A balanced budget, a real one with no silly accounting, will fire 1.5 million federal employees. It will also fire all of the support industries involved with the eliminated departments. So we are talking several million highly paid employees who are no longer going to be paying their taxes, so the revenue stream slows down.

We can gut welfare, and fire all of the employees that are involved with that business. Plus the poor will explode on the street in 3 days. There are no easy solutions other than one. Repeal the tax cuts back to the Reagan cuts. The whole disaster started there. Any graph, right or left, clearly shows what the transfer of wealth to the 1% did.

Eliminate all corporate tax. Tax the profit as it is distributed. every corporation in the world would move to the USA. If the corporations do not have to worry about taxes, and deductions, the free stuff for execs would stop that day.

All income must be taxed as regular income. Including the hedge managers. You guys ain't going to clear 15 mill in ten minutes and pay 15 %

Oceans of lies,

The folly of a process is the process that swept Obama to the 2008 election when he had never even completed a term as Senator. Someone with absolutely no experience (other than the Saul Alinsky method of community organizing), swept to the election based on how many promises he could make (of which he broke most of). FAIL.

Failed America in irreparable ways?? Hmm..try liberalism, which has directly coincided with America's downward spiral for the last several decades. Notice how MORE people are poor, MORE people are uneducated, MORE people do not own their own homes, MORE people have accrued massive devt, AMERICA has accrued massive debt, entitlement programs are still expanding and in the red, we just nixed SS by one third, EVERY price of commodities is higher than it used to be, and we have a liberal in the White House who plays golf and vacations most of the time, while participating in class warfare, blaming Bush, after nearly a full term, and blaming the rich. Thanks Dems!

Good grief, Roanoke1, the Fox/Rush/Beck gas is farting out of you without shame. That's the deeper problem these days: A plurality of Americans have morphed into lemmings with no intellectual substance, and that is very frightening. Casting the issue as donkeys versus elephants is not only short-sighted, it is intellectually weak. Until you grasp and productively respond to the realities, you are destined to crumble into the abyss with the rest of us.

Good grief, Ocean, the hypocrisy spewing out of your pseudo-intellectual mouth is thick. You take issue with my "casting the issue as donkeys versus elephants is not only short-sighted, it is intellectually weak." Yet, you say in your post:

"If it comes to pass, the squeals of the Republican sheep surely will be shrill when they realize that their rights, fortunes and social joys have evaporated into the poverty"

"They'll come to understand what all of the liberal and occupation fuss was about, and how their cowardly allegiance to a manipulative ideology changed America in unimaginable, and irreparable, ways."

I love it. You call me out for painting it as a left/right argument, when you clearly do the EXACT same thing above!!! You represent the blatant hypocrisy that permeates the left wing of American politics.

Oh, and notice how I mentioned VERY specific things in my post, not just random complaints. I also notice how you dont actually refute a SINGLE point or even attempt to debate anything. In the vein of the typical liberal, you merely use FOX and Rush and Beck as scapegoats, blaming it on them (which is VERY INTELLECTUALLY WEAK), while not actually debating anything (also typical of libs). You simply play the blame game, name call and make juvenile asinine statements, and avoid arguing on substance and Obama's record...because you realize it is a record of failure...so you must deflect and steer the argument elsewhere. Spin baby, spin.

If you follow my posts, you know that I am a flaming independent who loathes the political system and the mind-numb minions it spawns; and, if you follow these threads, you know that expansive independent, liberal and progressive responses abound to virtually every conservative position. Predictably, your points are straight from your party's playbook... like listening to a broken record... which is why debates centered on tired party rhetoric typically dissolve into name-calling, unsubstantiated claims and twisted logic. I'm always delighted and well prepared to debate substantive issues -- rest assured that my performance is far from juvenile -- but it is apparent that you lack the open mind necessary to engage in productive political discourse.

No Ocean, see, you are spinning here,

I'll state it again, I made specific complaints that were open to argument or debate. Instead of actually debating ANY of the points I brought up, you come in with your first response to me: "Good grief, Roanoke1, the Fox/Rush/Beck gas is farting out of you without shame." So, you see, you STARTED 'our debate' with a juvenile, asinine, subjective, name-calling type of statement. Yet, in your last post, you blame debates as 'dissolving into name-calling" and such. So, I make valid points, and you immediately come in and make juvenile name-calling comments, and then blame ME for such tactics? Do you see how hypocritical you are? Again, in your last post, you STILL never debate a SINGLE point...you merely use literary deflections by blaming it on party rhetoric and twisted logic and such. You can say you aren't a liberal, but you certainly sound like one and try to weasel out of a substantive argument like one. Come back when you actually want to debate or discuss points, rather than just be a mouthpiece that never really says anything...

Your debate “points” are as nebulous and simple as most conservative rhetoric, but I’ll end this exchange with some equally simple responses:

“try liberalism, which has directly coincided with America's downward spiral for the last several decades.”

Over the past 50 years from 1961 to 2000, Republican presidential administrations held power for 28 years and Democrat administrations for 23 years. Democrat administrations have achieved the three highest rates – and four of the top five – of growth in real GDP during that period. In fact, according to federal data, Democrat economic performance has exceeded that of the GOP in most statistical categories. Conservative leadership has controlled America for 55% of the past 50 years, yet it failed to surpass liberal economic gains… and, please, tell me what Republicans have contributed to advance the social well-being of American citizens (sorry, both parties have upheld a productive commitment to defense).

“Notice how MORE people are poor,”

Please. For decades incomes have declined compared to price indexes during both Democrat and Republican administrations. In fact, fundamental costs of living from food to housing to utilities to transportation… and on and on… have increased by orders of magnitude, which is why poverty numbers are soaring, even among your middle-class neighbors who are living day-to-day despite historically decent dual incomes.

“MORE people are uneducated,”

And just think, conservative leadership is pushing for an end to the Department of Education, and don’t get me started on the question of teacher incentives. The education gap has blossomed under every administration, never to resolve until the American People rise up or its financial elite have no other choice than to invest in education for economic gain.

“MORE people do not own their own homes,”

Of course not, they all lost them when the financial gas tank burst. With the economy on long-term life support and near-term equity growth improbable at best, why – and how – will they buy again. Probably would take some sort of stimulus to crank that engine… oh yeah, that’s a naughty word (by the way, check out the facts on the performance of your supply-side buddies to understand their hit on economic fundamentals).

“MORE people have accrued massive debt,”

Ah, yes, the credit bubble. Unrestrained market forces and financial markets run amok tend to lead to that. Wow, that suspiciously resembles the core of the conservative economic model.

“AMERICA has accrued massive debt,”

Yes, and your point is? Over the past 50 years, debt has increased exponentially… under every administration. With conservatives in control for 55% of those years, what did they do to reign in spending? Oh, that’s right, they increased it.

“entitlement programs are still expanding and in the red, we just nixed SS by one third,”

Social Security has never been and should never be underfunded… it comes directly from wage withholdings and employer matching. The problem is the political shell game and the worthless IOUs that cover the decades of stealing from the cookie jar by both parties. Of course entitlement spending is expanding, needs are expanding exponentially as the economy tanks and social nets are mired in political gamesmanship, as they have under every administration since they began. No argument from me regarding better control and efficiencies.

“EVERY price of commodities is higher than it used to be, and”

The cost of EVERYTHING is higher than it used to be… the inevitable result of capitalism and the free market.

“we have a liberal in the White House who plays golf and vacations most of the time, while participating in class warfare, blaming Bush, after nearly a full term, and blaming the rich.”

You can’t be serious. This isn’t even worthy of a response.

----

Please do yourself and everyone about you a favor: Clear your mind of the rhetorical smoke of both major parties and take time to research unbiased sources for true proof of historical financial and social performance. You, as was I, will be shocked to learn that your party is not what you’ve been led to believe it is.

I’m gone now, off to release my own gas and to be castigated as a leftie, socialist, Marxist, commie, liberal pig. America the beautiful.

Ocean,

It's amusing to see you start out your diatribe with more insults :"Your debate “points” are as nebulous and simple as most conservative rhetoric."

Either way, let's get down to business...watch as your argument is shredded:

You say "Over the past 50 years from 1961 to 2000, Republican presidential administrations held power for 28 years and Democrat administrations for 23 years." ----Yes, this is true, but an intentionally VERY misleading statistic from you, which, I am sure, was done on purpose. You see, and I'm sure you will agree, that CONGRESS is the legislative body that passes law, correct? The president, essentially, is just a figurehead, he merely signs or vetos legislation AFTER IT HAS BEEN PASSED BY CONGRESS. And he cannot veto ANYTHING if the Congress has a TWO-THIRDS VOTE. WELL, GUESS WHAT??? CONGRESS HAS BEEN CONTROLLED BY DEMOCRATS FOR 36 OUT OF THE LAST 50 YEARS!!! So, it is DEMOCRAT-control of our ONLY legislative body that has directly correlated with America's downward spiral. The fact that Republican presidents presided over a Democrat-controlled Congress for a large MAJORITY of the time over the last 50 years means nothing. CONGRESS is what counts, and I am sure you know this, yet attempted to play semantics. So, there goes your first point. Oh, and as a side-note, a DEMOCRAT-controlled Congress HAS NOT PRESIDED OVER A BALANCED BUDGET IN 40 YEARS!! In fact, the last time Congress was controlled by Republicans, under Clinton, we had our ONLY balanced budget and governmental surplus in 40 YEARS!! LOL. So much for YOUR data...

On the poor? You seem to advocate the continued duplicitous nature of many government programs that "aide" the poor. Entitlement programs make up 40% of our federal budget every year. Maybe you are ok with people who pop out six kids by 4 different fathers by the time they are 25 just to keep from working and to acquire federal funds for home, food, and other sustenance. Maybe you are ok with the continued taking advantage our taxpayer dollars by persons who would rather not work or contribute to society in any way. Plus, according to the most recent U.S. Census report that conducted a survey alongside the report, the term 'poor' is vastly overused, as ONLY 6% of 'poor' families reported that their children did not get enough food to eat during the week. For those 6%, I am more than happy to have my paycheck taxed to provide them with food. (even though this shows the extreme laziness of these people as children get free breakfast, lunch, and even take home dinners from public schools, and parents can get food stamps and apply for TANIF and welfare and other programs so their kids have plenty to eat. Yet, I am NOT ok with the fact that large percentages of these 'poor' people also reported to having at least two cars, flat screen TVs, video game consoles, and many even owned their own homes...off the taxpayer dime, while also having all basic necessities like food, shelter, etc taken care of by taxpayers. To me, that is tragic. So, as I stated, you may be just fine with this, but I am not, and I am all for massive reform in this area (but go ahead and peg me as an heartless bastard wanting to take food off childrens' plates).

Next point. The Department of Ed. Taxpayers have given TRILLIONS of dollars to the Dept of Ed over the last 30 years. In that time, there has been no noticable uptick in grades or graduation rates. So, your liberal idea of continuing the Dept of Ed and continuing to throw money at the problem DOES NOT WORK. Federal education standards are one thing, but the states are much better equipped to handle the education of their children. We have already tried throwing money at the problem, doing it the 'federal' way, and decades have shown that it doesnt work...

Next point. The housing collapse was started under Clinton's first term, when the phrase "everyone should own a home" became the rallying call of Democrats. So, banks and lenders gave toxic loans to persons that would not normally have qualified, and after years of these 'owners' defaulting on their loans, the massive housing bubble occurred which helped ease us right into a recession...

Next point. In that same paragraph, on the housing bubble, you espouse the value of another 'stimulus.' Is that because the first stimulus by Obama, $787 billion, worked so well. Sure, it worked so well that unemployment is STILL over 8% and underemployment is STILL over 18%. Oh well, whats $787 billion of wasted taxpayer dollars...no biggie, again, to YOU.

Next point. You blame capitalism and free markets for the rise of cost in everything?? Really??? We have not run a truly free market system in many decades. We have been using Keynesian economics since the end of WWII. This is a mixture of capitalism, massive governmental regulations, and constant taxpayer funded government regulated 'stimulus.' Our 'free market' system has been hampered by THOUSANDS of business regulations for DECADES. So, you cannot blame the free market for the rising cost of goods. Our market has not been free in a long long time...

Next point. SS? We seem to be on the same page, so no argument from me.

Next point. Obama has played more golf in 3 years than Bush did in 8 years. That is a fact. Their vacation days are about the same, but again, we were promised HOPE and CHANGE, and especially during a recession, one would not expect our HOPE and CHANGE president to be compared with the last president he excoriated so much for his vacations...hypocrisy at it's finest. Oh, and Obama does blame the rich. He has done it constantly, with his comments "the rich have to pay their fair share" and "Republicans only want to give tax cuts to the rich" etc. Well, 47% of people in this country dont pay ANY TAXES. The awful rich, the top 10%, pay nearly 70% of the income taxes of this country EVERY YEAR. Sheesh. And yet, they dont pay enough. That might not have been worthy of a response by YOU, but it sure is to many Americans who have worked hard for their income...

Next time, try a little harder to think outside your liberal box, instead blaming every point someone makes on rhetoric and simple-mindedness...

As usual, rhetoric and talking points are obscuring facts.

You conveniently fail to mention that the presidency is the bully pulpit and the point guard for the national dialog. Check the voting records of the members of Congress through the years and you’ll discover dramatically high levels of Republican support for liberal causes, including spending initiatives. Conservatives held the bully pulpit and voting blocks that could have, but never did block what you now claim is the cause of economic and social maladies. Yes, Congress can be obstructionist (Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell are overtly excessive cases in point), and both parties have engaged in their share; but, you play semantics by dismissing the reality of 50 entire years of leadership failure to not only address, but to command resolution of issues long known to be deleterious with regard to future economic stability… issues happily supported and layered with pork by both parties without conscience. You can’t erase history or recast the responsibility of leadership, whether the houses of Congress or the executive branch, when politically advantageous.

Yes, “entitlement” programs make up 40% of the federal budget, but don’t let Fox out of the hen house and lump all benefit programs with welfare. On that subject, I suspect our positions are not far apart… and I don’t know anybody in favor of recipients of any support who take “advantage of our taxpayer dollars by persons who would rather not work or contribute to society in any way.” The reality is that benefit programs (entitlement is a strategic political euphemism) span a broad range of issues, a majority of which have long received bipartisan support, and many of which I’m sure you and/or your family have shared at some point in life.

The Department of Education, as originally conceived at least, is not the problem. Rather, government intervention of any kind is the problem. From “No Child Left Behind” to testing initiatives, be they federally- or state-inspired, government mandates suffocate the teaching process and disable advancement of students regardless of their proficiency level. As the father of three teachers, I know first-hand the folly of standards that circumvent the skills and stifle the creativity of teachers, the vast majority of whom – contrary to rhetorical assaults – are highly capable and productive.

The housing collapse? You better dig a little deeper, because the seeds actually were deeply planted fertilized with zeal during the Regan years by David Stockman and the economic wizards who followed. The banks took full advantage of the deregulated freeway and rolled to the edge of the abyss. Wait until the derivatives come to call.

According to any objective analysis, the Obama stimulus did “work;” the extent is, of course, arguable. Undeniably, it slowed the economic collapse, preventing potentially catastrophic velocity. Like it or not, and most independent economic analysts concur, job gains are in excess of 1.9-million (only 1.08-million jobs were added during the entire eight years of the recent Bush administration, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics). Unemployment is trending downward, and likely accelerating downward based on the current and projected near-term upswing in business activity and hiring. You can question the pace – in the context of the duality of presidential/Congressional leadership – but not the results. By the way, underemployment is a natural result of downsizing, economic cuts, and more to the point, global migration – I’ve yet to hear a conservative solution to that dandy result from their economic playbook.

You misread my point regarding capitalism and free markets. Don’t confuse government economics with consumer-market capitalism. Supply-siders believe that a truly free market should lower costs through increased competition and supply. In theory, I couldn’t agree more. But, the American economic system – certainly not tilted to small businesses – has fostered virtually monopolistic consolidations in most major industries, artificially inflating prices and reducing competition. Yes, over-regulation is a factor, but the promised trickle-down of the conservative model has produced little more than higher costs that are increasingly causing extreme hardship within the dwindling middle-class and certainly the economically disadvantaged.

“Obama has played more golf in 3 years than Bush did in 8 years.” Really? Bush fished and cut a lot more wood… blah, blah, blah. Geesh, just when I thought our spit and spat were progressing. For the record, Obama’s time off has been nearly 70% less than Bush and 50% less than Regan during the same timeframe… and I think they were contending with a few big issues themselves. Who cares.

Obama doesn’t blame the rich, he blames the system that would subsidize the rich at the expense of the poor. If you’ve really listened to him with unbiased ears, you know that he also believes that the inverse is also a fair point, that’s why he is supportive of equitable but social sensible improvements to all benefit programs, including welfare, which hasn’t been well-received by his own party. In fact, I recall Regan uttering similar words on several occasions.

The top 10% of income earners account for a plurality of total income (which is why the middle-class is disintegrating before our eyes), so of course they pay a lot; but, they pay extremely low net tax rates compared to the average citizen – hence, the rub. If you’re pulling in $70K and paying 30% and your neighbor is pulling in $1MM and paying 13%, that’s not right. Period. If “fair and balanced” is a conservative principle, not just a rhetorical slogan, I’d think you’d want nothing less.

Early last month, Obama acknowledged in another ABC News interview that things hadn’t improved much. “I don’t think they’re better off than they were four years ago,” he said of most Americans, quickly bracketing that by saying “The unemployment rate is still way too high.”
Read more: #ixzz1igmhB2A2

"By saying things like ”the tax revenue will be coming out of folks who are doing extraordinarily well” rather than the middle class, and that ”the wealthy will still be able to ride on your corporate jet. You’re just going to pay a little more.” This is Obama effectively painting the “wealthy” as the enemy in the battle against our poor economy. THis is obvious class warfare, whether you refuse to see it or not...

The stimulus? It was just a gigantic payoff to Democratic interest groups (such as teachers unions, public sector unions and gave large portions back to his campaign contributors and bundlers!!). And this has added nearly $1 trillion to the national debt! Sure, you can smile about 'it slowing the recession' but anytime you take nearly $1trillion of taxpayer dollars and infuse it into any economy, you are bound to see a little uptick. Yet, it did not create jobs, as promised. Remember, we heard about 'shovel-ready' jobs for two months before the stimulus was passed? Well, remember Obama saying last year that "well, shovel-ready wasn't exactly what we thought it would be" and then he chuckles. LOL!! So, that is Obama admitting that the stimulus did not do what it was intended to do. So, again, you can intentionally decide not to see that, but the rest of America does, especially with nearly $1 trillion of taxpayer dollars wasted.

You talk about teachers, well in a majority of states, they are forced to unionize. This means that most teachers, like in Wisc, that do not pay their own pensions or healthcare costs, these burdens are directly placed on blue collar taxpayers. Why? Especially when teachers, on average, are overseeing a large portion of children who are failing? If this were the private sector, like private schools, the teachers of failing students would be fired. This is why, as a former teacher in private school, I have seen firsthand the better quality of teachers AND students in those environments. And the national average for private school teachers is less than public school, and I had to pay ALL my healthcare costs and ALL of my retirement costs. Yet, look what happened in Wisc when teachers were asked to pay a tiny percentage of their healthcare and pensions??? The rioted for five days and closed down the schools, leaving the children they were tasked to teach twisting in the wind...over being forced to contribute to their OWN retirement and their OWN healthcare. Oh no!! The horror!! Wisc, a state that was in the red, was trying to reign in spending and burdensome costs to the store clerk, the waitress, the construction worker, all of whom were forced to pay the entire healthcare and pensions of teachers. Those Republican jerks! And even better, the teachers threwtheir own kids under the bus for five days...over money. And then they rioted and stormed the capitol building, cornered repub congressmen in street, did $1million worth of damage to the capitol building, and were videotaped in the street obtaining FAKE SICK NOTICES from liberal doctors so they could continue to shut down the schools, for which the doctors were reprimanded. And THESE are the people who are teaching our children??? WOW. PATHETIC. I do not want my kids anywhere near these entitled fools. And it is this mentality that permeates teachers all over the country in public schools. And yet, these people cannot be fired or else we have to deal with union thug lawyers etc. Teachers ARE the problem in public education. That is why private schools ALWAYS have higher graduation rates and much higher test scores.

And your tax data is false. Someone earning $1million per year, when all taxes are added up, will basically pay HALF of their income to some form of taxes. The top 1%, sure, I am ok with them being taxed a little more, they will not miss it. I have an issue with persons who earn $250,000 to $1million being labeled "rich" and being taxed at the same high rates as those earning much much more. The top 1%, the Kardashian's, trust fund babies, people who never worked a day in their life for their millions or billions....I am ok with them being taxed at a higher rate, but not someone who works hard their whole life to acquire a $1million dollar salary only to watch the government take almost $500,000 at the end of every year. Not fair.

Oh, and on a free market economy, here is Obama, on Dec 6 of this month, at a speech in Kansas:

“The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes -- especially for the wealthy -- our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers."

"Now, it's a simple theory. And we have to admit, it's one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That's in America's DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here's the problem: It doesn't work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn't work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It's not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn't work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it's not as if we haven't tried this theory."

WOW. Just...wow. Socialism here we come...

I give you credit Roanoke, you recite the Republican mantra to the very last period. We can continue to exchange tit for tat for decades, just like our "leaders" have, and the result will be the same circle-jerk. We, like they, will resolve to agree to disagree, contrasting stats against stats, interpretation against interpretation, and ideology against ideology, yet never finding middle ground for productive solutions that serve the best interests of the American People. Until we all recognize that effective leadership rests with neither the Democrat nor the Republican models, we will get what we've always gotten. Left unchecked, it is conceivable that either party will succeed in dissolving the Constitutional veil and will rule with the iron fist of imperial immunity. I believe that to be irrational, unconscionable, and frighteningly possible. I wish you well, I wish you prosperity and health, and I wish you wisdom to see through the obfuscation of party doctrines. Rest assured that the growing legion of us who believe that neither party is a viable solution will not rest until our national dialog centers again on the centrist realities of life in an America that truly is of, by and for all of its People.

Both good issues. Separation of Church and state, Preventing money from buying our government. I would support those resolutions for the Democratic Platform. I believe the GOP is fine with Corporations being people too. Though I don't think Texas will execute any corporations soon.

I tend to think the opposite

I feel Romney stands the best chance of beating President Obama, but the fractured and confused Republicans will not get behind him.

Newt GringricK on the other hand has absolutely NO CHANCE of winning. His baggage is 100 times what Romney's is with MA Healthcare .... ultimately Romney's healthcare laws helped millions of people, that is his baggage, that he helped out millions of people. GringricK's baggage on the other hand is that he is a PROVEN LIAR and CHEAT ( all ready drummed out of congress on ethics violations). Received money from Fanny and Freddy MAC and you KNOW it was more along the lines of 1.3 million than the 35k he claims. The man is bombastic and has proven time and time again he is a petty, nasty gnome of a man. He LITERALLY shut down the government as speaker of the house because he did not get what he considered preferential seating on Air Force One! I could go on and on .... nobody can seriously support such a candidate and any one who does cannot be taken seriously ...

Obama / Biden

Dr. Who, I agree with you that Romney's contribution to MA healthcare was (based on what I know about it) a good thing from a POLICY perspective. Despite this, it will probably hurt him in the general election because it will limit his ability to attack Obama full-bore on the healthcare issue (after all, "Obamacare" is, I believe, loosely modeled after "Romneycare"). This will effectively neutralize one of the Republican's key wedge issues against Obama.

Gingrich's baggage, on the other hand--while it might be things that you and I find distasteful--is not, imho, the kinds of things that the electorate is very likely to focus on. His past ethics issues are rather complicated and muddled, cannot easily be reduced to soundbytes, and are things that a good campaign crew can probably spin out of relevance.

Also, while I am totally opposed to most of Gingrich's political views, I have to admit that he's very smart, probably more intellgent that Romney, and is a veteran of partisan trench warfare from his days as Speaker. Also, Gingrich isn't carrying the Mormon baggage, which will probably hurt Romney just sliightly at the extreme right fringe of the Evangelical Christian crowd, some of whom might choose to stay home when confronted with a choice between a (in their view) "Muslim" and a Mormon.

All in all, I think Gingrich would pose a more formidable threat to Obama. However, as I said, I don't think he'll be nominated. It'll most likely be Mitt.

I ALWAYS feel that way,

And when I vote for President Obama I am going to feel that way again .......

...............

Obama / Biden 2012

mcpaddywack, exactly why do you think Obama is such an insidious presence in the oval office? Exactly what did he do to offend your sensibilities so much? I don't mean that I want to hear more platitudes (like he's a "socialist," or he's ruining our healthcare system, or selling us out to United Nations). Those are the kinds of things that the political right usually says about him, but there rarely seem to be specific issues that they cite disagreement with.

So, for example, if you think "Obamacare" is terrible, exactly what about it do you disagree with? Etc.

dilettante,,,Obamacare is and will be nothing but a disaster! Every single thing that is trickeling out with it shows this socialist idea will cost more then reported by far, everything that is not supposed to happen will happen and why don't you show us what this government runs now has worked out ! Everything government does is ridden with fraud, theft, overspending,money not even able to track down and out and out bribery, slush fund support for your prophet obama , among others to multiple to mention! ANYONE BUT oBAMA IN 2012!!!!!!!!!

Government picking and choosing winners and losers in the economy (bailouts with taxpayer dollars)---that is socialistic

Government takeover of healthcare, while FORCING citizens to purchase this product or FINING them, that is socialistic

SOPA and the government takeover of the internet, that is socialistic

Playing class warfare, demonizing the 'rich', and forcing workers who earn more to pay for those who do not, is socialistic. When Obama told Joe the Plumber that "we need to spread the wealth around", that was the embodiment of socialism

When Obama said, "ya know, at some point, I think you've made enough money." --that is socialism and certainly not a tenet of any free market, capitalistic society....

When Yellowstone blows it will be really hot.

Laugh all you want Yellowstone is going to erupt this year. Check it out. See for yourself.

I agree with you. This is going to be one crazy azz year. Hold on tight for the ride of your life.

Here is another prediction for you to contemplate. Since the government only passed benefits extending for 2 months (unemployment) the government will close the banks on or before March 1st 2012.

Looting and chaos will lead to martial law being imposed so the government can confiscate weapons.

Than we the people will be taken to concentration camps where we will be implanted with a computer chip that will make us infertile to control world population.

We the people will also lose all of our rights of freedom as citizens and become subjects of the New World Order.

Wecome to 2012 "The Age of Enslavement"

You should consider believing. My spirit is one of the Four Horseman. The one on the black horse with the red eyes holding the scales of time and the rope tied into a noose.