusion is strong.

always another wingnut.

A gallon of regular gasoline the day Obama was inaugurated was $1.79 on average in the U.S. Today that price is $3.59, a 100.6% increase. The number of food stamp recipients has risen since Obama took office from 31,983,716 to 43,200,878, a 35.1% jump. Long term unemployment soared 146.2% during the same 32 month period from 2,600,000 to 6,400,000. Staggering hope and change isn't it?

Staggering ignorance on your part.

Your delusion requires you to ignore the recession that he inherited, of course. You must preserve the delusion...

LOL!!!

Dumb, dee, dee, dumb, dumb, dumb...

I find it difficult to believe that anyone trying to have an intelligent debate cites CBO numbers. While for some generic studies it's numbers might have relevance, for the cost of bills and programs by Congress it's numbers are meaningless. By law the CBO can only use the data it is given by Congress to come up with its numbers.

Based on the numbers it was given, the CBO said Medicare would be paid for. Medicare has how many TRILLIONS in unfunded liability?

hs321

By law the CBO can only use the data it is given by Congress to come up with its numbers.

Based on the numbers it was given, the CBO said Medicare would be paid for. Medicare has how many TRILLIONS in unfunded liability?

This is a misconception.

The CBO does it's analysis based on the laws, policies and situation at the time.

It can analyise based on different circumstances, if asked, but they cannot predict the future. Things always change, such as laws, spending, revenue, etc.

The CBO caveats each and every report with a statement stating this.

Cable news strikes again.

Anna Molly--I definitely dont dislike you--I do get frustrated by your posting style as you generally come in and pick on something within a larger post you dont like and then stop. Just like you did here, you said something about Pujols making too much compared to a teacher etc but then when I replied you went off on something else. Your posts against me are always trying to portray some failure of compassion or social justice theme and then when I say maybe the initial social justice fix that you advocate will actually create more damage just unseen or unintended so lets discuss to make sure your fix is going to work. The exact same argument you made to a conservative poster somewhere else for example. But then you decide that I am not worthy of further debate and move on to reply to a future post with the same theme. Did you ever think that maybe some of us want some of the same outcomes just we have different views on getting there? Unless you really do feel that we should have equal outcomes regardless of equality of effort, ambition, merit, investment etc then maybe we are different. But that would mean, you really should charge an hourly rate as a lawyer to provide you a salary equivalent to a teacher, firemen, policemen because your individual talent, merit and effort if your job isnt more important to society as a whole shouldnt be higher than theirs.

But no I dont dislike you

Republicant--Do you really take yourself this serious? If so you need to find some comprehension skills. Do you understand that skilled labor is the definition of education gap? Do you even understand what you write and read? This issue has already been debated and its really not something that is even a debatable issue. Have you read the editorials when the CBO report came out and all the various economists and pundits discussing it? You clearly are behind the curve. If I was in your shoes and debating the other side, you should have provided the sections that said there were increases associated with senior executives and the types of payments they received over the last 10 years that were skewed to the higher brackets but that was a small part of the income inequality but it certainly played a role. It also said that the Bush tax cuts impacted after tax income inequality but again not the initial compensation. You totally misinterpreted the government assistance aspect with your quotes but maybe this was intentional because it doesnt play well with your partisan talking point campaign rhetoric. Government assistance isnt intended to move people up in the income quintiles you moron, you move up via work, self reliance, merit, job promotion etc. So by providing social security and medicare to individuals in the higher quintiles you exacerbate the income inequality impact and it will continue to get worse as the baby boomers retire. I could go on and on but you are unwilling to have a real discussion as your critical thinking skills have been replaced with your idealogy

Kirk.

Do you really take yourself this serious?

Not really. I enjoy mocking ignorance.

If so you need to find some comprehension skills. Do you understand that skilled labor is the definition of education gap? Do you even understand what you write and read

Did you even read the report?

It sure didn't seem like it.

Have you read the editorials when the CBO report came out and all the various economists and pundits discussing it?

You didn't, did you? Rather then read the report, you simply repeated what you heard cable news pundits blather on about.

Let me explain again.

The report did not say that the education gap was the reason for the income gap we have seen over the last 30 or so years. That is what the pundits who were telling you what to think said, jr.

The CBO found that "all major sources of market income became more highly concentrated in favor of higher-income households."

Not just the distribution of labor income.

The labor income only had the largest impact because it is the largest source of income. However, the income gap here grew at a lower rate then all other sources of income.

Try actually reading the report next time. You can work on comprehension in the future.

Kirk.

If I was in your shoes and debating the other side, you should have provided the sections that said there were increases associated with senior executives and the types of payments they received over the last 10 years that were skewed to the higher brackets but that was a small part of the income inequality but it certainly played a role

If you were in my shoes, you would have actually read the report.

Had you read the report, you would have understood it.

But you are correct here, as many pundits have said, some of the inequality was found to have come from higher executive pay, higher celebrety income, and other such things.

You totally misinterpreted the government assistance aspect with your quotes but maybe this was intentional because it doesnt play well with your partisan talking point campaign rhetoric. Government assistance isnt intended to move people up in the income quintiles you moron, you move up via work, self reliance, merit, job promotion etc. So by providing social security and medicare to individuals in the higher quintiles you exacerbate the income inequality impact and it will continue to get worse as the baby boomers retire.

I misinterpreted nothing, jr.

I never said government assistence was meant to move people up, you delusional parrot.

I simply said that those programs had less impact on the income inequality then in the past.

I could go on and on but you are unwilling to have a real discussion as your critical thinking skills have been replaced with your idealogy

You did blather on and on, and the only thing you offered WAS IDEOLOGY.

You sited nothing in the CBO report you never read, but did feel informed enough via your favorite pundit to think you could intellegently comment on it.

Oops.

LOL!!!

Study up, kid.

Republicant, sorry but not a kid over 50 with 4 kids and more experience in all of these items than you could understand but hey you are right, I couldnt handle your intelligence and critical thinking. Not only did I read the report in its entirety but I actually understood it. There is so much more that you clearly didnt read and didnt understand and I am tired of explaining it to someone who just doesnt want to learn or comprehend. You prefer to label people and make stupid remarks regarding parroting and cable news crap than really having a honest intellectual debate and discussion. Your like the trash talking basketball player that is too busy jawing at his opponent that he doesnt even understand that he just got dunked and lost the game because it makes him feel good to say "in your face" for meaningless points.

Lets take a couple of your silly comments and then lets agree to stop because you have no willingness to be anything but rude and ridiculously dumb. First, the comment all major sources of income were concentrated at the higher income levels is a statement not a cause. What is your last level of education? Is that statement at all surprising to you? It speaks nothing to mobility within the quintiles nor the causes of rising wages? You realize that wages are the primary source of income correct? So when they say the primary cause of differing wages is greater demand for skilled labor thats the education gap right. Now I dont want to do your work for you because this issue has been discussed to death in the WSJ so just go look it up. Shoot, two democratic senators even put out a white paper saying the single biggest issue is the wage gap for educated and skilled labor. Then you totally miss the point on capital gains and small business income. You do realize that the change in 1986 to the tax law which made it more tax efficient to conduct business in flow through entities like Subchapter S, LLCs, partnerships caused that income gap right? So Bill gates and Warren Buffet create wealth in entities that are taxed within corporations and they value of their portfolios go up with stock value increases is no longer the method of accumulating wealth right? Now a small business owner (over 70%) recognize their income on their personal returns creating a huge inflow of that type of income over the last 30 years instead of inside C corporations which wouldnt show up on returns. So you do understand you have to put that income back in its proper place now right? My guess is that you will try some pithy comment that is meant to show your superior intellect and I will just laugh but nice try.

Second, you absolutely did try to say that social security and medicare helped people move up and didnt exacerbate the problem. These programs exacerbate income inequality and did have a much greater impact than in the past because they basically had minimal to no impact in the past. If government assistance went solely to the lowest quintile in the past and now go 50% to higher quintiles then that means they are exacerbating the problem. I dont even get why you want to debate this.

Once you can show you have an ounce of objectivity come back and lets discuss. Otherwise, please go back to Fiesty, Backhouse and the gang of paid bloggers

Kirk.

sorry but not a kid over 50 with 4 kids and more experience in all of these items than you could understand but hey you are right, I couldnt handle your intelligence and critical thinking

Kid refers to your naive and juvinille views of these issues, not your actual age.

And you made it very obvious that you do not have any experience in these issues.

Not only did I read the report in its entirety but I actually understood it

No you didn't.

If you had read it, you would have cited it as a source, and used it in your arguments. Instead, what you did was reference what the pundits had been discussing, and ignore the actual content of the report.

There is so much more that you clearly didnt read and didnt understand and I am tired of explaining it to someone who just doesnt want to learn or comprehend.

LOL!!!

Your concession is noted jr. Next time, don't attempt to talk abut issues you know nothing about. Don't assume that just because it sounded so good coming from some pundit that it is a good argument.

Do your own research, think the issues through on your own, and come to your own conclusions.

You prefer to label people and make stupid remarks regarding parroting and cable news crap than really having a honest intellectual debate and discussion. Your like the trash talking basketball player that is too busy jawing at his opponent that he doesnt even understand that he just got dunked and lost the game because it makes him feel good to say "in your face" for meaningless points.

I prefer to mock ignorance. Your posts were ignorance... and the meaningless points, backed by the CBO report you ignorantly thought made your point.

LOL!!!

Seriously. All you did was blather. You did not cite one source. Not even the CBO report that you originally reffered to.

Study up.

Kirk.

Lets take a couple of your silly comments and then lets agree to stop because you have no willingness to be anything but rude and ridiculously dumb

Most clueless ideologs, like yourself, do not like it when they are called out for being ignorant. But ok. Let's address the points in the report you never read, jr.

First, the comment all major sources of income were concentrated at the higher income levels is a statement not a cause

It is a statement refering to the reason income was less evenly distributed.

---------

Over the 1979–2007 period, the first of those factors was the primary reason overall market income became less evenly distributed: All major sources of market income became more highly concentrated in favor of higher-income households.

You realize that wages are the primary source of income correct?

Yes, jr. I stated as much.

I quoted this part of the report in my original response to your spoon fed delusion:

Labor income was the biggest contributor because it is by far the largest source of income, even though the increase in the concentration of labor income was smaller than the increase in concentration for other sources.

---------------

Read it carfully.

--------------

The increase concentration of labor was smaller then the increase in other sources, but because labor income is by far the largest source of income, it was the biggest contibutor.

Because skilled workers were in demand, their wages were higher, but since the increase in consentration of income from labor was smaller then all other sources of income, it does not logically follow that education is the driving factor behind the income gap.

Education is a factor when considering labor income, but it speaks little to the overall trend.

ALL other income sources saw a larger increase, specifically the income sources for those at the top, suggesting there is something else driving the increase other than education.

You are like all liberals on here--when faced with actual critically thought out responses in which you have no ability to refute, you resort to personal attacks because you think it deflects debate and makes you look credible. When in fact all it makes you look like is Lindsey Lohan from Mean Girls and no credibility. I noticed you actually ignored the substance of my post which clearly you didnt understand in order to personally attack me. Do you have some personal fascination with the word pundit? Mock away as all you seem is a bitter less credible dolt. You remind me of fanatical religious people both christian and muslim as they state their ideology from their religious texts and when provided actual factual counterpoints, they say yes but God says this and you give them facts and they say but God says this and your going to hell. Your that person that says but I dont care about facts, your still wrong.

Kirk.

Now I dont want to do your work for you because this issue has been discussed to death in the WSJ so just go look it up.

BWHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAAHAAA!!!!!!!!

I did look it up, jr. I read the actual report.

You, instead, decided that the hacks in the WSJ OPED dept. were all you needed.

No wonder you just got schooled.

LOL!!!

Once you can show you have an ounce of objectivity come back and lets discuss. Otherwise, please go back to Fiesty, Backhouse and the gang of paid bloggers

LOL!!!

I'll tell you what. Once you can show you have researched the issues on your own, thought them through, on your own, and have come to your own conclusion, I will stop mocking you.

Otherwise, go back to parroting WSJ OPED's, and ignoring the actual report.

LOL!!! Too fn funny.

Kirk.

You are like all liberals on here--when faced with actual critically thought out responses in which you have no ability to refute, you resort to personal attacks because you think it deflects debate and makes you look credible

LOL!!!!

I was not faced with anything critically thought out. I was faced with the B.S. you parroted from a WSJ OPED.

You were faced with the ACTUAL CBO REPORT that did not say what you were told it said.

You should have read the report instead of the OPED. IJS.

I noticed you actually ignored the substance of my post which clearly you didnt understand in order to personally attack me. Do you have some personal fascination with the word pundit?

I ignored nothing. I addressed what little substance their was in your post, and I used the CBO report to do so. What have you used? Loose references to WSJ OPEDs?

In addition, you used the word pundit when you let slip where you got your opinion....which was based on the opinions of pundits.

Have you read the editorials when the CBO report came out and all the various economists and pundits discussing it?

Mock away as all you seem is a bitter less credible dolt. You remind me of fanatical religious people both christian and muslim as they state their ideology from their religious texts and when provided actual factual counterpoints, they say yes but God says this and you give them facts and they say but God says this and your going to hell.

LOL!!! Irony? I think so.....

You are more like the fundi, kid, repeating the opinions of pundits, and ignoring the actual CBO report those pundits were obfuscating.....

Your that person that says but I dont care about facts, your still wrong.

No. That is you, jr.

You are the one that ignored the facts in the actual CBO report, never sited a single source, bragged about your knowledge (yet showed nothing but ignorance) and made it clear OPEDs that tell you what you want to believe were your preferred sources.

Despite the facts, you still insist that I am wrong, and your best argument seems to come down to Lindsey Lohan.

LOL!!!! Good stuff. Study up, kid.

I dont know whether to laugh or cry at your juvenile behavior. Are you in 6th grade still with the constant use of LOL and your inability to use words other than parrot, pundit, mock of whatever. Yes I read the actual report and was just trying to educate you. Everytime you actually provide even a sliver of real substance to a reply you ruin it with your silliness. Like I said your that trash talking basketball player that uses words like "schooled". Yes know I am now putting my head down in shame because you schooled me ha right. So far not only have you not schooled me but you have made yourself less credible and your own fool. You constantly site something and then dont understand what you cite. Just like you tried to tell a lawyer about how bankruptcy works. You unfortunately have a higher view of your intellectual abilities than they actually are and you would be best served acting like a normal human and trying to be civil. You dont have to stop mocking me because by doing so you lose all credibility as a debater and critical thinker so please dont stop on my behalf as its so much more becoming on you to be thought of a Lindsey. In fact, maybe you should change your moniker to that.

As for your post above, I already explained how you had to adjust labor for the movement to flow through tax entities like Subchapter S Corps but my guess is that is beyond your comprehension so I am not going to explain that one again. As for your silly attempt to try to now fall back on the education gap, you are now defying logic and common sense and all discussion. Again I am not going to do the research for you on the huge difference between college grads and below in terms of income and what is amazing about this discussion is that I dont think its a dispute among democrats or GOP. Both sides clearly recognize we have a huge education gap which creates income inequality. The democrats dont want to highlight that because its not consistent with their class warfare fair share rhetoric and it doesnt play very well in their anti education reform unholy alliance with the teachers union. So they dont want to highlight it buts its not a point of actual factual contention which is why this argument just makes you look amazingly silly.

Is the reason for this attempt at mocking me because you are one of those social justice equal outcomes no belief in self reliance and personal accountability people? You probably are one of those people who thinks Albert Pujols should be taxed at 70% and we should have equality of outcomes for all of us even those who cant hit a baseball. I get it now. Are you currently part of the Occupy my Parents extra bedroom protestors because you want socialism and all of us to go back to horse and carriage green energy? It is starting to make sense why you are so angry.

Kirk.

I dont know whether to laugh or cry at your juvenile behavior

You should be more concerned with your juvenile view of the issues.

Yes I read the actual report and was just trying to educate you

You did not read the report, jr. If you had read the report, you would have cited the actual report, and not referenced what the WSJ OPEDs have been talking about.

As for your silly attempt to try to now fall back on the education gap, you are now defying logic and common sense and all discussion

What the hell are you talking about?

You didn't read or understand the report, which is why you made the claim you did, which you got from the WSJ. It is also why you do not follow the logic, and do not understand why the education gap is not the driving factor.

I explained this twice, using the CBO report to do so.

Again I am not going to do the research for you on the huge difference between college grads and below in terms of income

I don't expect you to do any research, especially considering you haven't as of yet.

I am not disputing the difference between college grads and non-college grads.

I am disputing your parroted suggestion that the education gap is what is driving the income disparity in this country.

Is the reason for this attempt at mocking me because you are one of those social justice equal outcomes no belief in self reliance and personal accountability people? You probably are one of those people who thinks Albert Pujols should be taxed at 70% and we should have equality of outcomes for all of us even those who cant hit a baseball. I get it now. Are you currently part of the Occupy my Parents extra bedroom protestors because you want socialism and all of us to go back to horse and carriage green energy? It is starting to make sense why you are so angry

Angry? LOL!!!!

Oh. Just as most will do when the crap they were fed falls apart, you start projecting and deflecting....asking stupid ideologically based questions that speculate about what you need to believe about me.

I mean, it is inconcievable to your ideological reality that the WSJ led you astray, and that you got taken to school because of it.

Again, jr. Study up. (And the next time you attempt to debate something, do a bit more reading. Then you will be able to support the crap you post with more then just vague references to WSJ OPED discussions.)

LOL!!!.. Wow. Just wow.

Ok we are done. Go back to your parents room and continue to be the little Lindsey you are. I referenced the WSJ one time unrelated to the CBO report which by the way, DCIA and I went through provision by provision some time ago if you had paid any attention. If you havent noticed, you are the one that has deflected the entire debate with your grade school attempts at mocking and humor and no real critical thought. Nobody has led me astray and no you didnt take me to school nor did you even win a single issue or debate. You came across as a silly little girl with comprehension problems but now I realize why alumni blogs are so much better with real critical thought and its generally not a place where kids like you try to play.

Kirk.

Ok we are done.

You should have quit a long time ago. You would have avoided making yourself look so damn stupid.

Go back to your parents room and continue to be the little Lindsey you are

LOL!!! These little projections are cute.....and also make up some of your best arguments, jr.

I referenced the WSJ one time unrelated to the CBO report which by the way, DCIA and I went through provision by provision some time ago if you had paid any attention. If you havent noticed, you are the one that has deflected the entire debate with your grade school attempts at mocking and humor and no real critical thought

Now I dont want to do your work for you because this issue has been discussed to death in the WSJ so just go look it up.

LOL!!!

You NEVER provide one source. NOT ONE. Which is why your reference to the WSJ is so funny.

I was the one who went step by step and explained why the point of view the WSJ fed you was false. I did so using the actual CBO report that you made painfully obvious you never read.

Nobody has led me astray and no you didnt take me to school nor did you even win a single issue or debate. You came across as a silly little girl with comprehension problems but now I realize why alumni blogs are so much better with real critical thought and its generally not a place where kids like you try to play

Somebody led you astray, kid.

It is extremely improbable that you came to the same baseless and indefensable positions on your own.

And again, jr, your projections are amusing.....mostly because even those are not original. You are not the first, tenth, or even hundreth right winger to project laziness, basement living, etc onto me in order to deflect from the fact you came up patheticaly short attempting to defend what you repeat.

Study up, jr.

There was not a lot to thread #2, so...

At times I often hear people complaining about Morning Joe and lambast this politician or that one. Had to drive my child to school today so I came in late, he had a big science project that wouldn't handle the bus well. So I decided to put on Morning Joe.

Never have seen former Governor and Sen. Joe Manchin Democrat from W. Virginia. I was really impressed. He didn't play the blame game and point figures and demonize. He wondered why he couldn't get people to work together in the Senate. He didn't understand why politicians no matter their stripe didn't want the President to succeed and by default everyone in the country. He rightly said that taxes should be fairer, some loopholes should be removed. The rich should pay their fair share.

He touted his ideas to increase mining extraction in a safe and environmentally friendly way. On deficit issues, he mentioned the Bowles Simpson plan for deficit reduction and increasing revenues. When asked by the commentators why nothing was done, he couldn't understand but plans to put forward with 45 other senators a plan to vote up or down on the Deficit commission's recommendations.

When Miya asked him if he was a democrat, he said he was. He believed in the social safety net but also said it should be there for those that needed it. He correctly stated that the payroll tax cut extension should not be extended to protect social security.

Oh no watching and commenting on Morning Joe. Perhaps I have become a regular here?

I find it interesting that after articulating his views, he was asked if he was a Democrat.

My gut feel is that there are many things that the Left and Right could find common ground on.

But they both stay beholden to where the money is coming from.

Geeez, some of this stuff is really just common sense.

Isn't it?

WCA - Some common ground can be found each side needs to give a little tax increases and spending cuts. Energy production with safe environmental protections.

By the way, I saw your tussle with some of the others in thread #1. So I have to comment about one of your posts in thread #1.

Tim Tebow is something else. I can't believe he beat my Bears. Down by 10 with 2 1/2 minutes and the guy just keeps winning. Bears recover their onside kick and still lose! I like the guy and hope he continues to succeed despite the haters, but not against my Bears. Arggh.

Romney's chief campaign message (he's a businessman that can turn the economy around)

you do not need to be a businessman to turn this economy around. You need to be free of Monetary Obligations to Corporate America, and the Wealthy (almost synonymous), An understanding that you cannot spend more than you take in. And that if your in the red, you need to get more income by tightening the belt, stop Tax Breaks, maybe even increase them for a couple of years. Use all these Government Agencies to really investigate the Welfare System and make Entitlements for the truly Elderly and Disabled. No more extra credits for the number of kids you pop out, Tax Corporate Income generated by Employees/operations overseas at 90%.

That's a start!

Hey Mark, always nice to have a civilized conversation.

As a Lions fan, hard to say if Marion Barber or Tim Tebow did us a bigger favor yesteday. (I'm leaning towards Barber. Stay in bounds for gosh sakes!) I really like the Tebow too.

It was funny to watch the analysts on Sportscenter last night falling over themselves trying to explain what is going on.

They came just short of saying God had a hand in the Bronco's victory.

I am a very strong believer in God, but personally, I think God has a few other things more important than an NFL game to worry about.

I played football in college. Sometimes, the breaks just go your way, but sometimes you make your own breaks.

Tebow has had a bit of both lately.

Now the big question. Tebow is definetly not the kind of quarterback John Elway envisioned leading his team, but at this point, he has to stay with him long term, right?

Just thought I would pop in with a Tebow comment here. The folks in the NFL that are betting against this kid may be making a big mistake. I watched him play high school footbal at Nease, and of course, at Florida (Go Gators!). He may not be the superskilled passer of some, but he has the heart of a champion and the force of personality to make those around him better. (And why the Jags were stupid enough to pass on him, I will never know)

You are right phinephancy. When I played ball I learned to never, ever underestimate a person's heart or will to win.

Stick around sports long enough, you will see some amazing things.

Tim Tebow is a great story.

New England next week. Tebow v Brady. Pretty sure the NFL will be hyping that one.....

Yeah guys its all about the breaks, sometimes crazy things happen. The Cowboy/Giant game was another one of those deals. Manning comes back and scores, Romo responds. Giants ice the Cowboy kicker Bailey prior to the snap and makes it but it didn't count. Then he gets the 2nd attempt blocked. Two games in a row a last second kick by the Cowboys fails due to time out calls. Although I can't stand the cowboys felt for the kicker.

A Cowboy fan's least favorite drink nowadays "Bailey's on Ice."

Bears, three losses in a row without Cutler. Detroit may squeak in as a wildcard but the Packers are on fire. Phinephancy sorry don't follow the jags.

Jody,

It's good to hear the analysis from someone who lives in Iowa. Thanks for providing it.

What republican primary voters want is someone who can take over the presidency with ideas that work to strengthen the economy as well as strengthen our security in a world far less safe than it was three years ago.

(Caveat- I rarely vote in primaries, since New Jersey's "last in the nation" primary, which occurs in June, usually means nominees are already known. In fact, I would have voted in 1992, but the candidate I was supporting for the Democratic nomination, Paul Tsongas, had already dropped out).

We want a nominee who bases policies on reality- not ivory tower perfect world solutions that have no prayer of succeeding in the real world. We want someone who admits when a policy is failing, abandons it, and moves on to something that actually will work.

Want an example of Obama's dogged adherence to failed policies? Read USA Today's article on his failed foreclosure programs- touted to help millions save their homes, they've spent billions to help dozens. Moreover, they've prolonged the housing crisis, further depleting the wealth of the very middle class for whom Obama claims to be a warrior.

Or read this

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/nightmare-dream-team_611847.html

Now, I understand that liberals believe that abandoning any policy that fails is to be termed a "flip flop", but the reality is that mature, intellectually honest people actually do change their minds about issues when confronted with information contrary to their former beliefs.

So, trot out the ad hominems. Trot out the attacks on people's personal lives, hair styles, wealth, religious beliefs. While you're at it, trot out class warfare and ephemeral slogans, like "hope" and "fairness". None of it will matter.

The electorate sees what Obama has wrought.

Obama shelved in 2012.

"trot out the attacks on people's personal lives"....

no jo coming from you this is funny indeed. No end to the hypocrisy with you is there?

Well, no jo, my mouth dropped open when I read that you supported Tsongas in 1992, because I did too. My best friend said at the time, that Clinton reminded her of the man who date-raped her, which seems pretty prescient, and I was not impressed with Bill during the primary, maybe because "Southern charm" leaves me cold.

Bill Clinton won me over with his intelligence. So the guy is a sleezy skirt-chaser, I'm not married to him, I don't care, as long as he can show me the big picture, that's what I look for in an office holder. I watched President Obama on 60 minutes and yes, as a female I like his eyes, his voice, his face, and his smile, but, most of all, as a voter, I like how he puts the issues into perspective. The man is a genius. None of the Republicans is a genius. Ron Paul is the smartest of the bunch, and I bet Obama would enjoy talking with him, but none of the Republicans has the depth Obama has, the empathy or the persistence of the President. Myself, I find President Obama pretty breathtaking.

Jody, thanks for all these insights into your home state,

"Unfortunately, the center-right faction has lost its voice to the loud, prejudiced, hateful rhetoric of the Steve King and Bob Vandar Platts side just as it has nationwide."

While we're out here suffering from terrible losses, the Right leadership plays power politics one concerted blow after another.

They care about Power first and last.

Hi Jody,

This cast of characters are showing us all that the only choice in 2012 is President Obama.

You're welcome, Jack.

Perhaps No Joe can provide us a list of these new "ideas" from the GOP. Personally, they haven't had a new economic idea in 30 years, it's the same old, tired, and proved wrong ideas they tout.

Here's what the GOP represents these days: tax cuts for the rich solve all problems, cut the size of government but don't touch the military, eliminate the safety nets, eliminate child labor laws, disenfranchise millions of voters with discriminatory voter ID laws, eliminate taxes on business despite the fact that big business is doing just fine thank you very much, eliminate workers' right to collective bargain, eliminate public school teachers, fire union janitors and replace them with poor students.......

Excellent analysis, Jody. (Love the avatar, too)

I'd point out that Missouri is literally "Below the Belt" of Iowa. And sadly, they've allowed the nutty voice of the right to overtake the reasonable voice. This state has had a balance of representation for decades; but I feel pretty certain that with the vote AGAINST President Obama in 2008 (first time Missouri didn't pick the winner) and with the election of Roy Blunt to the Senate,...Missouri has lost the bellwether and become the belfry (you know, where the 'moon' bats roost).

Hi Amy,

So true. A Great interview of a Great President.

Perhaps No Joe can provide us a list of these new "ideas" from the GOP. Personally, they haven't had a new economic idea in 30 years, it's the same old, tired, and proved wrong ideas they tout

I asked the very same question on comment #1, so far, 41 replies and not ONE answer!

*shakes head*

Speaking of interviews, I saw your crack-pot Governor on MTP yesterday!

Poor Terry, came across as nothing more than a trained parrot!

Jody, in 3.7 - bravo - the only thing missed is the 'culture' war,...women's reproductive rights and anti gay anything and everything. I have long thought that the TRUE meaning of religion,...ANY religion is NOT that you hold moral superiority; but rather that those who are challenged to find spirituality find it and those who are challenged to accept differences learn to accept. THAT is the meaning of life.

But no, Dominion is something this crazy crew of righties feel ENTITLED to have. By hook or by crook. My family went to see the play A Christmas Carol yesterday and I was struck, as I am EACH time I see it by how prescient Jacob Marley is cast as the Republican. If ever Charles Dickens had a POLITICAL mind,...it is in that play.

May G-d Bless us, everyone! - Tiny Tim (a fellow 99%er)

... when the heart and mind go down seperate paths one is easily stuck in an ideological past ... from personal experience:

In my 20’s my heart and mind were one and I was a Liberal. In my 40’s my heart and mind took separate paths and I became a Conservative. In my 50’s my heart and mind were one again and I am once again a Liberal.

Thanks, libs for adding great points to my thoughts while enjoying my morning coffee.

One more thought, perhaps Jersey Shores can tell us when the GOP will abandon "supply-side, trickle down" economics and deregulating financial institutions which have proved to be disastrous to the American economy and the middle class. She claims we should abandon ideas that do not work yet the biggest 30-year "has not worked" ideas are continually spewed from the mouthes of every GOP candidate. There's a big difference between a flip flop and abandoning those things which do not work.

Feisty, I didn't watch MTP opting for Christ Haye's UP yesterday so I missed old Branstad. He's a piece of work. I still can't figure out why voters elected him again ignoring the mess he made in his first 16 years at being Governor. From what I hear, there's some genuine voter regret going on. Branstad got smacked down by the court last week for his closing many Work Force Development offices and then keeping the money that funded them. Shades of his first 4 terms.

Clara, how could I forget the war on women!

ideologyspoilstheview, your #3.12 reflects the path many of us took.

An article in the paper said Romney was taking a "hands off" approach to Gingrich but that's a wink, wink, nod because watching NBC for the local and national news Friday night, I counted 7 nasty Romney attacks on Gingrich ads--Mitt's campaign may not have paid for them but wink, wink.

That's Chris Hayes' UP in case the spelling and grammar police are lurking.

Jody, Iowa:

You certainly gave us an excellent post to begin this discussion at 3.0. You have a knack for this stuff.

I have an observation that might add a bit on this subject. I can't escape the idea that there is a constant undercurrent of fear and hatred that directs a substantial portion of the extremists in the G.O.P. - the real RINO's.

The extremists hate for President Obama is beyond irrational. They can find the weakest of reasons to support their hatred. We know of the lies about his birthplace and his religion. No matter, they cling to the lies. They hate him for his color. They hate him for his party. I hear this crap day in, day out.

The same is true for Romney. His primary sin is his choice of religion. Gingrich is virtually everything that Republicans condemn. He has no respect for the institution of marriage. He is a shameless lobbyist. It's almost as if it's a joke with this guy when he smirks and says he was paid for his value as a historian. That's OK though, because he's a Republican and he's NOT a Mormon.

The extremists - and there's a lot of them in the G.O.P. - are driven by hatred and fear. That's how it shakes out for me.

Gingrich . . . . is a shameless lobbyist.

It seems like over the years many presidential candidates have run on being an "outsider" (of D.C.). Newt cannot do this obviously, and he will certainly be portrayed as an insider--which will be a real negative because he can't lay claim to being able to bring the parties together. Maybe this is one of the reasons why Rove and others are even more desperate now to have Romney as their candidate.

First of all, Jody, you need a little education about what supply side means.

Go back to the stagflation of the 1970's. Economic growth and output were flat, yet lack of supply meant ever increasing prices for goods and service. On a graph, the supply line was almost off the cart, while the demand line was, also, off the chart- in the opposite direction. The problem was NOT resolved by Volker's tight money policy- however much you and he would like to drug yourselves into believing it was- but increasing supply.

Reagan opened the borders, goods flowed in, and voila! Inflation was checked.

Obama might want to learn that lesson as regards the oil supply- but I suspect that he,like you,is too stubborn to learn it.

By the way, there is ample proof that Reagan's policies worked- inflation died, employment rose along with GDP at a roaring pace- and it just kills any of you to admit it.

Facts, however, is facts.

Consider the results of Obama's policies- we have a limping recovery, and the only reason unemployment is not in the double digits is because so many people have been unceremoniously shoved out of the civilian labor force. It's at 1983 levels, Jody. Do you think all those people simply hit the lottery for millions of dollars?

Consider the effect of his "reining in Wall Street". Did Dodd Frank stop Corzine from embezzeling over a billion dollars from his client accounts to gamble in euro bonds? No? How is that?

We need a return to basics. I like Perry's modified flat tax- closing all deductions for those earning over half a million per year, while dropping the rates for everybody. Therefore, the highest earners will, in fact, pay a higher rate- as there will be no deductions to cut their tax liability. You ought to be all over that-somehow, I don't ever see it in any of your posts.

Keystone should be building that pipeline right now- and kindly spare yourself the embarrassment of trotting out the peculiar ravings of the morons on the far left wing sites you delight in using as "facts"- they have none. The actual facts are that building that pipeline will create- instantly- twenty thousand union jobs- with their multiplier of twelve. Of course, Obama thinks he has plenty of time to appease the unions after the elections, while appeasing the flat earth society today. Unfortunately for us, Keystone WILL build that pipeline sooner rather than on Obama's schedule- they'll just build it west, rather than south, and sell the oil to the Chinese, who will be glad to have it.

Gingrich's idea of paying high school students for after school jobs is also a good one. The first "white collar" job I had was working after school in the guidance office- typing, filing, and answering the phones. It paid minimum wage- but was better than the jobs I had cleaning the summer people's houses. That job led me to my next- working after school in a local real estate office, doing the same work. It was full time in the summer, and helped me start saving for college. Incidentally, I worked my way through working in offices - and added to my savings by working in hotels as a maid when I could get the work during the summers.

In other words, a little work never killed anybody, but it does give people a sense of independence, which democrats seem to have a problem with. Why is that, I wonder.

It could not possibly be because they need so many people to be dependent on their taxpayer funded largesse, could it?

David Walker, thank you for the compliment. In John Dean's book "Conservatives without Conscience", he spoke of how the GOP thrives on fear, that they need fear to succeed whether it is fear of communists, terrorists, others not like them--it's what makes them tick.

No Joe, I don't need an education on what "supply side" means; I am well educated in economics having written an in-depth analysis of Reaganomics compared to Galbraith and other economists for a college paper in the 80's, I know what I'm talking about. Reagan threw "supply side" under the bus after the first year because it didn't work but as always, the GOP, has embraced the Myth of Reagan rather than the real pragmatist--you, No Joe, are proof of the myth. We're still waiting for the list of "new" ideas from your side but since your GOP candidates have none, you cannot provide them. A flat tax is not a "new" idea but the same old tired one that actually harms anyone making less than a quarter million. Ahh, never mind, there's no point. Have a nice week.

@ No Joe

It appears to me that someone doesn't understand the difference between supply and demand?

It's astonishing how some people throw caution into the wind and post uneducated and unrealistic economic concepts.

There is a vast distinction between logic and EMOTION.

An emotional response will never fix a problematic economy. Economics is a science not a feeling!

NJBJ - you sanctimonious pious (fill in the expletive). Why it is that conservatives think they are the only 'early' workers? As a very liberal democrat I started working at 10, by the time I was 14 I had two jobs, with three at 17. I continued to work 2 jobs until I was 24, when I finally landed a single job with enough pay to meet necessities. So how does that meet your generalization of lazy non-working liberals. To spin a phrase, take your job and shove it!!

Jody at 3.0

Here's an idea that's been percolating in the back of my head recently: In answer to the question that all of us have been asking (i.e. what is going on with the GOP?), numerous people have noted the well-qualified (i.e. not insane) Republicans who are sitting this election out - Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, etc. I have also noticed "powers-that-be" who have been uncharacteristically quite (e.g. Karl Rove).

I have come to believe that the real power in the GOP decided (about 2 years ago) that 2012 would not be their year for the presidential election, but that it didn't really matter because with a majority in the House and the fillibuster in the Senate, they could do what they wanted anyway. I think that they don't actually want to win the presidency in 2012 because they know that the economy will not be fixed in so short a time. If the GOP wins in 2012, they will take the blame for the continued economic problems of this country and of the world. If they lose, the dems and President Obama take the blame. So they concentrated their money and their real efforts on solidifying their power in Congress and in the state governor's mansions and legislatures, and let the Tea Party nuts spend themselves into irrelevancy in this election.

We have all seen what this concentration on the states has accomplished in terms of creating state laws that restrict voting. In my state of South Carolina, the photo ID law, if it survives court contests, will not even take effect before the election. So why bother? For future elections of course.

I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist, but if it walks like a duck... I'm just sayin.

"Reagan opened the borders, goods flowed in, and voila! Inflation was checked...Facts, however, is facts."

Oh, no joe. It pains me to think you probably have a license to drive a motor vehicle.

The fact is that Paul Volcker, then chairman of the Federal Reserve, raised the federal funds rate as high as 20%, an act that stopped inflation (which had peaked at 13.5% in 1981) and paved the way for stopping the recession of the early 80s. As a reward for having the courage and insight to institute his successful, although unpopular, policies, Ronald Reagan fired Volcker. Despite Reagan's dim witted actions, Volcker has been praised as possibly the brightest and most effective chairmen of the Federal Reserve in its history and it is he, not Reagan, who is credited with bringing runaway inflation under control in the early 80s.

Ron Paul has said of Volcker in a recent presidential debate, "If I had to name a Federal Reserve chairman that did a little bit of good, that would be Paul Volcker."

But you shouldn't feel bad because you were caught making up stories, no joe. No one takes your blithering nonsense and self-serving fantasies seriously, anyway.

Fail.

Thanks Sailcat .. that was my next issue to point out to the NutJobBillowingJerk, but you saved me the post.

MKM, the idea that has been percolating in your head has been percolating in many heads for quite some time. Republican and Democrat strategists both understand very clearly how to distinguish between battles that should be fought and battles that can be won. The sane Republican professionals also understand that the actions of the House of Representatives, including but not limited to Rep. Ryan's proposal to privatize Medicare, are not defensible to any voting segment except for the extremists and the Republican nominee will have little chance of gaining any support from moderate Democrats and Independents - without whom, no election can be won.

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED

"trot out the attacks on people's personal lives"....

no jo coming from you this is funny indeed. No end to the hypocrisy with you is there?

NDD... have you contributed ANYTHING on this site today, that wasn't just a snarky comment about someone else?

Anything of substance for us to think about? Anything at all?

You move from one target to another slinging cr@p. First today was WCA... now no jo... I guess I will be next for sticking my nose into this... So be it.

You really offer us nothing. Not one redeeming quality. What a waste.

O yeah.... (show me the clown nose, fisty!)

Jody, Iowa

David Walker, thank you for the compliment. In John Dean's book "Conservatives without Conscience", he spoke of how the GOP thrives on fear, that they need fear to succeed whether it is fear of communists, terrorists, others not like them--it's what makes them tick.

And liberals thrive on fear, that they need fear to succeed. They instill this fear in their base, nurturing it until it becomes anger and then hate. Whether it is fear of someone else having more than them, fear that their 'entitlements' will be taken away, or fear that they may actually have to go out and work for a living - it's what makes them tick!

(show me the clown nose, fisty!)

What's so funny is that Cain was chastised and ruined because he had an affair, yet Newt had multiple affairs and divorced his wife while she was on her deathbed, yet Republican voters are so dumb they will elect this guy. I'm going with Ron Paul or I'm voting Libertarian.

mattpfl, keith, good points.

Tell me when it became the Government's responsibility to create jobs,

Gee Cliffy - why don't you ask Agent Orange!

The new speaker of the House appears to believe it.

After all, he was the one who was running around screaming 'WHERE ARE THE JOBS Mr. President' last year!

Yes...But this year it is his own Party, the Dimocraps, who are asking where the jobs are. Even that little midget from NV, Harry, is losing faith in Obummer.

But this year it is his own Party, the Dimocraps, who are asking where the jobs are

Probably because we were PROMISED JOBS if the right wing nuts & tea baggers were elected 2010!

We see how well THAT worked out...

Don't think it won't go un-noticed in 2012! ;o)

Additionally, Agent Orange is reaping great benefits from his Government Job!

Yup, fiesty, keep defending that failure you call president. Worst ever and 75% know it. The 25% must be "you guys".

Fiesty redhead,Keep putting the TRUTH SMACKDOWN on the Teanuts.I love it !

cliff, there is a misconception presented in your post and it is the same misconception repeated constantly by the GOP candidates, legislators because they are anti-Obama. It is NOT the sole responsibility of Government to create jobs but Govt can and must stimulate the private sector during economic hard times. By investing in infrastructure funding, money to states to prevent cutting of public sector jobs such as teachers, fire and police and tax cuts for the middle class are all ways Govt does create jobs by virture of providing the missing private sector dollars. The republicans have always supported these efforts in the past but sadly, since Nov 2008, they suddenly have Obama-induced amnesia. When Government "stimulates" the economy, it essentially helps create jobs by putting money into the system which in turn helps the private sector create even more jobs. Put aside right/left talking points and pick up an Econ 101 book, you'll be surprised what you discover.

Use some common sense Feisty -- for once. He is totally correct in saying the government doesn't create jobs and everyone with a lick of sense and understanding knows that. Government creates the proper environment so private enterprises can create jobs and hire the American people. This administration has proposed policies and put in place policies that KILL that environment. That DESTROYS jobs on purpose to keep the poor and disadvantaged under his thumb of wealth redistribution and class warfare. Obama is a miserable failure. Move on. Get out of the way. Tax increases are off the table. There are NO compromises when the same old proposals keep coming out of Obama's ass every time he speaks.

@Jody -- It is more like MORON 101 from this administration.

@smoke -- It's not a smackdown. It's more like a brown nose cause her face is so far up Obama's ass.

But the private sector doesn't mind the government getting involved when it is beneficial to the private sector: EX: standing there with their hand out when they need a "bail-out" ....... And then they have the audacity like Bank of America to hand out 6 billion in bonuses to their executives? OR Oil companies that don't mind the US declare war on corporate enemies to protect their interests abroad do they???? They love the tax breaks handed out to them to ship american jobs overseas.

If the government doesn't create private sector jobs then there shouldn't be companies such as Haliburton, Blackwater, General Electric, Martin Marietta, Ratheon etc.... the list goes on and on.

Business can't have their cake and eat it too. That has been the problem in America that the Re pube liccans have created. In business they call it a win-loose, and it is non-sustainable. For the past 30 years business has been on the winning end(tax breaks, subsidies, bail-outs etc), the american people have been on the loosing end (lower pay, less benefits, more debt). The trend is non-sustainable, if it continues in the long run the result will be that working people will get paid nothing, business will get everything. It is a simple rule of economics that most people are too stupid to understand. You can not grow at a pace faster than the economy in general over the long term or you will become bigger than the economy itself which is physically impossible.

The government has a vested interest to keep un-employment down to a healthy level say 5-6%. This provides a benefit to society, low or acceptable cost for unemployment benefits and a good pool of applicants for opened positions.

If the government doesn't create private sector jobs then there shouldn't be companies such as Haliburton, Blackwater, General Electric, Martin Marietta, Ratheon etc.... the list goes on and on.

Excellent point, Rob.

I agree cliff. Thats why I'm voting Ron Paul in 2012, whatever party hes running for.

Feisty - "Gee Cliffy - why don't you ask Agent Orange!

The new speaker of the House appears to believe it.

After all, he was the one who was running around screaming 'WHERE ARE THE JOBS Mr. President' last year!"

Once again a diversionary non answer. Answer a question with a question. His question was "Tell me when it became the Government's responsibility to create jobs?"

Ron Paul is for the 1%. His votes in congress prove that over and over. Check out his voting record if you don't believe me. So if you are for the 1% then Ron Paul is your man.

Or are you dumb enough to believe that his voting to not raise the minimum wage was for the people?

Reagan was only able to create good jobs so quickly
because manufacturing was 3 times the size it is today.

Don’t forget unemployment reached 10.8% during a time
with a smaller reduction in growth (GDP) than we had in 2008-09.

Opinion ... not proof !!

You know, Dennis, some people think if you say something, not matter how stupid, often enough or loud enough it will become a fact...kind of like a Wikipedia for idiots.

Talk about increasing debt --

When Reagan took office we were on a track to pay off all of our National debt by 2000 or sooner … but by 1992 our National debt had nearly doubled and has increased ever since.

Jobs created by President in millions:

Carter = 10.5 Avg/Year = 2.6

Reagan = 16.0 Avg/Year = 2.0

Bush 41 = 2.5 Avg/Year = 0.6

Clinton = 23.1 Avg/Year = 2.9

Bush 43 = 3.0 Avg/Year = 0.4

Source: Bureau of Labor Statics (BLS).

The National is at 15.0 trillion not the 16.7 trillion you quoted.

Perhaps you are the one that needs lessons on how to look things up on the WWW.

FY2012 is a projection, not reality. !!!

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

alwaysanother

You are always correct about everything

You are the greatest researcher in the history of the interweb

You are also a rereg – Tick Tock, Tick Tock

Hillary a star? Maybe in another reality. As for the Keystone pipeline, this has been the only attempt by Republicans to create jobs since 2010.

Primaries are the process where Americans choose between the lessor of two evils. In 2008 Democrat primaries, Obama was the lessor of two evils. That being said, Hillary would have been the lessor of two evils against McCain/Palin.

The rest are a bunch of idiots, especially the king retard Barack himself who shelves 20000 good jobs because it's not politically sexy right now(Alberta pipeline).

Can someone tell me why the GOP continues to ignore the active opposition of the state of Nebraska and its Republican governor to the Keystone XL?

Glad to hear you respect Hillary. How awesome to hear Vladmir Putin accuse her of formenting opposition to voter fraud in Russia. So cool!

On the pipeline from Canada, I have to disagree with you. I read one respected, NASA environmentalist who said the construction of that pipeline woul be "game over" for our freakin' globe. Sure, we need jobs, but at the expense of increased wild fires, melting ice caps, polluted drinking water, rising shorelines, I'm thinking, let's create jobs in tidal turbine energy, instead. It's cleaner.

Amy in Portland........You have obviously been rubbing up against that scam artist Al Gore WAY too much!!!

Banashar, please explain why republican governors and legislators of the states where the Keystone XL Pipeline is proposed object to it because of the potential destruction of key water supplies. In addition, the 20,000 jobs created is a number provided by the very companies that would benefit from the pipeline; the estimated actual jobs created is closer to 3,500 per economists.

Oh, Jody?

http://www.transcanada.com/keystone.html

By the way, the LATimes had a story on moving the pipeline around the Sandhills on November 15- so, Nebraska withdrew its objections.

So, what's the next talking point totally devoid of fact?

BK lives in that alternate reality where s/he should rather pay $500,000 a gallon for purified drinking water over the option of government regulations/rules that say purified drinking water is an expectation of society.

Normally, I am a hair is on fire, tree hugger so I researched beyond the TransCanda website NoJo provided. It checks out. The route will be changed to avoid the sand hills a huge nesting and stop over point for millions of geese and migrating fowl and over the sensitive and crucial Ogalla Aquifer. What is important here is that people spoke up and the pipeline was changed.

Obviously with a pipeline that large there is still a chance for leaks. Provisions such as shut off valves and cameras and sensors to monitor can help alleviate large spills? One question, while looking at the various built and proposed routes, why not route to North Dakota where we already have a new booming energy industry? Could it be possible to use a bit of government infrastructure stimulus to build a new refinery there in lieu of transporting the product all the way to refinerys in Texas?

No Jo besides the routing one of the bigger issues is the EPA ruling that the extraction and processing of tar sands is far more dirty (as far a green house gases) are concerned.

Although this project and pipeline will provide stable energy and thousands of jobs it has to be viewed with caution. Are we really adamant that we can gamble on instant gratification and profits while not knowing the future consequences, not only in potential spills but irreversible climate change? We can't keep relying on fossil fuels.

From Common Dreams.org - (Progressive environmental website)

12/12/11

___________

LINCOLN, Nebraska, November 15, 2011 (ENS) - TransCanada Corporation has agreed to reroute its proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline out of Nebraska's environmentally sensitive Sandhills area, which overlies the Ogallala aquifer....

Many of those protesters have been from Nebraska, especially from the anti-pipeline organization Bold Nebraska, which said today, "For Nebraskans who have opposed the route through the Sandhills from the start, this is welcome news and a huge victory. Thanks to immense public pressure, the citizens beat Big Oil."

Bold Nebraska leader Jane Kleeb said, "We are proud of citizens for pushing state leaders to do the right thing: requiring the pipeline be moved out of the Sandhills and establishing a state-based regulatory system. However, we do not trust Transcanada. They have bullied and mislead landowners and citizens. Because of that we will be watching them like a hawk to ensure our land and water are protected."

"We look forward to citizens participating with the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality to ensure a fair and transparent study of alternative routes is conducted," said Kleeb.

Oh, Jody?

By the way, the LATimes had a story on moving the pipeline around the Sandhills on November 15- so, Nebraska withdrew its objections.

So, what's the next talking point totally devoid of fact?

Fine, but wouldn't rerouting the pipeline require a new Environmental Impact Survey as mandated by Executive Order 13337 (signed by President Bush)?

As for the reroute itself, TransCanada was forced to do so by the Governor of Nebraska and they did not do it out of the goodness of their own hearts...but you already knew that, didn't you.

Yellowdog:

Excellent post. I too have done some homework on the issue. The Sand Hills area is the primary recharge area for the Ogallala Aquifer and must be protected at all costs. Clearly, most people simply do not understand how important our groundwater supplies are.

The pressure on groundwater is further exacerbated with the incredibly wasteful ethanol fiasco. As a rule, aquifers take thousands of years to recharge. These aren't massive underground lakes where you just poke a straw in the ground and water pours out. Pulling out 24" of water can mean a drop of many, many feet. Aquifers are finite.

We can't live without potable water and fracking is also impacting those supplies. Global warming is also taking a terrible toll.

As far as Keystone, we really must take a look at the extraction process as well as the fact that most people see this as simply another source of petroleum supplies. We continue to postpone research into alternative fuels as once again the public is lulled into believing this can go on forever.

We must make a massive commitment to finding cleaner sources of energy feedstocks, storage, and efficient transmission. Virtually all of our power sources today are losers in one way or another. We can't continue down this path.

alwaysanother:

Even lefties like myself and right-wingers like you can come to agreement.

You wrote: "I would have liked to have been a fly in the room listening to Obama and the Clinton negotiating her role in this administration."

I wish that too, and I would have liked to have been there with a fly swatter.

alwaysanother:

You have learned you FOX lessons well. What is it with you right-wingers? What's this, "...in other words...." BS? That's right there with "some people say", and "some experts agree".

You wrote: "David Walker In other words, you would not have liked to have leaked the secret deal between Obama and the Clintons that was arrived at to make this incompetent Secretary of State?"

Here's the post:

You wrote: "I would have liked to have been a fly in the room listening to Obama and the Clinton negotiating her role in this administration."

I wrote in response: "I wish that too, and I would have liked to have been there with a fly swatter."

Somehow you come up with a translation that includes leaking a secret deal. You are truly beyond warped.

I've never met a bad Mormon. There are many reasons not to like Romney, being a Mormon isn't a valid concern.

Jake Reyna, well said.

Tell that to many people throughout the nation who have had prescription pain killers lifted from their medicine cabinets by Mormon elders knocking door to door!

Please explain to me with VALID reasons why a Mormon is different than say any other Christian? You've ALL got agendas that look to dictate your theological ideals onto everyone else.

Disabled Voter, so you think that this notion of yours is something all Mormons do?

Mr Ed - A serious issue in the 1960 Presidential campaign was that if JFK were elected, would his loyalty to the Constitution be compromised by his loyalty to the Pope. History always repeats itself, doesn't it?

Fair or unfair, I don't want to hear about anyone's religion when it comes to running for office in a secular government.

It may make a lot of folks feel comfortable to know that the guys who run the show believe in an invisible, all-powerful entity. However, there is a large number of people who find that belief rather disquieting. There is no evidence of this being. There is no proof of this being.

Our Constitution makes it clear that no religious test will be applied to office holders. There is little doubt that the First Amendment means church and state are to remain separate. Let's keep it that way.

Woof - Why didn't you ask the same of Jake?

I was responding to Jake's comment that he never met a bad Mormon.

There are good and bad people all over this world, and one must never make character assassination's based on religion, race or gender.

Furthermore, it is not a notion, but a fact. These Mormon elders were prosecuted for stealing drugs from people's medicine cabinets. I would never make a blanket unsubstantiated statement.

How concrete do you need always?

Two Mormon Elders showed up on my front porch and presented themselves as such. One stated that he needed to use the restroom, while the other continued to talk about his religion. The one that went to the restroom ransacked my medicine cabinet and stole prescription painkillers. The two young men were later arrested for several counts of stealing prescription medications from other senior citizens.

It was established that they were indeed connected to the LDS, and were doing mission work in our area. This incident was several years ago, and I cannot find any archives naming the LDS which I find to no surprise. Newspapers are very reluctant to publish anything that might hurt their circulation, or suffer possible litigation expense.

Always - You're all bark and no bite. I agree with you regarding the Catholic priests. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Call it a trick all you want, but it doesn't make it not true.

Some of us are honest, and believe that it is a sin to lie. Why would I jeopardize my soul to try to make the Mormon church look bad?

I never make a claim that isn't true. Can you say the same?

Oh my - looks like we have another 'newbie' on our hands...

tick tock... tick tock...

alwaysanother,

“I demand proof”

First you just joined today unless you are a rereg (likely).

So either you don’t understand how this blog stuff works
or a bully or a fool.

So either you don’t understand how this blog stuff works
or a bully or a fool.

I'm going with all of the above, Dennis!

I am a religious leader in my community. I too know a lot of religious people from various religions, but I have not made an outrageous accusation as you have stated.

Either you believe or you don't. I cannot force you to believe in my statement anymore than I can force you to believe in anything rational.

While what you state concerning debate is true, one must never overlook the fact that personal testimony can also be factual. Personal testimony often convicts people in the court of law for murder.

Are you suggesting that I am lying?

You can't even keep your mind on a reasonable line of reasoning. Where did I accuse you of lying?

If newspaper archives are not available in small town America, then the Proof you DEMAND is not available.

You are a very unfortunate soul to believe that our country would be better off if it was entirely Mormon.

What would make it better?

1. A religion based on lies. (Book of Mormon)
2. A religion that sanctions multiple wives.
3. A religion that denies the Messiah (Christ).

Too many people rely on EMOTION and deflect from the truth. Where are your statistics that prove Mormonism would make our country better?

As far as debating goes, I have in my many years engage in real debate, and have studied and taught classes in Forensics. Am I perfect? No, and I do and often make mistakes, but I find it quite amusing when others try to teach foundations of debate.

You make a lot of false assumptions concerning truth without regard to a proper understanding of epistomology. A statement is either true or false, however, some statements cannot be either proven or disproven.

My statement is truth based upon factual experience, and substantiated by neighbors. You can either believe it is true, or you can simply deny it and say it is false. To say it is false requires proof from you that I am a liar. Where is your proof?

One must not assume that everyone on these threads are of the same educational level as themselves.

You crack me up. Who are you to Demand anything of anyone? What makes you special that you place yourself in a position to demand anything?

Rant AWAY!

Ad Hominem arguments are fallacious.

I hope I helped you a little.

I try to help you know, whenever I can.

It's very sad when people will not accept good instruction. Some people would rather pay for the same education.

Always - You have now made it quite transparent just how uneducated you are. You have ranted and raved as well as subverted to diversionary tactics in order to win an argument that is not winnable.

Google Forensics, it might help you to understand a little more about debate.

Ha, ha, ha, I haven't had such fun in a very long while. Thank you for amusing an old man.

You continue to prove your ignorance, and do not even know it.

Keep them coming Always - You continue to make yourself appear more ignorant with every post.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to
the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is
an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative
characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.^[1]
Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy.^[

Emphasis on Normally. Your attempt at colloquial school tactics are juvenile at best. We have now transferred the subject of debate, using a diversionary tactic, and leaving the subject previously under discussion.

You would better spend your time reading and studying a little more about Logic and Debate instead of trying to pass yourself off as a seasoned debater. It seems that you have a total misunderstanding about Forensics, and many of the foundational principles employed.

Always - Do you even know how to read?

1. Where did I state they removed a vial of painkillers?
2. Where did I state my neighbors were witnesses to that theft?
3. You are so ignorant that you don't know how to think critically enough to understand what is being said.
4. Some things are sealed documents or not available through the Internet.
5. People like you would not believe it if the proof was certifiably given.
6. I'll bet you're a birth-er? You still don't believe our President was born in this country do you?
7. You say that you're not a Mormon. I'm willing to bet that you are.
8. Why would you spend so much time vehemently trying to defend a religion based on false standards?
9. It is you who have made yourself a laughing stock with everyone except yourself and those who are just as narrow minded.
10. I have now turned your Ad Hominem argument against you, but I doubt very seriously if you are keen enough to even understand.
11. I'm now starting to feel really bad, because it's like beating up on somebody who is certifiably mentally disabled.

I'm an old man, and would like nothing more than to spend the night exposing your idiocracy, but I have to take my meds and go to bed now. I hope you had as much fun talking about absolutely nothing as I have. If you haven't learned anything from our discussion, then maybe I will accommodate you again some evening.

You should check into Ron Paul. He's exactly what you want. No more wars (including drug wars), ending corporate welfare, and ending foreign aide to all countries including Israel. Don't assume he's like the others if you've never listened to him. The media blacks him out and tries to marginalize him since he will end their corporate welfare and leeching off the citizens of this country.

Keith, you only mention Paul's good ideas that most Americans will like, the problem is he goes extreme in wanting to shut down multiple government agencies. You may agree, but it won't sell in the general election.

Ron Paul is the only one who sounds willing to do the tough things.The rest including Obama are the same old thing that got us here. I look at all the excuses and closed and boarded up shops and wonder why everyone seems to defend him here.He spends money like water and the dept he is leaveing my kids?

I really enjoyed listening to Ron Paul at the Republican debate, and his interview on Meet The Press this past Sunday. I don't understand why the media doesn't take him more seriously. He's one of the few politicians I've ever seen who has real integrity. I think his ideas deserve to be debated, not just tolerated. He's a guy both Democrats and Republicans respect.

Shutting down agencys that arent needed or who waste money sounds good to me.Dept of energy sucks.

Dept of education.Even NASA blows.They could all be run better if ran by an public company.You ever see an government run anything that saved money or did things well?

RON PAUL!!!!!! Yes an extremist, but congress and the senate will limit him anyhow.

keith, you're entitled to your opinion but the truth is that while Ron Paul expresses some ideas that make sense even to a liberal like me (the war on drugs is a futile waste of money, fighting unncessary wars in Iraq), too many of his ideas are contradiction of what democratic government is and would be a disaster if implemented. Ron Paul supports the purist form of democracy but there is no such thing except in the mind. There is no pure democracy anywhere in the world. We need only look at the "pure" concept of communism in its heydey, touted as the ideal form of government to see that even it was not pure (no, I am not a communist and do not believe in communism); it failed because there were always those who gained power and wealth at the expense of everyone else. Pure democracy, the laisse faire approach with no regulation, the "no government intervention" idea, no safety nets, no assistance for the least among us, no rules for the common good will fail because a certain segment will always gain the power and wealth at the expense of everyone else. A pure form of any type of government always collapses under its own weight.

Kieth for someone who wants to end corporate welfare, then why did Ron Paul vote to keep the billion dollar oil companies special tax cuts? Isn't that how you would vote if you wanted to end corporate welfare?

I find that Ron Paul says things that progressive and liberals like to hear, but then votes the republican party line which is totally for the 1%.

Ron Paul and the republicans will have just pulled a Walker on us if Ron get nominated. Promise you anything and then sh!t on the people if you are elected.

Too many people vote their religion and not their pocketbooks.

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote to end freedom in America. Ron neglects to mention that in the privatization of America, the 1% will be taking over.

While Huntsman may the smartest most ethical in the republican field, the tea partiers would rather have slime like Newt to represent them.

To me that says a lot about the republican party. The only way the republicans can win is by running non-stop lies about President Obama on faux and blogs like these and by suppressing the vote.

Obama/Biden 2012

Cut and paste is a beautiful thing, isn't it alwaysanother? Unfortunately when you are cutting and pasting crap, it just makes you look like an even bigger idiot. After all, you aren't bright enough to come up with your own pointless bull@!$%#. Most of these are from manufactured chain emails, in fact. Damn.

First President to coddle American enemies while alienating Americas allies.

I'm sure bin Laden doesn't feel coddled.

First President to terminate Americas ability to put a man in space.

Actually, Nixon was. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/28/chain-email/chain-e-mail-claims-obama-first-president-terminat/

First President to publicly bow to Americas enemies while refusing to salute the U.S. Flag.

A lie.

First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

You need to speak to the Swedes and Norwegians. They obviously feel differently about that.

First President to go on multiple global apology tours.

Another lie. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/22/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-repeats-claim-obama-went-around-world-/

First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends, paid for by the taxpayer.

At this point in his presidency, Reagan and Bush Jr. had taken more than twice the vacation time of Obama.

Christ, it goes on and on. Fail, already.

First, little man (you mind if I call you little man, do you?) you are making the blithering assertions without evidence and it is a feature of debates that assertions made without evidence can be safely dismissed without evidence.

Still, I gave hard evidence that refuted some of these chain mail staples. In other cases, I couldn't even find any references to indicate Obama had ever been accused of some of your preposterous crimes. I mean, how can you refute hot air and bull@!$%#?

If you would like to support some of these chestnuts with facts, though, I would like evidence to show Obama is the very first president to refuse to wear a lapel pin. How about the canard about Obama refusing to salute the flag? How, exactly, did Obama encourage discrimination and intimidation at poling places?

Really, you can do better than this bull@!$%#, but if you can't, I am quite sure I won't be the first person to call you a loser.

alwaysanother--

Congratulations! You've passed Windows 101: How to Use Cut and Paste.

Now find something useful for us to read cuz that list is 1) getting boring to read and 2) do you have evidence for it cuz what I'm reading, you're just pissed that he's making your precious Teabaggers look like a cheap three-ring circus 3) I love that you use the Heritage Foundation as a "source" since that's run by the Teabaggers' cash cows.

Perry is pig. I would have bet 100k.

bzzzt, that's why we have primaries so the majority can select the best candidate. Democrats made the right choice.

Republicans selected McCain, but he thought a VP without a brain was the best path. How did that work out?

Leona is right. Hillary would be better than what we have. I could live with Romney/Rubio as well.

Rubio is a crook. Whats wrong with you?

Ahh, once again we have the right telling democrats they should have picked Hillary Clinton. Bull pucky! As an Iowan who goes to the caucuses every election cycle, I supported Barack Obama and still believe he is the right choice. I did not support Hillary Clinton for many important policy reasons and two far less important thoughts--the nonstop Clinton drama of the 90's and the idea of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. I respect Hillary Clinton and would have voted for her if she had won the primary. However, she was not my first choice or even my second.

Yes Rubio, the man who was for social security and medicare when his parents needed it and Rubio wanted to expand the program as it gave his parents dignity in their old age. But now Rubio running for Vice President now thinks that same social security and medicare makes America weak.

So if Rubio is correct he is a weak man corrupted by weak parents on social security and medicare.

Paul needs to forget the Republican Party and run as an Independent! He might become the first third party President but needs to start now.

What is even sadder is the pretender we have in the White House. We thought we elected a real leader, someone who will bring everyone together. Instead, he has become the ultimate divider, instilling hate on both sides not seen in recent memory. He had 67% approval rating from independents who elected him. Now that number has dwindled to a low 34%. That says something about what the man promised to be and what he turned out to be.

WGN: "The Republicans are laboring under much tainted baggage, and Gingrich is symbolic of that blot on Republicanism. "

What "blot" on Repubs?

Ask the much idolized former Democrat President Bill Clinton how much he was able to accomplish with Gingrich (R) as Speaker in the House.

Gingrich & Clinton got things done . That's the reason Repubs like him.

Say what you want about Gingrich but he doesnt have a problem finding a compromise with the other side, unlike Obama ( the great Divider-in-Chief).

WGN, well said.

Roadwarrior, Leona, just keep spewing the right-wing talking points because it merely points out exactly why you're stuck with the GOP candidates you have.

Leona,

Gingrich was forced to "step down" as Speaker of the House in '98 due to a massive number of ethics violations, over 80. this was all orchestrated by John Boehner, current house speaker.

In addition, gingrich was fined I believe $300,000 for inappropriately accepting funds.

Newt is a loose cannon. Dem's will eat him up in a general election.

Leona,

Gingrich was forced to "step down" as Speaker of the House in '98 due to a massive number of ethics violations, over 80. this was all orchestrated by John Boehner, current house speaker.

In addition, gingrich was fined I believe $300,000 for inappropriately accepting funds.

Newt is a loose cannon. Dem's will eat him up in a general election.

Nope. Hope and Change has quickly evolved into Hype and Worse than Ever!!!

Repube's = obstructionism

plstop,

Have you ever seen a period (.) that you like? Try using them from time to time. They won't bite. And it will make your posts more readable.

Talk about brainwashed. You are defending the 1% republicans while you repeat the 20,000 jobs lie the republicans are pushing.

The never increase taxes on the richest only benefits the richest in America and Ron Paul knows that.

The Democrats are following their rich capitalists and hoping for free cheese from the government. Let's call it squeaky economics.