One thing Romney does have working in his favor is the simultaneous RNC "hand on the grenade pin" attack. The zany attack kind of works in concert with that. Unfortunately for Romney, that focused grenade line has been muddled by opposing candidates - including Romney before now - who have taken more of a throw-everything-at-the-wall approach to bringing down Newt.

At least, to me, zany doesn't seem that harsh a word (maybe for it is for Gov. Romney). I imagine Newt has been called worse - by his own rank and file!!!!

And congrats on being the first to post. How did that happen? LOL

It's not that harsh, but if it sticks it's effective. Zany implies wild and not always responsible thinking. Romney is right in that most won't see the characteristic as presidential. And perhaps because it is less harsh it is all the more effective. Anyone can stand up before a microphone and hurl insults. This is more nuanced - by far the best personal attack I remember Romney ever making (which tells me he was fed the idea from outside his campaign).

Well between the "zany" and the Tiffany remark, I would say Romney has become a wee bit worried about Newt. (Although, not trying to sound mean - but a rich guy like Romney and the Tiffany crack is kinda like the old pot/kettle thing, don't you think?)

That's the Gingrich counter. Tonight, he'll stay mostly in the box. I say mostly because he does have an opportunity to turn this around on Romney.

For example, imagine the Romney shot about mining the moon. Gingrich, by the way, well handled that completely amateurish attack last time. But let's say it or something like it comes up tonight - and it will. Gingrich will step out of the box for a moment to explain his idea, and he'll make it sound completely reasonable.

Then he'll throw in an afterthought like: "Some might call that a zany idea. I'm guessing most voters won't see it that way, but for those who would say that, I'd be interested to hear what is the opposite of zany. Is it someone who always plays it safe, never taking the lead on any issue? If Governor Romney would like, I'd be interested in another two-candidate event discussing just that question."

If Gingrich can effectively deliver that line, it might well be game, set and match. That not only makes Romney look petty for the initial attack, but also makes that petty attack seem rooted in one of Romney's core weaknesses. The danger for Gingrich is to try and pull that off without coming across like a malicious pitbull - one of his core weaknesses.

What an excellent observation! It will be interesting to see if it does play out that way.

(Side note) I am a lover of the space program. When I was growing up in the '60's I wanted to be an astronaut, but at that time it was an all boys club.

*** Final debate before the caucuses:

Finally, the light at the end of the tunnel!

Hey guys - didyou hit the expresso bar early this morning? ;o)

@Feisty

It's the old early bird and worm thing. Actually been up for several hours!

Paul, nice post. No offense intended but most of Gingrich's ideas are ZANY and those who like them automatically deserve to be thought of as zany. One republican who knows Gingrich, name escapes me, metaphorically said there were four file cabinets in Newt's office, three filled with really BAD ideas and one with reasonable ones. Gingrich tosses out lots of ideas like candy but most of the time, his ideas are just thoughts that pop into his head and he never stops to think about whether or not they are feasible, the impact of his words, if they are reasonable or just plain "zany". Even if I was still a republican, I wouldn't give him the time of day.

@phinephancy - actually, I was referring to Mark & Domenico! ;o).

Either they've been up all night, or they've been pounding the caffiene this morning.

Too Close to Call:

Political junkies, like myself, surf and scan the political websites for tidbits overlooked by the pundits. Yesterday I noticed that the GOP power outsiders haven't yet decided who to endorse between Romney and Gingrich. They have decided who NOT to endorse. It is clear that Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, and Michele Bachmann may as well stop spending their donors' money, pay off their bills and buy an airline ticket to go home. The bottom line is the race for the Republican nomination is between Romney and Gingrich.

By far the funniest endorsement came from Christine O'Donnell who said, "I support Romney since he has been consistent since he changed his mind". Now with friends like that, you don't need Democratic foes.

With the Iowa caucuses just three weeks away, only 37 percent of the GOP power players have decided who to back. I suspect they are waiting on real numbers: you know, votes, caucus members showing up. In politics everyone wants to be on the side of the winner, yet the power brokers aren't quite sure who has the winning hand. Now that has to be bad news for Romney. The other piece of bad news for Romney is that the Tea Party essentially controls the state GOP in Iowa and other states as well.

Both candidates have come to the realization that this will be a long primary season. In the more conservative states, Gingrich holds the aces, in moderate states Romney should do well.

I don't know who will win this battle, but there are some things one can expect. There is no "high road"; it will be more like who will stoop the lowest. It has already started with, I got my money from Fanny and Freddie, you got your money closing down corporations and firing employees. It will get personal and ugly.

It's way too early for the pundits to talk about it, but my guess is it will be fought out on the GOP convention floor. The Tea Party will control the power positions at the convention. Will they cave in and give the nomination to Romney? That will be a show worth watching.

@Feisty

Maybe the guys like worms too! :)

New jobless claims drop to 3.5-year low in latest week, according to the latest weekly unemployment data, out this morning. Initial claims dropped to 366,000, the lowest number since before Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008.

WOW! What great news - especially during the holidays! Hopefully a few more families will be happier.

I'm calling it. Ron Paul takes Iowa. Grinch and Mitt weaken each other when Grinch goes nuk-a-lar and Mitt bets him 1000 employees that he's more flip flop then he is.

Hey Dennis, I saw that about the jobless numbers.

Does that mean the left on here will stop asking John Boehner "Where are the jobs?", now?

One year after the GOP sweeps into office, with a promise to help employment, the job picture is improving.

Kind of tough to argue with that, eh?

WCA,

Sorry but that is a failed argument just like Boehner is a failed Speaker.

You don't have to look hard, the evidence is everywhere. Each day, there is a new story documenting the growing chasm between rich and poor. Statistically speaking, there really is no middle class. There's the rich and everybody else, and the rich are very, very rich.

We are leaving an era of prosperity, the likes of which has never before been seen in the history of the world. Following the end of World War II, the United States found itself with an incredible manufacturing capability. Our food-producing regions were blessed with almost perfect weather. The federal government had brought modern communication, irrigation, and electrification to most of the country. The Interstate highway system was soon to come.

The sole smudge on the economic landscape was the employment picture. Women had found a measure of independence in the workplace. They could built weapons of war. This wasn't just a man's work any longer. Returning soldiers had been replaced by Rosie the Riveter. Again, the federal government came up with the perfect solution. Educate our soldiers. The G.I. Bill was born.

All of those conditions and events gave us an environment that would create unimaginable wealth. Entrepreneurs built homes. Those homes needed refrigerators, washers, radios, dryers, carpets, televisions, and the garages needed cars and power tools The education system was turning out the minds that gave us transistors, microwave ovens, computers, and space travel. We consumed and consumed and consumed.

We used more power than anyone else in the world. So what. We also fed more of the world than anyone else. We polluted the environment more than anyone else. So what. We were the cops of the world and we kept the peace. At least we said we did. Korea, Viet Nam, Lebanon, the Cold War, Iran, Iraq, Panama - well, those were minor irritants. Besides, without conflict, we wouldn't be the leading arms supplier in the world. Consumption of anything and everything was the key.

But then one day, we found that we had just about everything we needed. Our garages were stuffed with everything except cars. Storage units popped up like toadstools. Even five-year-old kids had their own cell phones and TV's.

The consumption economy is gone. The revenues that flowed into the U.S. treasury have slowed markedly and we routinely run red-ink budgets. To compound that problem, a great deal of what we do consume is not even manufactured here.

Our debt has now reached a level that is beyond comprehension, and calling debt by any other name does not make it go away. Unfunded liabilities ARE debt. Saying we owe much of that debt to ourselves is a delusion of monstrous magnitude. That debt is more than $100,000,000,000,000. That's more than ONE-HUNDRED-TRILLION-DOLLARS. That is everything we produce for more than seven years.

And the whores in Washington, D.C. name post offices.

Well, at least your response was predictable. You guys never, ever let me down.

By far the funniest endorsement came from Christine O'Donnell who said, "I support Romney since he has been consistent since he changed his mind"

@ Ron, That is great! New Bumper sticker idea:

Romney 2012: Consistent since he changed is mind

Gingrich 2012: Only in America can Dishonor be a virtue

David -Statistically speaking, there really is no middle class. There's the rich and everybody else, and the rich are very, very rich.

This kind of statement confuses me. I work and live within an entire community that that would consider themselves "Middle-Class".

For centuries there has always been the very, very rich. Why would anyone think that it is any different today?

Whether the people in my community think they are "Upper. Lower or just Middle-Middle-Class", they don't hate the rich. They are all striving to use their abilities to improve whatever station they have achieved in life up until now.

So David, help me out. What exactly do you mean by the statement that there really is no middle class?

Ron Indiana,

Caucus voters can also elect uncommitted delegates to the district /county conventions. So it is possible that the uncommitted can be the winner on Jan 3. It will be interesting to see what that number is...

Excellent David.

I watched Brad Metzer's Decoded at last night. They were "decoding" the 2012 end of the world predictions. A lot of hooey, but entertaining. However, at the end, they brought up a very interesting thought. Our forefathers knew how to survive without all the technology of today. Could we, as a people, be able to survive? Interesting thought.

As has already been observed around here, there really is little to distinguish among the candidates. Their fundamental policy issues all reflect the ones that have been promoted by the right since the Reagan era - deregulation, "less government in business and more business in government" (a term dating back to the first decade of the 1900's), tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, less public support for education, environment, alternative energy development, and of course privatization of Social Security and Medicare while elimination (eventually) of any social welfare programs including Medicaid.

The Republican Party drove America off the economic cliff, and is now using the consequences to promote its failed ideology as a "solution."

As usual, the Republicans use descriptions of their own problems to describe their oppostion - if ever there was an example of "failed leadership," it is former President G.W. Bush, and the current House majority leader as well as the Senate minority leader. The old "big lie" technique that has worked so well for Republicans over the years is actively worming its way through the national consciousness today.

Look for LOTS of "big lie" lines in tonight's debate. Looik for LOTS of advocacy of tired, failed ideological positions on public policy. Look for the GOP to continue to eat itself alive.

WCA:

That's Statistics with a capital "S". Plot a curve, construct a histogram, a pie chart, and you will see that the wealth distribution does not admit to a middle class. As a matter of statistical fact, there is an upper class and a lower class. The lower class has its own lower, middle, and upper distribution. In other words, there is a very comfortable/upper lower class, a fairly comfortable/middle class, and a low, low class.

That you are comfortable is hunky dory, but statistically speaking that does not mean you are rich.

This is way to early for us Westerner's. YAWN.

Obama in 2012. AND Biden in 2016.

Message for Bill in Fairfax's Eyes Only,

Yesterday you compared yourself to a chimpanzee, and it got me to thinking about the old adage that if you placed an infinite number of monkeys in a room with typewriters over an infinite period of time they would eventually reproduce all of Shakespeare’s great works.

With that in mind I decided to take a closer look at your posts. It appears that your spelling is decent, you seem to know how to use periods and other punctuation, your sentences make grammatical sense, your paragraphing isn’t too shoddy, and overall one has the impression that there is a sincere attempt at logic. And yet something is missing, a certain. . . je ne sais quoi.

Accordingly, I feel it prudent to award you a B+, not because I think this is the grade you deserve, but because I think it is only fair that you receive encouragement. On the other hand, I don’t really want to encourage you, if you get my drift. It’s sort of a Catch-22.

Be that as it may, my best advice would be for you to continue to bang away at the keyboard. In this age of the computer it’s more environmentally friendly to replace a keyboard every few weeks than it is to cut down trees to print out and edit all those drafts.

@David

Dr. Jeffrey Sachs and Dr. Rattinger have showed charts showing what you are saying on Morning Joe many times. It is truly scary at the way the wealth disparity has grown since the 1980's.

Soundbite: Thanks for the shout-out. Only Christine O'Donnell can be that dumb.

Northstar: You make an excellent point. There will likely be uncommitted convention delegates. Paul, Perry and some others may get some delegates and the GOP convention may not have a delegate winner. If that happens, the Tea Party will gladly pick the nominee.

John A: I've really missed you.

No middle class, huh? You wish. So you're saying that the country is run by just a handful of filthy rich people at the top, and everyone else is what, poor? Situations like that cause revolutions. It's how communism comes into play in those places.

If that was the case, the OccuCommie "movement" would not have fizzled out so quickly, right? Hundreds of thousands of people would be out in the streets demanding revolution. Not exactly happening, is it? Remember...this is the only country in the world that has FAT "poor" people. Kind of hard to get the poor to revolt when it means they might have to quit their job, sell one of their cars, stop going out to eat etc...

Leave it to White Collar Auto and the other tea people GOP republican do nothing congress to take credit for the lower unemployment claims. Even though the tea people GOP republican congress has done nothing on jobs sense they took control of congress, they now want to take credit for it. Typical tea people GOP republican, sit back do nothing then take credit for anything good while denying your the problem.

Ron, David Walker, nice posts.

Last night the analysts were chatting about why it won't matter if Ron Paul wins the Iowa Caucus instead of Gingrich or Romney. They are absolutely right that Iowa GOP caucus goers rarely, if ever, pick the nominee. My take is that a Ron Paul win, even though he's not likely to win the nomination, will take some wind out of Newt's sails. It will at least send a message to other states' voters to take a closer look at Gingrich before jumping on that boat.

As Chris Matthews said in his final thoughts last night, Newt may be smart but he's unpredictable and reactionary--do we really need someone like him with his finger on the nuclear button. I have said it before, Gingrich is a loose cannon on the deck of a ship. Wasn't President George W. Bush's "gut instinct" decision making enough to teach us we don't need someone like Gingrich who on any given day is likely to just "blow up" and who knows the consequences. If the GOP nominates Gingrich, heaven help the world and especially the USA.

No need to be Snarky David. I figured that was where you were headed Statistically.

Just so happens one of my Majors was Statistics, so yeah, I think I understand them.

If you're looking for a bell curve, simple statistical rules will show you that you will never get one.

That you are comfortable is hunky dory, but statistically speaking that does not mean you are rich.

Where did I say I was rich? I said I and my community would consider themselves middle class by any classic definition of the term. You are caught up in numerical and statistical semantics.

But you did not address my point. How is it any different now, than it has been for centuries?

Other than the fact that the low,low class, as you call them, seem to have it pretty good.

I was at the mall last night and walked past the Apple store. It was shoulder to shoulder with people from that lowerclass.

Finally, assuming most people who post here are doing it from their own computer, that would mean they can afford the Internet and a computer. Is that your definition of Lower class??

Jody - do we really need someone like him with his finger on the nuclear button

Jody, you're better than this. This kind of trite comment is just silly.

Do you really think we are "one button" away from a nuclear holocaust?

Do you really think we are "one button" away from a nuclear holocaust?

And you think we're not! You're pretty naive.

I'd hardly call Jody's comment "silly", but I'm glad you admit she is a person of great integrity--even if it was in a backhanded kind of way.

soundbite, great bumperstickers! DENNIS, that's great news. JOHN A, nice to see you here and terrific post. Ed Schultz also shows a graph of earnings since 1979; middle class is flat and the 2% hit the roof. Reaganomics was proved wrong and Reagan threw it out within a year but the damage had been done; along comes Bush 43, Reagan on steroids, and right back to trickle-down that only trickled up literally blowing up the economy worldwide.

Not one of the GOP presidential candidates has expressed any idea that isn't Reagan and Steroid Bush 43 ideology--they will take us right back down the rabbit hole. There was a time when both parties recognized what failed, learned a lesson from failure but the GOP has apparently thrown economic lessons out along with science in the name of rigid ideology. They have a goal in ignoring "lessons learned" and that goal is to create deficits and massive debt in order to make government nonfunctional and kill the programs they hate. Anyone who votes for these candidates is voting for a repeat of Reagan and Bush 43.

The American Dream is slipping away at the hands of the GOP.

@David & WCA

I think the two of you are examples of the differences in the two party system of today. (Excellent examples, if I may). The thing is, yes, there have always been the poor and always will be. It is the obligation of society to help those who are in need. (Side note here, the food those with little money can afford usually is not the best in keeping weight down) There is nothing wrong with wealth, it is just when the disparity of those that have the wealth and the downward spiral of the ones that don't, you are setting up an atmosphere of anger that WILL eventually peak - usually violently. (See French revolution and the Russian revolution). The trick is to try and get the two parties to recognize the problem and work TOGETHER for a solution. May I suggest trying something new and outside the box? Because the old ideas are not working.

WCA:

There was no snark there at all. The reason I did the "in other words" part was because I knew there would be some idiot show up who would say something like, "No middle class, huh? You wish." Sure enough, that's a direct quote from damage123.

The "you" in my sentence was the generic "you". Are you trying to be a victim? Why don't you re-read my post, and you will see it is meant to be a purely objective explanation of how an honest statistical analysis yields the fact that there is no such thing as a middle class. That analysis does not turn on semantics, no matter how much you wish that to be the case.

Let's just stop at this point. I'm not the one doing the defining. That's already been done within the field of Statistics.

WCA, apparently you ignore the threats from GOP candidates like Gingrich about Iran where the word "nuclear" is tossed out to increase the fear level; ignore the Bush 43's team's constant reference to a "mushroom cloud" to justify an unnecessary war. This country has the most nuclear weapons in the world. Gingrich is a nut, maybe smart, but a nut just the same. Considering the rhetoric coming from him and other neoconservatives about Iran and China, he and they are dangerous and in my view, I don't want him in the same room with the "button".

Good grief Jack, you give new meaning to liberal condescension. Thanks for reading.

All "fun" and rhetoric aside...I get where David is going. We are at the end of the road for the age of Consumerism. We have as a society (in America) EVERYTHING WE Need. we don't NEED anything else. But we don't have any more money to spend to keep the cubicle service sector jobs, the designer coffee drinkers, the casual debit card punchers employed, heck we can't even keep a good TV show on for more than one season because the consumers just aren't there. We had cheap housing, cheap food, cheap roads (the Ike System of freeways is unprecedented) and we used to have cheap health care. Now watch the numbers tick the other way. We need to identify the pillars that made America fundamentally better than other nations and we need to adapt.

I believe innovation is our Greatest strength (it sure isn't the Chinese's) and we need to figure out how to work that into our politics. Vote the moderates back in. Find American products. Push education on your children and grandchildren (and their poor friends) and after our troops come home let's hunker down in the homeland for a while so we can get our infrastructure on a 2.0 level.

We are a different society now that we have everything; all that is left is to be happy with ourselves and with what we have and will accomplish.

America 2012

Bill,

Good grief Jack, you give new meaning to liberal condescension.

We aim to please.

A little humor is needed now and then, even if you're the butt of it--don't you think? Takes the edge off.

Jody's comment was not only NOT silly,...it was quite thought provoking. With Antagonists like Romney and especially Newton tossing their 'foreign policy' invectives,...the potential for nuclear fallout is very real. Do you really see Pakistan and Palestine being willing partners with anything these bozos propose?

Add to it that Newtie is driven by impulse. I am afraid he is more like Bush. They have all these images of themselves akin to the "Warrior King" of old, never mind that neither of them could be bothered to serve their country.

But Newtie in a position to hit a nuclear button? Frightening.

@soundbite

Excellent post. Another note here, as we become more & more a society run by technology, we are losing our humanity. Call about a bill - credit card, electric, even your bank, and you talk to a computer. Even today, instead of talking on the phone we text. We are losing our ability to interact with each other as human beings.

Thanks folks, for the greetings. Been offline here since just before Thanksgiving, it's good now to again have the opportunity to post. Some really terrific stuff has been put up, too.

David Walker, you should check out the current "lead" on MSNBC.com:

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/15/9461848-dismal-prospects-1-in-2-americans-are-now-poor-or-low-income

ONE HALF of the country is either in poverty or of very low income status.

Only yesterday I wrote that Mexico is the model for the right wing - eliminate the middle class entirely. I saw that particular process "up close and personal" when I taught in Mexico in 1969 - and of course we all see its results now, in the millions of faces in our country who fled the dismal nation in hopes of improvement. What's terrifying is that it appears hopes such as those are not to be fulfilled here, either.

This is the proof of the abject failure of the Milton Friedman economic ideology - plumped up by Ayn Rand - adopted by Republicans since before Ronald Reagan. As noted above, this GOP field offers no single candidae with what the admen call a "unique distinguishing feature" when it comes to policy. They all want to ruin this nation. And their predecessors in the GOP seem to have gotten a very strong head start on that.

Bill:

Actually it is you who is busy defining "liberal condescension". It is you who finds new meaning in a meaningless term.

Jack was merely offering facts.

WCA:

The above? Now, that's snarky; true, but snarky.

Another debate tonight? And this time a Fox Debate? And one of the moderators is Chris Wallace?

h/t Andrew Sullivan for this recent Chris Wallace quote about Ron Paul:

“Well, and the Ron Paul people aren’t going to like me saying this, but, to a certain degree, it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because, rightly or wrongly, I think most of the Republican establishment thinks he is not going to end up as the nominee. So, therefore, Iowa won’t count and it will go on.”

Ron Paul supporters are a fairly... enthusiastic group. If I were Mr. Wallace I would be cautious.

His object was to get people talking about it ...and they are ! The seed of doubt has been planted !

Only yesterday I wrote that Mexico is the model for the right wing

HEY! I said the SAME EXACT THING in a debate with my co-worker last year when the Tea Party was making a big come up. Everyone thought my point was wild but it started to catch.

The argument was that if the left (his take) had its way we would be a socialist society on par with Canada. I said that if the Right had its way, we would be a non government, unregulated society like...Mexico. It was incidental that I choose Mexico in contrast to Canada, but I started noting the parallels of non existent regulatory, where public education is non existant, where anything goes (no big Government), where monopolies are allowed; a super rich (people don't know that the richest man in the world at one point was a Mexican that literally owned all of Mexico, Carlos Slim), and the poor are left on their own.

I think there are really good examples of over reach by governments in our society to make these arguments (see Alabama and the Mercedes and Honda employees pulled over and arrested for "driving without papers")

We need to make sure there is balance and now is a good time to get this stuff done. If not then put the extremist out of office and bring back the moderates.

nisl, that quote is funny. Chris Wallace obviously ignores that the Iowa GOP caucus has almost always been a vote that won't count. They've chosen Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, Mike Huckabee to name just a few; rarely have the Iowa Repubs picked a winner.

Fellow liberals, thanks for the support on my comment. It isn't just the nuclear button but the thought of having an irrational, and unpredictable Newt Gingrich in command of any part of our military weaponry and personnel is unnerving. While Romney may throw out red meat to sound tough, if we were to get stuck with a GOP President, I'd rather it be Romney or Huntsman because they at least would think first.

Hey, Fiesty!

Don't mean to get personal, but are you okay? You seem to be a little "off" lately. Or it is my imagination? (Please feel free to tell me to mind my own business.)

David,

Thanks. He brought it upon himself by attacking me for no reason yesterday.

Jody,

So, it's a "toothless" caucus?

Dawn,

Good reminder, that like GBII, Newt is a "chickenhawk". Talk is cheap when someone else has to do the fighting.

Look for Romney to close the deal tonight.

Obama/Biden 2012

Jody - A nuclear Newt is a terrifying proposition, even for many Republicans.

For goodness sake, the man (claimed) to have shut down the government because he didn't get his choice of seats on an airplane. Can you imagine what he would do if a foreign leader insulted him? The man is a vindictive turd, he shouldn't have any power over anything ever. He has proven he is not up to the responsibility.

It doesn't matter. The Republican Establishment will never allow Newt the nomination. Nor would they allow it to Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump or Ron Paul. The only question, really, is does the Republican Establishment still have the power to determine the winner of the Republican nominating process?

Do you think Romney can Skip? I get the feeling that the right wing still wants the "bomb thrower". Hi to the family!

John A. so glad to see you posting!

You seem to be a little "off" lately

Jack,

Really?

I hadn't noticed - if anything I'm caught up in the holiday craziness.

My daughter is coming home for 3 weeks on Friday & I can't WAIT!

Thanks for caring enough to ask! ;o)

Okay, just me then. I guess it's because you haven't made me spew coffee yet this week. Sort of figured it might be the holiday craziness catching up with you.

My daughter is coming home for 3 weeks on Friday & I can't WAIT!

Great! Very happy for you!

I guess it's because you haven't made me spew coffee yet this week

LOL!!

The week isn't over yet...

I'll see what I can do! ;o)

Feisty! Daughter time! The best. My cherub is headed home for a few days at Christmas too.

Daughter time! The best.

NDD,

There's nothing better! I talked to her last night & we are going to be spending some serious mother/daughter time together!

Unfortunately, my grand-pup 'Parker' will not be making the trip! ;o(

@Feisty

Nothing better than having the daughter home to "spoil". VERY happy for you!!! :)

White Collar Auto --

Finally, assuming most people who post here are doing it from their own computer, that would mean they can afford the Internet and a computer. Is that your definition of Lower class??

This goes straight to my post yesterday about the obliviousness of the wealthy, some of whom appear to think that $55 million for an apartment is "not a bad price."

It's a LONG way from owning your own computer and having a link to the Internet and being able to afford a $55 million apartment. I have three computers AT HOME, and one at work, and I am not even close to being part of the 1 percent. I never will be.

The point is, WCA, that the 99 percent covers a lot of ground. Most of us liberals here are not poor as we have worked for a living and have achieved some material success. And yet, we're not in, or even near, the 1 percent, either.

The fact that liberals manage to achieve material success always seems to come as a surprise to conservatives who post here, but why should it? We're educated, some of us highly educated, and some of us own our own businesses and hold down managerial and professional jobs.

So, the real difference between us is not that, but rather, the inability of conservatives to recognize that there are lots of people who are not as well off as you and I -- many through no fault of their own -- and even if they could recognize it, the inability of conservatives to understand how it got that way, and to muster any compassion for those who are less fortunate than we are.

phinephancy-4252115

At least, to me, zany doesn't seem that harsh a word (maybe for it is for Gov. Romney). I imagine Newt has been called worse - by his own rank and file!!!!

When Freedonia declared war on Sylvania because its ambassador insulted Freedonia's President Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho Marx), THAT was zany. It was just a movie. The eagerness of both Romney and Gingrich for starting a brand new real war with Iran if elected is NOT zany. It's just disgusting.

@ Houston --

Great analogy, for sure. We all need to remember that the word "zany" actually came from Mitt Romney, and your comment makes a good point about what that word says about HIM, as well as what it says about Newt Gingrinch.

@Houston,

Not just disgusting, but downright scary. Is it a sign of conservative manhood to always want to start a war? Seems the neo cons are always wanting to start something.

So you're saying that the country is run by just a handful of filthy rich people at the top, and everyone else is what, poor? Situations like that cause revolutions.

Hey, you're finally getting it!

Anna Molly

The fact that liberals manage to achieve material success always seems to come as a surprise to conservatives who post here, but why should it?

I'm not sure it comes as a surprise, exactly. It's one of the many facts that just don't fit into their fantasy world, so they filter it out. They prefer to believe their own BS about how liberals all want to "soak the rich" so they can get welfare handouts.

Blingrich IS dangerously zany. I'm glad Romney pointed this out to a wide audience. Also need to be pointed out:

• Blingrich got rich profiting from America's downfall with his lobbying for Freddie Mac.
• Blingrich is a serial cheater professionally and personally.
• Blingrich left Congress in disgrace.

YES please point these things out to the idiots who would vote for him!!! Sheesh!!!

There are some in the comments above who seem disappointed that the majority of our poor don't live in shanty-towns, eat more than a handful of rice each day, and might actually have access to some modern technology. We should be proud of this as Americans. It means the social safety net is keeping our poor from becoming like the poor in so many other parts of the world. What's wrong with bumping into some poor people at an Apple Store? It is a testimony to how we as a society treat our own, and I'm lovin' it.

Nearly one half of all Americans are either in poverty or very close to it.

From the story cited in an earlier post (link follows quote):

Mayors in 29 cities say more than 1 in 4 people needing emergency food assistance did not receive it. Many middle-class Americans are dropping below the low-income threshold — roughly $45,000 for a family of four — because of pay cuts, a forced reduction of work hours or a spouse losing a job. Housing and child-care costs are consuming up to half of a family's income.

States in the South and West had the highest shares of low-income families, including Arizona, New Mexico and South Carolina, which have scaled back or eliminated aid programs for the needy. By raw numbers, such families were most numerous in California and Texas, each with more than 1 million

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/15/9461848-dismal-prospects-1-in-2-americans-are-now-poor-or-low-income

The story goes on to report in detail exactly what that means to real people. This condition is not an abstraction. And to be "fair and balanced," the article quotes a Heritage Foundation spokesperson, who dismissed the report.

So, WCA, who I ignore, but Anna Molly does not, face reality. The "conservative" corporatist state that has been under construction for the past 30 years is an utter failure. And it has ruined the country.

@ John A --

Thanks for the link ... but "dismissed the report" doesn't quite do it justice --

Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, questioned whether some people classified as poor or low-income actually suffer material hardship. He said that while safety-net programs have helped many Americans, they have gone too far, citing poor people who live in decent-size homes, drive cars and own wide-screen TVs.

Poor people have homes and drive cars and have TVs. Well, I never.

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.

Someone should ask Rector how he thinks his housekeeper gets to work in his fancy, upscale neighborhood, since his city had to cut back bus service because people objected to higher taxes.

And then maybe he should drive through HER neighborhood to see what those "decent-sized" homes actually LOOK like, and how many of them have been or are being foreclosed.

By the way, has anyone bought a TV recently that is NOT a widescreen?

The little one in my bedroom cost $150.

Oh, the extravagance.

John A and Anna Molly,

In the 1500's there were people who lived in castles and people who lived on the street. There have always been the 99 and 1 percent. Both directions, by the way.

To try to define a 99% is simply ridiculous. The fact is that a majority of Americans live very comfortably.

There is no denying that there is a growing number of poor livng in America today. That number has grown over the past 5 years.

Do any of you acknowledge that the majority of the government has been controlled by Democrats for the past 5 years?

I have never said that Liberals were lazy. That too, is a ridiculous statement. Just as ridiculous as it is for a Senator to say that Conservatives want to "Push Granny off a cliff" or "Kill 8100 Americans".

The fact is it is a lot easier to be poor than it is to be rich.

There are many who through no fault of their own are destitute. Those are the people that we should help. But to keep this group of people growing exponentially and support them with Government programs means certain demise for our country.

These boards don't lend themselves to an in-depth discussion on the pros and cons of government entitlements v charity or the positives of working hard and making ones own way in life and this post is way to long already.

Like many here I started with the deck stacked against me early in life, bought fought and worked hard to achieve a level of comfort in life. It's never easy.

Nothing worth anything is ever easy.

Finally, John A, thanks for having me on ignore and proving my point from a few days ago. Maybe now all those people who thought I was making it up will apologize, but I won't hold my breath.

Dawn, thanks, I'll tell them and congrats to you that your cherub will be home for the holidays. Mine only lives six blocks from my house so we see her on a regular basis.

Yes, I think, at the end of the day Romney is going to be the GOP nominee. Not only do I think it, I hope so as well.

The biggest voting block the GOP has in the old South. If Romney is the nominee the red-necks in Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, the Carolina's and Virginia will vote with their feet and stay home.

Additionally, as I said months ago, Romney is my second choice. He is a moderate and a progressive. Although he's trying to court the tea party, but he really is a moderate. If the unthinkable should happen and the President should lose then I'll take Romney any day over the rest of the pack. He is an acceptable second choice.

I just cannot believe that Gingrich or Paul will make the cut. If they do the President's victory would be even bigger because the female and independent vote will go elsewhere in droves. The rest of the GOP pack are zombies, they are the walking dead. They should hang it up.

I think, and have always thought, that Romney is the guy. He's the "establishment" candidate and it's "his turn". Look for him to come out swinging against Newt and to take on his stealth negative (Mormon) tonight at the debate. I think he will confront it head on and he will make points.

Let's hope so.

Obama/Biden 2012

WCA -

I have had you on ignore for a long time because of the character of your posts and the futility of attempting to have a discussion with you. I read your most recent post because I was sure you'd do just what you did. Following is an article I wrote for the 'Vine a while back that goes not only to the Haritage Foundation's comments, but yours as well - thanks for bringing up the 16th century:

RIGHT WING USES ANCIENT TACTIC: BLAME THE POOR FOR THEIR POVERTY

Blaming the poor for just about any problem is a pretty ancient tactic. In the conservative, slow-developing societies of pre-Biblical times, poverty was addressed by enslaving the poor. In early modern England of the 16th and 17th centuries - in a system that persisted through the 1800's - the poor made up almost half the country's population, and were feared, incorrectly, as a drain on the nation's resources.

Sen. Orrin Hatch several times in the month of July made the same claim: "The poor need jobs! And they also need to share some of the responsibility."

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/orrin-hatch-debt-poor-rich_n_892177.html)

Other public officials have said that eliminating the minimum wage, restrictions on child labor, and other measures would "help" the poor. What they meant was that those actions would ensure sustained poverty - and its spread.

Yet blaming the poor for their condition - a frequent attitude from the right - ignores the reality of life in America now. Focus as an example on the throngs of American homeless now.

Predictably, the Bush Recession sent rates of homelessness soaring. A Federal study estimated that at least 1.5 million people joined the ranks of the homeless in 2009-2010. Another report estimates that as many as 3.5 million ae homeless right now. That includes people in shelters, short-term temporary locations, sleeping in their cars, or living on the streets, sidewalks, and other rough outdoor locations.

A substantial number of the homeless now are families displaced by unemployment, cuts in social service programs, high medical bills, and of coure the financial crash accompanied by the tanking of the housing market. One report said that one in 10 American children today is homeless.

Although the traditional view of the homeless is that they are mainly single men, unrepentant alcoholics and drug users, that is a stereotype handy for dismissing the homeless population as "human trash." Some portion of the population of homeless single men indeed are addicts, but two other key factors have greater influence - unemployment and mental health problems. A significant number of the single men are former inmates of prisons, released onto the streets without guidance or resources into a society that has come to view them as undesirables not worthy of employment.

Numerous studies and initiatives have shown that preventing homelessness is the best way to reduce the numbers. Programs to aid families and individuals to stay in their homes, to assist prisoners in their return to society, to help the unemployed from being forced onto the streets - all such efforts have been successful. But there is considerable general hostility toward those programs, both at a neighborhood level (people have to go somewhere) and among voters.

Efforts to provide some means of a safe, sanitary encampment for the homeless have been met with violence and snobbish rejection. In St. Petersburg, and in nearby Tampa, Florida, for example, such encampments were closed down by city authorities. In St. Petersburg a police crackdown ended with bulldozers destroying what little property camp residents had.

In Tampa, homeless persons trying to provide for themselves by selling newspapers at street corners, hawking bottles of ice water at major intersections, or just simply begging for handouts were forbidden to continue their activities - partly for good reason as some of the streeet vendors and beggars blocked traffic or appeared to be threatening, but primarily because their visible presence in numbers was disturbing to their better-off neighbors.

Such treatment has long been common.Professor Patricia Fumerton wrote a detailed study of homelessness, vagrancy, and itinerant labor in England during the Tudor period through the reign of William III. She found that although as much as half of the country's population consisted of both the housed and un-housed poor, their very existence so disturbed the rest of the English that quite oppressive laws were enacted.

And then, in the "Epilogue" of her study, Unsettled: The Culture of Mobility and the Working Poor in Early Modern England, Prof. Fumerton cast her view upon her own times. "We have jumped forward four hundred years and crossed an ocean, and we seem to be, oddly, back in the same place with a familiar feeling of the 'new' about uncannily similar happenings. Americans in the late twnetieth into the twenty-first century can be surprised by an emergent economy characterized by mobility, instability and job diversity, and find 'news' in the fact that most of the poor within that economy actually work.

"Surprised by its own 'new,' mobile workforce, early modern England ... focused not so much on the poor as on the unsettled." She points out that the authorities cracked down not only on unemployed vagrants, but basically anyone who shifted from job to job, and usually was homeless. Early in her book she recounted how a peddler was whipped from town to town, while another man who had to shift jobs between parishes (the basic unit of political structure at the time) discovered his wife and baby were being foced to move because he wasn't around - and the next town over didn't allow her to rent a home, either.

Whether the working poor or the entirely disconnected homeless, the lowest of America's classes is the object of scorn and rejection. It's a pattern as old as city streets.

I'm sorry John A, but to label it the "Bush Recession" when Democrats had majorities in the House and Senate for 5 years is just not true.

Why the Democrats on this board refuse to acknowledge that it was Democrats in the house that played a big part in the housing bubble which ultimately led to the current crisis is beyond me.

Bush started the wars and they have been a drain on the economy. I have been a proponent to end the wars, all of them, for years. I have never defended them.

Blaming one man for the shape we are in now is just very short-sighted in my opinion.

"Blaming one man for the shape we are in now is just very short-sighted in my opinion."

I'm glad you said that because blaming Obama for the shape we are in, considering the unrelenting efforts of the obstructionist Republicans that have deadlocked congress, is not only short-sighted but it is downright shameful. The American people will reelect Obama next year largely due to a forceful public backlash against a hateful, spiteful Republican Party that has shown it is willing to go as far as to deliberately damage our country in order to gain a limited political advantage...to say nothing of the GOP's utter failure to produce a potential candidate for whom it makes any sense to vote.

The once-might Republican Party is going to reap the bitter harvest it has sown with its own hand. read 'em and weep.

WCA --

I'm sorry John A, but to label it the "Bush Recession" when Democrats had majorities in the House and Senate for 5 years is just not true.

Four years, and not filibuster proof.

The recession technically began in the fall of 2007, after Democrats had had control of Congress for about 8 months. I challenge you to name one thing the Democrats did in those 8 months to precipitate the recession, and one thing the valiant Republicans did to stop either the recession or the Democrats.

As I said, they did not have a filibuster-proof majority, and not much got done during that entire Congress because everyone was anticipating the 2008 elections. Not even immigration reform or veterans' benefits.

So, it seems clear that the damage had already been done in the years before that.

You know, those years -- like 2005 and 2006 -- when Newt claims he was warning Freddie Mac.

Which, of course, he was not. In fact, he was doing his best to keep conservatives in Congress from doing anything at all about Freddie Mac.

Why the Democrats on this board refuse to acknowledge that it was Democrats in the house that played a big part in the housing bubble which ultimately led to the current crisis is beyond me.

Here's one who will.

They were suffering from Republicanism-envy. Many of them still are. But between 1994 and 2006, there really was nothing they could have done about it, was there?

And maybe you can tell me again, why weren't the Republicans doing something about it in those years?

In any event, I'm not really a big fan of the post hoc argument that Congress didn't regulate the mortgage industry enough. Especially when the same people who have made that argument, both before the fact, and again now, are calling for LESS regulation and want to undo Dodd-Frank altogether.

It simply doesn't compute. It's nothing more than the morally bankrupt equivalent of, "Why didn't you save me from myself?"

The mortgage industry caused the problem. Congress did not hold a gun to their heads and force them to make bad loans. And they made a handsome profit doing it, too.

Bush started the wars and they have been a drain on the economy. I have been a proponent to end the wars, all of them, for years. I have never defended them.

Good for you. Join the club.

Blaming one man for the shape we are in now is just very short-sighted in my opinion.

Okay. Then be sure to tell your fellow conservatives to stop blaming President Obama for everything.

Never blamed Obama for everything. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats get plenty of blame for the Stimulus and Health Care in my book.

I would like to replace all of them.

Well, good luck with that, WCA. You might want to write Obama a letter after he is reelected and tell him what you think, though. After a mildly tiring presidential race in which the GOP was crushed, your president would probably enjoy a good laugh.

WCA,

"The fact is it is a lot easier to be poor than it is to be rich.'

WHERE ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH DID YOU COME UP WITH THAT STATEMENT??

"EASIER"... meaning it is hard work being rich or making money?

Or do you mean it is not hard work in any sense being poor?

tell that to the woman who has to take two buses to get to her doctor appointment, then make $400. stretch to feed a family with children for a month. What about clothes, new shoes, all the other basics.

Tell that to the working poor who have jobs making $30,000 a year with two children . The cost of daycare for a infant (under 16 months) is 18,000. a year. after school programs for kids cost $140 a week for two grade school kids.

You WCA, should go volunteer at your local public school, or talk to any teacher about the needs of the children who come to their classroom without mittens, a good breakfast let alone a computer to learn at home and do home work.

I am just at a loss for words to respond any more to your post...

I wrote this in May, 2010. About the only portion that could be expanded is how Sen. Phil Gramm and his wife Wendy, then working for Citicorp. colluded in an illegal merger of her company to present President Clinton with a fait accompli to essentially bludgeon him into accepting legislation that did away with the Glass-Steagall Act. That measure allowed a massive outbreak of decEptive, fraudulent behavior by investMENT bankers, retail bankers, and insurance companies that ultimately created the mortgage meltdown and launched a gLobal recession. The story is told in excellent detail in Thomas Frank's book, The Wrecking Crew.

There is no doubt that the economic meltdown was directly attributable to Republican Administrations following the Milton Friedman economic ideology, combined with a political philosophy that crippled or wrecked regulatory oversight. The Bush Recession, in effect, could even be called the Reagan-Bush recession.

Of course, the right wing wants to hear nothing of this - so, as usual, they lie about history.

ROOTS OF GREAT RECESSION LIE IN REAGAN ERA

Conservatives attacking the Barack Obama Administration claim that "blaming Bush" for the present economic crisis is evading responsbility - and to some extent, the critics are correct: This problem was the product of Ronald Reagan's Administration.

Conservatives who do blame any other President for the economic collapse of 2008 point to President Bill Clinton's effort to get two major Federal agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to make more financing available for lower-income buyers. However, it is incorrect to say that that initiative was the trigger for the present global economic crisis. In fact, their loans were not their main problem studies show, but their greedy involvement in the fraudluent derivatives marketed by investment banks - and that only rather late in the game. Nothing has been found to show that the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act had anything whatsoever to do with the mortgage meltdown.

The "GLBA," an acronym for Pres. Clinton's initiative, had an effect on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which bought some packages of the risky mortgages from the banks - and while this led to a large number of foreclosures and affected relative housing prices, it was not a specific cause of the financial collapse of 2008. THAT began with Lehman Brothers and was related to speculative "derivatives" based partly on the real estate market but also came from other financing improprieties and false reporting of assets and risks. It was a "domino effect" long in the building.

The global economic distress we find ourselves in today is the end game of a process launched by Ronald Reagan's "free market reforms" of the early 1980's. Reagan "deregulated" interstate commerce, transportation, banking, finance, insurance, and energy.

Almost immediately thereafter, in a foreshadowing of the results that would follow in EVERY deregulated industry, one after another, the trucking industry suffered major problems, as did rail transportation. Owner-operators were ruined - those that did survive found themselves no longer in a reasonably-decent income bracket. The "drive to the bottom" had begun (check Steven Brill's "Sweatshops on Wheels" for the grisly details).

Soon thereafter came the savings and loan crisis, caused by precisely the same kind of unethical, dishonest operations that deregulation had made possible in the banking and finance sectors. That was followed by the energy sector - delay of about 10 years in implementation of some of the "reforms," began taking place in the late 1990's. This was the foundation of the Enron scandal, as well as the manipulation of energy resources that just about turned out the lights in California and sent consumer energy prices soaring all over the nation.

Helping drive some of these earlier collapses was another factor of the Reagan "reforms" - changes in tax laws that encouraged investors to engage in day trading and rapid turnover of stock investments for short-term capital gains. Basically, Reagan converted capital investment from a long-term asset marketplace to an arbitrage marketplace.

In so doing, he set up the massive division between workplace and executive suite, with base wages for executives soaring to many hundreds of times the median employee wage, and stimulating executives to focus on short-term quarterly results that justified huge, bloated bonuses (a problem still afflicting business today).

The result was the Great American Sell-Off, as business were broken up, employees replaced with long-term "temporary" workers, and massive outsourcing or wholesale movement of American industry overseas. (NAFTA, under Clinton, just made matters worse, but the movement had been long underway.) This new environment of course spurred the kinds of false accounting that undid Enron, Worldcom, and many other companies.

While the dotcom and telecom boom of the 1990's fueled an over-inflated marketplace, Clinton's Administration did very little to exercise retraint on out-of-control practices in banking, finance, and securities. As the "bubble" burst in 2000 and 2001, he was gone, laying that particular problem in George W. Bush's lap. And that was entirely the wrong lap to cradle major issues of the distressed markets, for Bush sought to out-Reagan Reagan.

Deregulation? Already done - but Bush could, and did, choose to entirely suppress what little regulatory authority remained.

In the economic distress following the dotcom collapse and then the 9/11 attacks, Bush in 2002 chose to use the Federal Reserve as a tool for economic stimulus. Then Fed chairman Hank Greenspan was perfectly willing to go along with a series of interest rate cuts intended to use debt as a means of prodding consumer spending. Bush himself went on speaking tours urging Americans to spend, spend, spend.

As a short-term tool, steering money out of savings and capital investment and into sales of housing, luxury goods and stocks was not too bad an idea. But it was unsustainable - and because of the Reagan reforms (compounded by the GLBA), too tempting. By 2004, the Bush tactic needed to be reined in, but was not. By 2006, the collapse had actually begun, with job losses starting to happen again, early defaults on some mortgages, and a steady decline in the consumer spending that had kept the entire squirrel cage turning. By 2008, the economy, burdened by debt and unable to supply any more money to fuel spending, fell in on itself.

Bush's massive deficits, indifference to appropriate market oversight, and frankly general incompetence in office, ultimately caused the problems that today Obama is attempting to resolve. But they were born in the Reagan reforms.

Sailcat,

I have to tell you, your posts always buoy my spirits. Your comments are always spot on and positive. Thanks.

Why, thank you, Jack! You're no slouch, yourself!

John-- Wonderful. Thank you.

Didn't know anything about this pledge to be nice for the holidays. When did that come up?

I'd be happy if First Read could regain the depth of discussion I remember from last campaign cycle. We had pointless, meaningless, partisan comments then too, but I don't remember them dominating the boards like they seem to now.

Side note here, with all these states constantly moving their primaries, does any think eventually we will be holding the elections for president every 2 years (with an eye to every year?)? Jeez Louise, kinda miss the old days of watching them play out for months!

Brought up the question yesterday of spending one morning (next Wednesday) on First Thoughts where we all are nice to each other, sending best wishes, finding out NICE things about each other. Thought it might show we have more in common than what we think. Nice way to end the year. It is a tradition that warring armies have used since early times - kind of a holiday truce.

Paul,

That is because they joined in with Newsvine and allowed comments 24/7 where they used to only be open for comments a couple hours on each article.

That's funny, phinephancy, but I don't think so. Not only is the Constitution a small obstacle to that, remember its the people in power who make the rules and I don't think they're going to shorten their own terms too quickly.

But there is no question the presidential cycle is now a full four years or longer. I'm sure there are people from both parties now jockeying to line up donors and contacts for a possible 2016 run.

*shaking head* The money in politics is truly becoming a bad thing. SCOTUS did us no favors with the Citizen United ruling. Have to admit, I rather admire the countries that their elections are only 6 weeks long and, if I am correct, government funded = with free tv time.

@Dennis

What's the old cunard, "Give them in inch and they take a mile"? Seems that is the case with the comments. If you notice, it starts out okay, but, goes downhill after a while.

I don't know, I think that Newt has an endless capacity to destroy his own campaign because he speaks before he thinks, and that always gets him into trouble. What will be interesting is if he can maintain his pledge to run a positive campaign and not attack others. I don't think he can, his arrogance and supreme belief in his own superiority is really going to get into the way.

Was much amused at Chris Matthews saying that he and Callista (seriously, would someone explain to me what is up with that name?) see themselves as Ron and Nancy Reagan, and Callista also thinks she is Laura Bush. Really? Callista, what you are is a homewrecker. Someone who professes to Catholic belief, but didn't mind involving yourself with a married man. There is not one woman who is going to see anything to admire about you. And lose the helmet head hairdo, won't you? Went out in the '50's.

After being the first major candidate to forego public campaign spending limits in 2008 he went on to spend an estimated $745 million to get elected.

It will be interesting to see if the Obama campaign truly has to now spend a Billion dollars to get him reelected.

@newday

I think on a one on one debate, Newt would have a better chance at losing his cool. If the primaries go on long enough - we may see just that. Romney, also, gets testy on one on one confrontations, so it could become rather, ahem, zany.

After being the first major candidate to forego public campaign spending limits in 2008 he went on to spend an estimated $745 million to get elected.

It will be interesting to see if the Obama campaign truly has to now spend a Billion dollars to get him reelected.

After being the first major candidate to forego public campaign spending limits in 2008 he went on to spend an estimated $745 million to get elected.

It will be interesting to see if the Obama campaign truly has to now spend a Billion dollars to get him reelected.

Another debate tonight?

Maybe this will be the swan song for Perry. Thank God it will be the last one before they are actually votes cast in the Iowa caucus on Jan 3.

@Northstar

Perry is trying to spend all the money in his war chest. And a big AMEN on the last of the debates until the caucaus.

Good Morning All You can count me in too Phine.

We are off to an early start today, and look at all the liberals up early, caught some on the right flatfooted!!

Morning Mamma, yep, hope we can keep them flatfooted, too!

Glad to have you on board for next week! :)

I like this early FR thread.

Shows everyone that liberals are up at dawn ready for another day. Off to work...

My conservative sister will be visiting tonight. We will watch the debates together tonight.

Plenty of popcorn for both of us.

Count me in Phine sounds like a good idea.

I don't think it's the tea people GOP republicans who aren't up yet, it's they haven't got their Tea people GOP republican talking points yet. It's Rove, Limbaugh, Luntz, and Grover the leader of the party that haven't got up yet.

newday,

And lose the helmet head hairdo, won't you?

Picture her standing side-by-side with The Donald.

@Jack & newday

Quick, hide the hairspray - or keep flames away from the hair, they are both flammable!

Paul, it is also because prior to joining Newsvine, our FR hosts had to review every post before it was ever seen on First Read.

What an image Jack...still laughing.

Jack, you can almost envision The Donald combing over from Callista's head,...lol

Oh, and I will attempt to refrain from snark and sarcasm next wednesday; but until then, it's on like Donkey Kong!

Whew! No, Us conservatives have been working for hours! Just now getting a break to see what the Libs are doing with all their free time! Go Ron Paul! Things are looking Up! Ron Paul 2012!!!!

NDD...

I thought the same thing about Callista with the 'helmet hair/head'...

In a strong wind, her head would blow off before the hair moved. What's up with that?

Johnnyreb,

Us conservatives have been working for hours!

Take out the word "conservatives" and you will see that the sentence should begin with "We".

Clara,

Oh, and I will attempt to refrain from snark and sarcasm next wednesday; but until then, it's on like Donkey Kong!

That's the way I feel, too. I've even marked my calendar to remind myself!

Got me chilled, that rather improbable color too.

Sorry, long hours. Not on my A game. These blue collar middle class jobs a tiring!

newday,

that rather improbable color too

My mother was a women's clothes buyer for a large department store, and I remember her saying: "We used to think that blue and green don't go together, but if you look around in Nature you'll see that they exist side-by-side."

It had been my intent to say that Callista's hair color doesn't exist in Nature, except that now, suddenly, it does.

@Jack

The color is called ultimate blonde by L'Oreal! :)

Wow the crew is all here and up early today!

Lots has happened over night, looks like Ron Paul is about to take the lead in Iowa, Matthews and Maddow are claiming that Iowa can be forgotten, is irrelevant or just plain doesn't matter, Wolf Blitzer actually giving Ron Paul a nice respectful interview with a personal "Good Luck" at the end.

Is the world turning upside down?

It should be called Ultimate Phony,...

You do realize with the 3 of us on here first, we could solve all the problems of the nation and go have breakfast before the others know we are here! :)

Hey, sounds like a plan.

BTW, liked the "blue" thing on the other line. Reminded me of Queen Bodica!

PhinePhancy really needs to watch it, jumping in here all early on "First Thoughts." You can actually feel through the screen the resentment by Feisty Redhead. Everybody knows she likes to be first.

You are correct Damage....

In Feisty's perfect world:

1) she would be the first to post on every thread

2) instead of 50% of americans getting government assistance it would be 100% and

3) each and every Christmas the TLC network would run an all day marathon of All American Muslim

Not true, Damage

Feisty likes a Liberal to be first,...she's just willing to put in the time to make it so.

Rob and

the TLC network would run an all day marathon of All American Muslim

Damage,

You can actually feel through the screen the resentment by Feisty Redhead.

Are you two having a contest to see who can make the stupidest comment?

You forgot a few, Rob--

1) She'd like FOX NEWS and Limbaugh to be outlawed. She's not against free speech, just some kinds of speech.

2) She'd like to see an end to all hatred...except hatred toward conservatives because, you know, they deserve it.

3) All illegal aliens should be able to vote! Anything less is a "civil rights" violation.

4) She would like to see an end to ALL wars. Except those that Obama is prosecuting because wars miraculously become "good wars" when a liberal is in charge of them.

5) In Feisty Redhead's perfect world, Obama would be president for life and she would be right there to be his Lewinsky.

6) There would be NO rich people (unless, of course, she manages to become rich in the meantime in which case she would radically change many of her envious and hateful views on the wealthy and successful).

Hey. Any word on if Obama has lost more ground in Swing States? Haven't seen an article on that yet. Did I miss it? I was so busy yesterday cowering in fear from phinephancy's threats that I could barely function.

Okay Damage and poor Rob, I'll play your ridiculous game. Gonna ask you the same thing I asked WCA, who failed miserably.

Source?

Well lookee here...

How cute of brain damaged & Raaaab to hold a Fiesty Redhead Fan Club meeting this morning!

Keep up the great work guys, I appreciate your admiration & devotion to me! ;o)

You do draw them like flies, Feisty. I imagine, like WCA, they will refuse the challenge.

You think THIS was stupid? Wait til we start ragging on David "I Coulda Been At Mother Jones But I Wound Up Here" Walker.

You see, Mr. Koch pays us by the word and by the level of vitriol we can spew. It's hard out here for a Connie.

Damage,

You will lose any contest you initiate with David. But the thing is, you won't realize you've lost because you're not bright enough.

And frankly, I doubt Mr. Koch wastes his money on stupid people. If he did, he wouldn't be rich for very long.

You see, Mr. Koch pays us by the word

If that's the case - Mr. Kock should demand a FULL refund!

Great list there, Damage.

By the way, I can't make out your logo. What's with the baseball?

And there you have it. When challenged to provide sources for what they claim that Feisty believes, just like WCA, they FAIL.

Jack, you and I have talked about this before: what is it with the fringe right wing, their stereotypical beliefs, translating that into what someone else believes?

Damage, you and Rob have so little credibility here. Try doing some research and supporting your "thoughts".

Damage "you think this was stupid, wait til we start ragging on David....

Wow. So you know you are stupid and you are proud of it? Really? I guess truth is often spoken in jest.

Feisty and Jack,...

He may pay by the word; but the words are devoid of thought,...

You gotta' love how they follow you around and dry hump your leg all day. You might try a spray bottle of water when they get all humped hyped up. The rat repellant worked on the chiauhiau gang,...I feel certain you'll find the right comination on these pests, too.

newday & Clara,

what is it with the fringe right wing, their stereotypical beliefs, translating that into what someone else believes?

He may pay by the word; but the words are devoid of thought,...

They don't have anything to contribute, so they just make stuff up.

The most laughable part of their posts today is the belief they can go head-to-head intellectually with David. What they don't realize is that he doesn't bother with ignoramuses. Why suffer fools gladly?

Which is my last comment on them, as well.

I see the gutless democrats are backing off the surtax on the job creators. Must really bite to be a libbie! Harry Reid gets you 99% suckers all fired up and pulls the out rug right from under you.

Thank you Harry may I have another????

Wow! What's up today? Did someone ask Santa for a box of RWNJs? Personal attacks because someone else is smarter and faster than you?

Your mommy must be very proud.

Honestly Allen, I don't think it was getting out of Iraq, it was the fact that it is on President Obama's watch that they are leaving. It is the old, anything that the President is for we must be against thing - no matter if it is good or bad.

He is the son and grandson of Admirals thus he believes it is his duty on the behalf of all military officers to see to it that the US is constantly at war … making them, their jobs relevant.

This is true, Dennis. The military is always happy when engaged in warfare - and so are the defense contractors!

My friends, we are most assuredly NOT out of Iraq. We have somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 private contractors/mercenaries still there. Combat deaths/casualties will decline and that is a good thing. However, if anyone is looking for some sort of "peace dividend", they will find it measured in nickels and dimes.

Worse, there is no hope for peace in that country. Competing factions will begin killing each other in fairly large numbers in the very near future.

I remember President George W. Bush telling us that he read three separate histories of George Washington. George Washington was the same President who warned of "foreign entanglements". Reading and comprehension are clearly quite different.

The thing about Iraq in particular, and the middle east in general, is the fact that these are all tribes and peoples that have been at odds with each other for thousands of years. It really arrogant of the United States to think we can go in and change the order of things in these countries, when they haven't solved the problems and hatred in all those thousands of years.

phinephancy: Well stated. One of these days, we will realize that for the most part, we have only inflamed situations in the middle east. Look what we did to Iran in 1953.

It DOES suck that we have to be involved in the Middle East. We all know why...OIL. The people over there would still be riding camels and living in tents if Westerners had not found the oil and taught them how to extract it. Besides Africa, the Mid-East is the most backwards place on earth made worse because a majority of the people are demented by a backwards-ass religion. It would be great if we could just forget about that whole region.

Hey! Maybe we should drill HERE!

Thanks for showing that bigotry in the right hands can be unintentional humor of the first order...

McCains an idiot, always has been, always will be. He, ( THE GREAT WAR HERO ), still can't believe he lost the Presidency to a Uppity Black Man.

Obama in 2012.

The end of the US presence in Iraq

Hoooop! Welcome home brothers. Best news in years.

John McCain speaks out against it. “We risk losing peace”

John McCain is a brother and a hero.

John McCain is wrong.

Vietnam – The Domino theory
“..it is far better to fight in Vietnam, on China's doorstep, than fight some years hence in Hawaii, on our own frontiers.” H W Baldwin Feb, 1965

That was wrong too.

The Paul Ryan plan says nothing ,,the old medicare takes car of almost every high expense that the senate /congress have allowed their wealthy " insurance friends" to charge ...The failed the people by not allowing a public option...they dont want completion "not enough profit in it " . What is this voucher worth in dollars ? Last time it was a 800.00 per year ..which could be one month for some seniors !

California Twit-- Actually, you're ignorant post is almost verbatim the things that Obama groupies were saying about Hilary Clinton back in the primaries of 2008. You've heard of her , right? Secretary Of State? Remember how many times the Obama campaign and their propaganda teams in the media accused Hilary and Bill of racism and being disrespectful to Obama? All jsut to draw Black support away from Hilary. It was kinda sad, really, because Bill and Hilary had spent their entire professional liberal careers kissing the collective ass of Black folks only to see it thrown unfairly back in their faces. Gotta admit though. I liked it because they had become a victim of a climate that they helped create.

Phinephancy, Your above statements (posts 25.1 & 25.3) are wrong and shows how shadow you really are. Obama wanted to leave several thousand military personnel in Iraq and was told no by the Iraqi government, therefore, he had no choice but to comply with the agreement signed by President Bush.

Your remark "The military is always happy when engaged in warfare - and so are the defense contractors." I guess you don't really know anybody serving in the military, FYI I served 20 yrs (1960 - 1980) and I can tell you that most military people do not want to be engaged in warfare. No one wants a war, especially military personnel. Maybe you should talk to some military people and their families and find out just how they feel instead of making asinine remarks.

I meant your statements at post 4.1 and 4.3. BTW Dennis I have never met an Officer or enlisted man that hoped for continuous war even John McCain.

Hi Sarge,

If you listen to Sen. McCain on the Senate floor we would still be in Iraq, at war with Iran and engaged in at least 2 other conflicts.

We don’t need it, we can’t afford it.

Actually sfcret, you are wrong. And before I tell you why please explain "shows how shadow you are". Iraq is who wanted the military to stay, but they didn't want to grant soldiers immunity, Obama as well as the UN said "uh.......no" hence we are leaving. Do you ever tire of being wrong?

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/22995-obama-meets-maliki-as-u-s-exits-iraq

The meeting comes as Iraq's top security adviser said that NATO will mirror the nearly-complete pullout of U.S. forces by withdrawing its Iraq training mission at year's end after Baghdad refused to grant it legal immunity.

But an official at NATO headquarters in Brussels denied that any decision had been taken.

"When they ask us to extend the mission, we need to see that the same legal framework will extend as well," the official said on condition of anonymity.

Iraq said the end of the mission was a surprise, with NATO previously having agreed in principle to staying through to the end of 2013.

"We are sorry that NATO has advised that it will withdraw its mission from Iraq... because immunity is something that is out of the government's reach," National Security Adviser Falah al-Fayadh said in an interview aboard a flight transporting Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to Washington.

scfret:

You get your information from Fox News!

The VP was on TV just this week dispelling the notion that the Administration wanted to leave 20K troops in Iraq. Just not true.

Nice try though.

Hi Dennis,

I think McCain is still trying to atone for his misconduct while a POW. I do not agree with keeping military forces in Iraq and Iraq don't want us. We do have a fairly large military force next door in Kuwait which could, if needed, be moved back into Iraq. We have contingency forces all over, Okinawa, Korea, Japan, Germany, etc., and it is easy to move them anywhere fairly fast.

Sheila, You must get you news from MSNBC. Try some other news outlets. No, I did not get my information from FOX, maybe you should do some research instead of taking Biden's word for it.

I think Ron Paul being on the foreign relations committee in the house might know a thing or two about it.

He states unequivocally that there will be 17,000 "contractors" (read mercenaries) remaining in Iraq, once we are "Officially" gone.

What gets me, how long has it been since the military contractors have had the ability to field a division size unit. (just remembering that there are four military contractors operating within the USA today)

And Guys, I know the emotional and political appeal of claiming that military guys just "Love" warfare and will try to make it happen every chance they get, but, it's just not true.

There are a few of the "Cadmus" soldiers that revel in the killing and maiming, but most true soldiers hate war and all it brings to the table. claiming otherwise dishonors them and their families that also suffer so much from constant fear....

Shellie, I know what the stumbling block in the negotiations were and it was the immunity issue. However, it was the U.S. that wanted to keep the troops in Iraq, as did the Iraqi leaders. However, the two sides could not agree on the immunity issue. Had Iraq agreed to grant US military personnel immunity we would be leaving a few thousand in Iraq, where they would have been targeted by insurgents. The 160 or so advisers will be attached to the Embassy, thereby giving them diplomatic immunity. For your information, most countries where US Forces are stationed the military is subject to the host countries laws for crimes or violations of their laws while committed outside of official military duty. Would want foreign soldiers training and performing duties in the US not be held by us if they violated our laws?

@phinephancy

You are correct "but barring some train wreck among the front-runners, we’ll never know what might have been. We’ll have to content ourselves to remember that, once upon a time, not all Republicans were ideological attack dogs."

Even if I don't agree with some of his Republican ideology, I agree that listening to him does not send shivers up my spine thinking of him as President.

@Dave

He disappointed me with backing away on the science and climate change. I, also, do not agree with him on a lot of his ideology, but he does (did) appear to be a man of reason. Maybe a good veep?

As some of you have stated, I don't agree with much of Jon Huntsman's ideology. But, I would not be frightened if he was to become POTUS, as I would be with any of the other candidates. He seems to be consistent, intelligent, and a gentleman.

Huntsman does seem more reasonable than the others. Until he decided to support Ryan's plan. But, he definitely has more knowledge. Which will kill his candidacy from the right wing. They prefer stupid.

it's not that we prefer stupid, we prefer our liberals "out of the closet" me personally I don't like RINO politicians infecting the party, pretty much like you guys sometime have a few words for "Blue Dog" Democrats.

Huntsman won't get it because he is a liberal republican.

Of course I support Ron Paul, a libertarian in reality so I have no room to talk... ;-)

Ron Paul still has chance of getting the nomination. Different sources say differently, but all agree that polls present him as a valid contender. Jon Huntsman, on the other hand, has very little chance of winning. Don't get me wrong, I respect the guy and I believe he's one of the few sensible Republicans--it's just that most Republicans are NOT sensible. This is why Paul and Huntsman aren't the front-runners right now. Many would rather vote for the Slimy Newt, despite the fact that he's in it for the money.

That is true Leslie, just like he never got over the spanking George W gave him back in 2000.

You "American Heroes" do realize that the man you lampoon as getting a "spanking": had his ARMS repeatedly BROKEN during years of TORTURE serving his country so you could cavalierly dismiss him as a "sore loser"...right?

I love how those who have never accomplished ANYTHING daily denigrate those who have accomplished so much.

I don't respect McCain now, as he has made a mockery of himself over that past half-decade, but that does not negate his history of service to his country, nor his many years of being the most bipartisan senator on either side of the aisle. This is , after all the man who John Kerry WANTED as his vice president not so long ago...

dangerfield: I don't disagree with you about Senator McCain. I have always quite liked the man. Felt like he made an effort to fairly present his views.

Until he ran for President. I do believe he owes the country more honesty about Palin. He can't possibly still believe that she was suitable as VP candidate. He has been quite disingenuous of late, and I have been disappointed to see him try to placate the fringe right wing.

@ Leslie at least he probably knows how to spell "loser". This man is an American veteran who endured extreme torture. He may be incorrect about the withdrawal from Iraq, time will tell. I personally am glad we are bringing the troops home. At least give him the respect he deserves for serving his country.

John McCain was given tons of respect in the past. Hell I would have voted for the John McCain of 2000. He now gets the respect he deserves. Which is none. War hero or not, he's a bitter old man who made the choice to go from a respectable veteran/senator to a crazy talking bitter old man who has lost the respect of many US citizens. He deserves to get EXACTLY what he gives.

@Shellie I highly doubt you would say the same if he were a democrat or your father. He still deserves the respect not to be called a loser or crazy bitter old man just because you disagree with him. Grow up .

John McCain was a war hero and he deserves all the respect associated with his life as a warrior. He would have made a crappy president, but that doesn't mean we should forget his sacrifices. I personally find his policies ridiculous, but that's got nothing to do with anything outside of his political life.

I find Romney a little strange. For example, as he was calling Gingrich "zany" he was looking pretty zany himself - smiling maniacally, laughing nervously. I think Romney has a problem with anger and aggression. I think his sisters may have made fun of him when he got mad as a kid, and he learned to mask those feelings with a gee-whiz incredulity. It's disconcerting, as a viewer. I don't want him explaining things like the debt ceiling crisis to me. As President, I wouldn't know what emotion he was trying to convey.

President Obama is already as you call it boasting about his record Joseph. Where have you been? Stuck watching Fox (aka tea people GOP republican propaganda machine) listening to Limbaugh (racist) or just ignoring the fact that the economy is improving because of the Presidents policies, and in spite of the tea people GOP republicans standing in the way.

Amy B.: I agree with your statement that Mitt Romney has a problem with anger. He seems to always be on the defensive; the manner in which he speaks suggests that he is just waiting for someone to challenge him.

Joseph P.......for the most part we are for now, keeping our powder dry. We watch from the sidelines as the Republican candidates trip over themselves as they point out and exploit each others flaws. Meanwhile, the money keeps rolling in for the Democrats and the President, from people like me. Sure there are high rollers in it too, we need them if we are to counteract Rove's group Crossroad and thanks to the Roberts Court, all the corporations who became very special people.

The President has a fine record to run on, may not suit you and the TPr's who always conveniently forget the awful mess he inherited from the previous inhabitant of the WH. He will very ably defend that record and lay out his vision and plan for the future of our country. What does your party have to offer? So far I have heard nothing, only lies, insults and criticism. That's easy to do, the hard part is governing and leading into the future, something your party has not had the ability to do, you guys only know how to line your own pockets and that of the richest in the land. The only ability I see for your party, is the ability, to drive the country to its knees with wars, and financial ruin, no matter who you destroy on the way to your goals.

How can anyone be for that???

Amy, I am in total agreement on Romney. He does NOT like to be challenged, it comes across very clearly in any of the few (at least up until now) interviews he is willing to do. He appears nervous, agitated, as if he has something to hide. I try to imagine him in the briefing room of the WH, when occasionally the President has appeared to discuss and or announce some happening or other and how calmly he can handle the questions tossed at him.

Can't see Mitt doing so, which makes me wonder what is going on with him.

Mary and Gingerbread,

It was weird that time he said "don't you see, corporations are people too!" Like by his enthusiasm for this simple logic alone, we were supposed to be convinced to let corporations donate as much money as they want to political advertising. I thought he was condescending as well as disingenuous.

Willard's used to working in corporate American where if anyone disagrees with him he fires them, he can't do that now and it irritates him.

Joseph, what analysts? I'm pretty sure the DNC and Obama re-election teams want Romney, and would be surprised if any analyst saw it differently.

Gingrich is a wild card. So tainted, he can't be further defined. So effective at times, he outshines anyone around. The only downside is he probably can't do that for 11 months.

That's why neither the RNC nor the DNC want him to be the nominee. From the RNC's perspective, they worry about the implosion, and from the DNC's perspective, they worry about the possibility that it wouldn't happen.

Both will pass on that gamble if they have a choice.

Amy, I'm seeing the same things and think it comes across as over-caffeinated.

Romney just isn't comfortable in a scrap - which is really something Republicans ought to consider before accepting the truism he's the safer choice. The general election is a months long one-on-one scrap. When in a scrap, he starts looking, well, creepy.

Gingrich, in contrast, seems to love it. In fact one of his weaknesses is that at times he seems to love it too much. Standing up and fighting for the things you want can be presidential. Picking fights because they're fun isn't.

Joseph E. Parent @#50

Sounds like pretty good analysis to me, except you left out the one person that really matters.

What is he going to do if Ron Paul wins?

As you state he sure can't run on record and trashing Dr Paul is something they will try but it won't stick, the media has been doing that for three months now and it's helped not hurt.

What is he going to do? (and it looks like the Paul candidacy is a lot stronger than anyone has given it credit for)

Egilman,

The political analysts who concur (for the most part) on the above assessment are Karl Rove, Dick Morris, and Brit Hume. Karl used to be a Bush advisor, Dick worked for Clinton, and Brit has been around for a long time. I consider myself an independent, but this time around I have to side heavily with the conservatives.

If Ron Paul is the Nominee, more power to him. (No pun intended)

Yes, Mitt Romney appears agitated when attacked. So what?? Doesn't everybody??

interesting thought...

Bill of Fairfax,

Read your link. The framework for reform will be unveiled today at a conference by both of them. The devil is always in the details.

Most seniors I know have Medicap or Supplement private insurance beyond the $90-110. premium that comes out of their SS check to pay for Part B.

These Medicap plans cost anywhere from $100 -$400. a month depending on the coverage.

So what exactly will the reform proposal be in dollar and cents???

it is just another attempt to begin a conversation about Medicare. I am all for that.

Read your link

I already did, but thanks for the advice.

Northstar,...you can lead a horse to water,...but you can't make him think. Privatize Medicare,...what could POSSIBLY go wrong with that?

How about some names of and quotes from the whining Democrats. Or, am I supposed to take your statement as gospel truth?

I took a public bus to work today. An elderly, slightly (well, more than slightly) demented couple were asking for help finding the address of a social service center. It was slow going, trying to give them directions. Finally, a young woman offered to escort them there. I can just imagine sending these folks to a private insurance company for Medicare. What are they going to do, use the Internet to compare policies? And you know, some insurance company would make it their business to rip these people off.

Amy---how nice that the young woman helped out that couple. I don't think the Republicans would care about who takes care of such a couple---they always figure the free market will work its magic and the right outcome (i.e. the one that makes the most money for the private companies) will be reached.

Auntie Fascist and Bill of Fairfax,

You are welcome.

I will wait for your specific understanding of the current premiums structure for Medicare part B and Medigap insurance. I stand by my numbers until you give me which numbers you would use.

Hey phinephancy-- You gonna let patHuntington get away with all those nasty insults against the elderly? Or is it ok because McCain is a Republican?

Thank God John McCain didn't win in 2008. He of "we could stay in Iraq 100 years." And Sarah Palin as VP would make an McCain administration seem like it lasted 100 years.

Amy: Yes, thank God. Rudy Guliani criticized President Obama's pulling out our troops from Iraq, stating that we need to maintain a military presence in the middle east for 50 years. (I think he said 50 years, but it may have been another time frame, just as ridiculous. My old mind cannot remember as much as it used to!)

How much more blood and treasure were we supposed to pour down this rat hole, anyway?

So the President follows through on an arrangement negotiated by his predecessor and one which the Iraqis themselves chose not to extend or modify and McCain calls it an occasion for "scorn and disdain". Well, after seeing the photos of Sen. McCain with the late Col. Kaddhafi (or however he spelled it), I guess he should know about scorn and disdain.

McCain was a war veteran. He's still got the warrior mentality. Although he isn't fit to be President, he should be respected for his wartime service.

Hey, Mo, good to see you about. Happy Birthday last week! Take care,

Thanks Clara, good to see you back.

...and my front's not bad either,...yuk yuk yuk!

couldn't resist!

I personally don't he's great at all. Then again, he couldn't get much done with the Republicans opposing everything he tries to do.

Maine's Teapublican governor is trying to accomplish just such a right-wing social engineering. He is proposing cutting 60,000 people from Medicaid, stopping funds for Head Start, closing group homes for the elderly, and cutting services like podiatry for diabetics. He claims the budget is short $122 million, yet the legislature passed $400 million in tax cuts this year. The State House is full of protesters today.

Of Course! Look at your pay stub, assuming you work. I Grossed 52k so far, claiming married 1 (disabled son, wife can't work because of it, make too much for assistance of any sort) and in state and federal taxes, medicare which I can't use, I have payed in 13k. That isn't right! We need to cut the entitlements! Wars! Shrink the government! Let the individual states and private sector take care of there own. I can't afford it. Ron Paul 2012!

First off JJ Medicare is for the elderly. You need Medicaid. Second, if your son is disabled, you can apply for disability. It's not easy and prepare to be turned down a time or two but you can get it. You just have to be persistent.

JJ-johnny,

Your disabled son cannot be denied heath insurance because of his pre-existing condition. You can thank the HCRA for that benefit for your family.