"Big things. Bad things. Expensive things".

Would it be asking too much for him to pretend to be a grown adult who hopes to be the leader of the free world while he's at it?

"We don't want Obamacare. We don't need it, we don't want it. "

Well, of course not. We want Romneycare! We do still want that, don't we?

Oooh, "obfuscation". Great word! Here's another one:

Irony: (noun):

1 - incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play —called also dramatic irony, tragic irony

2 - Multi-millionaires standing on a stage telling poor and middle class people that expensive things are bad.

From another thread, compliments of Tunde;

This quote was from another page... but wanted to show the state of affairs in the GNOP Party... .

“During the past week, not one, not two, but three Republican Party presidential candidates have tied either black people, in general, or President Barack Obama, in particular, to welfare or other forms of public assistance that, the candidates say, lead to dependency, out-of-control government spending and a culture of entitlement that is harming the nation

Once again, the right wingers want to balance the budget off the backs of the poor & middle class!

how in the hell can he say he dosn't want obamacare? it's his own plan. i'm sorry but unless this country goes into a tailspin this guy wil NEVER beat the president. there is so much suff on this guy obama is gonna " RIP THE BARK OFF OF HIM. he has canned reponses and there is all kinds of video on what he has said he supports in the past. wait till he get's in obama's hell's kitchen. he's gonna get burnt.

Nothing like speaking to folks as if they were first graders.

"Now children, zero facts, bigbadexpensivethings....shut your eyes, and under my leadership we will all live Happily Ever After".

Austerity will not grow America and has hurt Europe. We cut $1Trillion already & Boehner turned down a much bigger offer. His party ran up the deficit with 2 unpaid for wars, a sweet pharma deal unpaid for, and high ends tax cuts to the tune of $11.6Million an hour, every day.

President Bush signed up for unpaid-for wars, never been done before. And high end tax cuts (2001 and 2003) during a time of war, never been done before.

Now his party is crying about deficits and trying to blame the current Democratic party.

Look to the past decade for the bigbadexpensivethings, that we are now in the process of fixing if GOP will HELP or get out of the way.

And Romney, now that your party and your top 0.02% has done very well indeed and their incomes have risen 300% since Reagan, we want our payroll tax extension through 2012.

JoAnne, PA I thought the same thing, why does Romney talk to voters as if they were children?

I think it has something to do with his discomfort with anger and aggression. He says the nastiest things with a big smile on his face, which I find disconcerting.

Spanker.

You wilfull ignorance still persists.

How many times to you need to be taken to school on the causes of the debt before you quit blaming this administration for the increase?

BTW, any luck coming up with the policies, along with their costs, that make up all the spending you attribute to this administration? LOL!!!

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

Brianb.

No. That was irony.

Hypocrisy would be denouncing the President's health care plan while ignoring that it was modeled after your own....that you still support.

Amy: "why does Romney talk to voters as if they were children?"

In the interest of fairness, it's not just Romney, though he does come off as more condescending than the rest of them. But let's face it, most politicians - on both sides - are playing to the low-information voters, and they think they have to dumb it down for them. The sad thing is that more often than not, it works, because so many Americans don't want to take the time to really pay attention to the issues, think things through, and form their own conclusions. It's much easier to be spoon-fed - in child-sized portions. Look at how much traction McCain and Palin got last time out of nothing more than "going rogue" and "mavericky" and "we're gonna change Washington, you betcha!"

Okay, I'll pause here to allow somebody to throw "Hope and Change" back at me........(cue the Jeopardy music).......wow, that didn't take long! But here's the difference - I don't claim to be an expert on economics or world affairs or the constitution. That's why I read and listen a lot more than I talk - I like to learn. And I expect the people I'm voting for to be my leaders to be a heck of a lot smarter than I am. And when I listen to President Obama speak, or go back and re-read some of his past speeches or his books, I always come away with the same two feelings -

1. Man, this guy is really smart.

and

2. Hey, it sounds like he thinks I am, too.

The only Republican in the field that I could say that about would be Huntsman.

JoAnn & Amy,

I think part of the problem is us - the American people. We want everything so short and concise (the sound bite) so we can keep on doing whatever else we are doing. Read the headline, that's as far as one reads, move on to the next headline (or funny pages).

The liberals want to balance the budget off the backs of the rich. So what's the difference Carrot top?
The difference is that the rich can afford it!

Upon attaining a certain level of wealth, is one automatically divested of any sense of social responsibility or personal ethic? I imagine it must be the case - that's the only reason I can see for the extreme resistance the rich have to miniscule increases in their tax rate.

phinephancy: "move on to the next headline (or funny pages)."

Hard to tell the difference sometimes, phine. But yeah.....that's us in a nutshell - always too busy, busy, busy. Which is why the nuts and the shells are winning.

JoAnn,

Ain't that the truth. But I still have faith that the truth will come out.

Backhouse l President Bush signed up for unpaid-for wars, never been done before. And high end tax cuts (2001 and 2003) during a time of war

8 years of unfunded war under Bush cost $760 billion.

Obama has increased the debt $5 TRILLION!

Those tax cuts that "cost" revenue generated the top 4 years for highest revenue in US history!

Bush's deficit in 2007 was a $160.7 Billion - Obama's deficit in 2011 is $1.645 TRILLION - Literally TEN TIMES OBAMA'S DEFICIT!

Source: Office of Management and Budget / Historical Tables

you all need to pull the wool from over your eyes. Their really isn't that much difference between the two parties. the two party system was created to control yo by making you fight each other.

Romney is basically the sameperson as Obama on all the issues.

Obama's policies are sleeker,more updated versions of bush's policies.

Santorum and Gingrich are both big government Globalists.

WAKE UP! they're all the same people!

Do you honestly think Obamacare is modeled after Romneycare?

Tim Pawlenty said "Obamacare" is modeled after "Romneycare". Is he now a liar?

Jonathan Gruber, an economics professor at MIT who advised both Governor Romney and President Obama on their healthcare reform packages says that "Obamacare" and "Romneycare" are the same.

But, let's look at the nitty-gritty, shall we? What do Governor Romney's plan and President Obama's plan have in common:

- Individual Mandate

- Employer Resonsibility to Provide Health Care Coverage - All companies with a minimum of 10 employees in Massachusetts must provide health care. Health Care Reform set the minimum at 50 employees.

- Health Insurance Exchange - Both plans use exchanges to assist companies in selecting coverage.

- Affordability Subsidies - Both plans offer subsidies to lower-income families to assist in paying for premiums.

- Expansion of Medicaid - The plan Governor Romney signed into law expanded Medicaid to cover all children up to 300% of the federal poverty level. Health Care Reform expands Medicaid to cover all individuals up to 133% of the federal poverty level.

- Expansion of Dependent Coverage - Governor Romney's plan required that insurers offer coverage for dependents through age 25. Health Care Reform requires insurers offer coverage through age 26.

JoAnne l And when I listen to President Obama speak, or go back and re-read some of his past speeches or his books, I always come away with the same two feelings -

Speeches are great, but it would be nice for people to look at actual accomplishments.

My favorite is Obama's Office of Management and Budget / Historical Tables where you get a true understanding, a true persective of how historically horrible a president Obama has been.

Someone asked about the President's plans for economic growth and deficit reduction:

Fact Sheet: Living Within Our Means and Investing in the Future - The
President's Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction:

"The President's Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction lives up to a
simple idea: as a Nation, we can live within our means while still making the
investments we need to prosper – from a jobs bill that is needed right now to
long-term investments in education, innovation, and infrastructure. It follows a
balanced approach: asking everyone to do their part, so no one has to bear all
the burden. And it says that everyone – including millionaires and billionaires
– has to pay their fair share. Overall, it pays for the President's jobs bill
and produces net savings of more than $3 trillion over the next decade, on top
of the roughly $1 trillion in spending cuts that the President already signed
into law in the Budget Control Act – for a total savings of more than $4
trillion over the next decade. This would bring the country to a place, by 2017,
where current spending is no longer adding to our debt, debt is falling as a
share of the economy, and deficits are at a sustainable level."

Overview includes: The American Jobs Act, Paying for our Investments and Reducing the Deficit, Deficit & Debt, Health savings, other Mandatory and Revenues.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/19/fact-sheet-living-within-our-means-and-investing-future-president-s-plan

Bob - "Obama's Office of Management and Budget / Historical Tables"

You need to be really careful in how you use statistics BOB, there are always devils in the details.

Using the first table from that page on whitehouse.gov is very telling. Budget year 2009, Obama's first year, but Bush's budget.

Deficit of $1.412 trillion

2010, Obama's first budget year

Deficit of $1.293 trillion

Estimate of 2011 year

Deficit of $1.645 trillion

Now it doesn't look as bad as you portray. It is bad, but with a little perspective to the realities of the Bush administration it isn't as bad as you state.

In the future when dealing with FACTS, please don't play Faux News with your facts, it just makes you look like an idiot.

Thel4ugh!ngm@n l you all need to pull the wool from over your eyes. Their really isn't that much difference between the two parties.

Before Obama, I would probably have to agree with you with the qualifer that the primary difference was social issues and defense.

Regardless they both were Big Gov Whoppers - one with mustard - one with ketchup.

Obama is an extemist who pledged to transform America.

(Bush and now) Romney, Santorum are necessary evils (as Payne would have put it) ... Obama is an intolerable evil.

Simply put - necessary evil is better than an intolerable evil.

Soooo...brainb and bOb...first you want "the deadbeats" to pay for their own health insurance...that you're sick and tired of supporting the "deadbeats".

Then, in your next breath, you blast HCR for requiring all people to pay into their own healthcare..."It's unconstitutional!" you say...

So which is it...one of you lies, and the other swears...

So Backhouse - how exactly does Obama's request for another $1 trillion in debt jive with living within our means?

Simple and basic economics seems to escape you libbies. 'Living within our means'- means spending less than we take in.

Instead Obama is the president of the most in debt nation in the history of the world. And he has never put forth any actual plan to reduce the debt. All we get from him are increase to the deficit.

But I do so love your 'other mandatory revenues.'

Me, I'll take a pass.

If Obama was "extreme", he wouldn't be doing 5 times better than Congress in the polls.

It is Republican Leaders who are seen as absolutely unwillling to compromise, period. They've been fillibustering every measure in the Senate for 3 years now, as McConnell swore they would.

By contrast, the President has been willing to compromise on every issue and has been willing to take the heat for it.

You and your party's Rrrrrroutine demagogery and flatout whoppers are gittin ould.

Petunia, you're FALSE.

And we just CUT a Trillion dollars. Looking for more.

You Republicans keep saying Obama is doing nothing to reduce the deficit. That is not so. He has frozen pay for those in his administration for several years now. 280,000 public sector jobs have been lost in 2011. These are a result of spending cuts. He is reducing spending on the military. It seems to me as though he has made a lot of spending cuts. Do you pretend he hasn't because he is not cutting what you think he should? Or do you just refuse to acknowledge the cuts because you can't allow him any credit? Aren't you embarrassed to keep spouting things that are so obviously untrue?

Backhouse - There's a vast difference between Congress and the president. Many people vote for many different congressmen. Congress is not a body elected by everyone across the nation, the president is though. The common thought is, the other congressmen are doing a horrible job, but mine is doing great.

Your correlation between the congress and the president doesn't fly. You are comparing apples to oranges... I've heard you say this before as if it's some profound thought you've come up with. There is no correlation between the president's approval rating and congress. Besides, you also don't realize or conclude that half of congress is the senate, controlled by democrats. Sheesh.

Heartlight - we realize that you are pro-Obama, but if what you say is true, how come the deficit keeps growing from year to year? There are no significant cuts to government that have any meaning. What you are describing amounts to the same thing as you cutting out one can of soda per month from your shopping. Wow... a total of $1.00 from your food budget. How significant is that?

Obama isn't cutting spending, he's playing to people like you that think he's doing something.

Heartlight,

Republican Governors have cut more than 600,000 public sector jobs = police, firefighters, first responders and teachers. And openly shifted that money to big corporations and the wealthy in their states.

Governors like Snyder (MI) have passed laws that clear the way for 'Financial Managers' run their towns. They get rid of the locally elected officials, target schools to shut and sell off town land to private businesses.

These governor-appointed 'Financial Managers' are not required to have ANY qualifications, except that the Governor chose to hire them.

Financial Managers are paid up to about $250,000 - meanwhile they were hired because the Governor decided there were financial shortfalls in that state.

Very little, if any truth or credibility is coming out of the right wing.

Actually Heartlight, I was wrong. After looking at my comparison, I realized I overstated Obama's position. Instead of one can of soda, it's more like one grain of rice over a 5 year shopping budget.

Very little truth is coming out of the right wing.

And they are desperate for 'one grain of rice' of credibility.

Bachhouse - we cut a trillion did we? Pray tell when?

That's funny, cause the debt just keeps going up. So when were these cuts of which you speak?

Or is this just more libbie logic that cut occurs when you reduce projected increases?

As you know the debt in 2008 was $10 Trillion. It is now $15 trillion, and Obama just asked to raise the debt limit to $16 trillion.

So please 'splain it to me. Cause see 1+1=2. Or in this case $10 trillion PLUS $5 trillion = $15 trillion.

Isn't math neat?

Petunia, the other ops are better informed or better at Math?

$1Trillion deal on CUTS - constantly in the media:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheet-victory-bipartisan-compromise-economy-american-people

Political Truthism #1:

No matter what your ideology, its always the other sides fault.

Political Truthism #2:

My guys are always great, even when they suck.

Political Truthusm #3:

It isn't a lie if my side wants you to believe it.

Political Truthism #4:

If "they" say "we" are wrong, then "they" are idiots; facts be damned.

Chucky,

There are verifiable FACTS. Yes there are.

The right wing would like us to disbelieve THAT fact.

You too?

Just sayin'.

Oh got it Backhouse - they cut a trillion off the additional spending over 10 years.

Yippeeee.

So by 2020 the debt will only be $30 TRILLION.

That's just peachy Backhouse. Of course by then we'll be on the New Dollar, cause the ones we have now will be worthless, but hey at least the cut a whole trillion.

I know you are as stoked as I am.

Indeed.

Petunia, it will be all right when the pain goes.

Frank,

Good job trying ameliorate Obama's image.

I intentionally did not include 2008, 2009, or 2010 due to regard for the recession which had nothing to do fiscal or monetary policy.

You can certainly try to couch it, frame it, qualify it however you would like, but I was careful with the stats and I can certainly frame it where it looks even worse, such as by stating ...

Obama"s debt in 2011 as a percentage of the GDP - is the worst since 1945 when we were FIGHTING WORLD WAR II.

But, the botttom line is that you agree that every single thing I said was true.

Thanks for your comments Frank.

Petunia,

And take yer friend fact-basher above - with you.

Okay okay, I'll give all of you the correct answer to our problems. You can't spend 25% of GDP while getting revenues of only 15% of GDP. That means cut spending (dems) AND raise taxes (repubs). Clinton had both at around 20% which is why we had a decent economy. So what say we cut spending to 20% and lift revenues to 20%. It just don't seem that frickin' hard to me, but then since I'm not a dem or a repub, I don't have another side to lob rocks at.

How about some math Backhouse. Let's look at the significance of a $1 trillion cut over 10 years.

Disregarding the cut, the growth of government spending over 10 years will add an additional $15 trillion since they overspend by $1.5 trillion each year on the average. So, that means in 10 years, our national debt will be $30 trillion. Now, let's deduct the $1 trillion Obama proposes to cut (if that will ever happen HA!). Now in 10 years instead of having a $30 trillion debt, we have a $29 trillion debt. Let's see the percentage of savings by dividing 1 by 30.

1/30 = .033...

So out of $30 trillion, Obama proposes to reduce the debt in 10 years by .033... OMG, let the parades begin! Where's the confetti?

No, YOU look at the facts.

The rest of the world is not going to keep giving you links. Keep your brows furrowed.

I thought it was Romney's idea in the first place.

Chucky,

Great comment on the surface.

Here are a few interesting stats though.

Clinton had revenue of $2.0252 trillion in 2000.

Obama has revenue of $2.1737 trillion in 2011.

Pretty close, Obama's revenue is 7% higher.

Clinton had outlays of $1.7890 in 2000.

Obama's had outlays of $3.8188 in 2011.

Obama's outlays are 213% HIGHER THAN CLINTON'S!

Regarding taxes .... Bush's revenues with the tax cuts outpaced Clinton's revenue high of 2000 in every year after the tax cuts .... 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.

The problem is spending and a retarded an economy due to massive overspending and massive over regulation.

Our deficit is 15 trillion dollars and growing. Where is the money?? In the pockets of the rich and wealthy, that's were. Take WAL-MART, makes $1,000,000,000 PROFIT a year. Doesn't put any back into the economy, NO increase in hiring, or salaries. In 10 years they rack in $10,000,000,000. So now take 1000 companies like WAL-MART and how much have they racked in?? TRILLIONS of dollars, and NO helping the economy, just pocketing all the money. And we want to blame Obama and the government for wasting our money. But can we get any of the TRILLIONS back, NO we can't increase their taxes.

I can use the libby's budget cutting method to cut 15 trillion from the budget right now. I propose we spend 15 trillion dollars to buy everyone in America an assault rifle and 1000 rounds of ammo along with body armor for everyone. Since I think this is a stupid idea I cut it out of the budget. There, I just cut 15 trillion dollars from the budget the same way as the liberals do.

Only the teabaggers would look at fewer people dying because they are too poor to afford insurance... And think it's a bad thing.

It is as simple as this: Obama made too many promise he couldn't keep!

Oh, a smattering of accomplishments, not the complete list:

"In 2009 and 2010, the years Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, Obama signed several sweeping pieces of legislation – overhauling everything from student loans to financial regulation. He also signed into law a series of initiatives designed to rescue the economy, chief among them the Recovery Act. The cumulative results of these measures? A new agency to protect consumers from financial industry abuse; more vigilant food inspections; new public works coupled with a new system for awarding grants based on merit; a new program for rewarding innovations in public education; and cash for struggling Americans, in the form of unemployment benefits, aid to states, and tax cuts that most economists believe saved the nation from a much worse economic crisis.

All of that is in addition to health care reform, which is already reshaping the industry and will eventually make insurance available to all. One could argue (ok, I have argued) that it's the single most important domestic policy initiative since the 1960s.

And that's just the legislative record. Obama also used executive authority to rescue the U.S. auto industry

(Romney would have let the Auto industry go bankrupt and it is getting better and better)

"implemented stringent new regulations on mercury and other dangerous emissions. As commander-in-chief, Obama presided over the killing of Osama Bin Laden, among other terrorist leaders, as well as the final withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/99154/obama-accomplishment-financial-regulation-student-loan-public-works

It is as simple as this: Obama made too many promise he couldn't keep!

Robin, what you say is true... but he also knew he couldn't keep those promises... and look at where we are now!

Romney 2012!

Yes, Instead of dropping down into a Great Depression, we are recovering from the Bush Great Recession, and no thanks to the:

DoNothingJustFilibuster&KillJobs Republicans in the House who are planning to work 4 (FOUR)days in January if they get their way, and the FilibusterYourGrandmaTilltheCowsComeHome GOP congressionals.

Didn't you hear?

She won't admit it... but our own carrot top is spending more time hugging the porcelain throne these days.... what will she do when it's all over. God bless the truck drivers that will have to answer that question!

The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

Remember that day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney ) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment...to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie -starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy). Barney blocked it and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy" (and the sky did fall!)
And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY!!!!

So when someone tries to blame Bush...
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving the economy into the ditch.
Budgets do not come from the White House.. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.

Again, I ask.... what will she do? She shouldn't count on Obama, God knows he hasn't been able to do anything positive yet! Especially with Dirty Harry and Queenie Pelosi pulling the strings....!

Backhouse, you hit the nail on the head.

Thanks ron,

WE ARE RECOVERING from the Bush Great Recession no thanks to the:

DoNothingJustFilibuster&KillJobs Republicans in the House who are planning to work 4 (FOUR)days in January if they get their way, and the FilibusterYourGrandmaTilltheCowsComeHome GOP Senate congressionals.

Despite Republican congressional refusal to pass the American Jobs Act and 2 million jobs for us; Despite their refusal to let the American Jobs Act come up for debate; Despite their blocking two more Jobs Bills earlier this year:

We have created three million private sector jobs over the last 22 months under this President.

During that period of time, the economy added 3.2 million jobs.

In 2011 alone, the economy added 1.9 million private sector jobs - MORE THAN IN ANY YEAR SINCE 2005.

Kelly... good point

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for,
and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th."
There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!

"The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living."

HELL of a spin - remember to keep it straight!

Who follows after You?

Classically Sally?

FACTS:

The House and Senate voted on the Bush Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.

Barack Obama was not in the House or Senate at that time.

In 2001, Barack Obama was a lawyer, a professor and a STATE SENATOR.

In January 2003, he formally entered the race for the United State Senate.

_

If your friends & family can vote for you Sally, when what you have written has ZERO factual basis, is without reality and therefore DELUSIONAL:

Thank your morality-free Republican Leaders and those who fund them for perverting our public discourse.

You must be proud.

I would just like to point out that rich pig Romney and his evil smiling like lex luger or somebody as the Gestapo came in to arrest americans voicing their opinion...I guess contrary opinions are outside of the law now in rightie-ville...Real Americans allow discourse without arrest...These are the bastard desendants of the A-holes who owned humans and tried to tear our country apart and to this day think people are less human because of the color of their skin,faith or for standing up for all humans.....To Hell with all of you with your disgusting ideology and the next one I hear disrespecting the President not disagreeing I will personally smack the taste from their inbred mouth...Figuratively speaking of course I really wouldn't hit an angry old white man or his battered wife( Republican voter )................

Now back to FBing with one of the many of my family members fighting this war for the rich bastards who started it and don't wanna pay for it...Thanks Mr. O for bringing two of them home for Christmas...For now till they join thier fam in afganistan.............Geez.....Where next......If we don't stop the killing they will never stop coming after us....Atleast I did my time and get to raise my children...But my oldest will probably be going soon if the GOP wins....Lets get out the vote....Help some one get an ID who can't afford and never had one..They need it now.....I know you rich whitebreads never heard of such a thing but that is only insulting yourself that you are so sheltered and don't realize everybody isn't just like you....That is what makes America great whether your hate-filled brain understands it or not....Remember we used to be appalled at the fact of countries where you had to produce "papers" on demand but all of the sudden it okay here? Hells no....Not if freedom is alive.......Don't stand for it...We oughta have ID burning parties in protest....Screw a Tea party....Burn your Hospital bills and throw walmart container ships products in the harbor..............Please Vote...Don't let them destroy our country over hate anymore...........Ebony and Ivory...............Stop the hate

Memphis Kelly,

lets not forget that as soon as the ReD-OH!blican Bush the 43rd had teh chance he publically bailed and said he would't do anything and leave the office to the next incoming president. He did that about the time the GOP moved on to the next great hope McCain. So of course the Democrats had to go to resolusions to continue the government. Bush/Palin the face of Quitters in the GOP.

................................."Romney keeps focus on 1%"

HELLO FELLOW FREE STUFF GIVERS:

THIS REFLECTS THE FEELINGS OF A LOT OF PEOPLE

I have never heard this said as simply or as well. Class war at its best.

The folks who are getting the free stuff don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

And, the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.

And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

Now... the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

So... the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason?

The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 231 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. We have one chance to change that in 2012. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.

ELECTION 2012 IS COMING

A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!

backhouse, you must have choked on your backwash.... it is your comments that are meaningless....

and Obama is still a puppet of Soros and his friends....

slowing bankrupting the country while stuffing their pockets!

In America, where surface has always passed for substance, people always believe guys like obama.

backhouse you are one of those sheep!

Free stuff comes not only in the form of welfare, but also in the form or corporate welfare, tax loopholes, etc. The uber rich can afford their own politicians to manipulate the system to them rich by continuing to give them free stuff too. So, as it is, the ONLY group in our society NOT getting free stuff is the middle class.

Romney really? Big bad things? He sounds like he is auditioning for True Blood vampire character. Well, it does kind of look.......................

S-o-r-o-sssssssssss....!

Sscraping the barrel for a bit o' traction, you. There, there.

bob-1805084

Chucky,

Great comment on the surface.

Here are a few interesting stats though.

Clinton had revenue of $2.0252 trillion in 2000.

Obama has revenue of $2.1737 trillion in 2011.

Pretty close, Obama's revenue is 7% higher.

Clinton had outlays of $1.7890 in 2000.

Obama's had outlays of $3.8188 in 2011.

Obama's outlays are 213% HIGHER THAN CLINTON'S!

Regarding taxes .... Bush's revenues with the tax cuts outpaced Clinton's revenue high of 2000 in every year after the tax cuts .... 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.

The problem is spending and a retarded an economy due to massive overspending and massive over regulation.

After Bush last budget the the budget was at 3.2 trillion. So knowing that how much has Obama increased it?

And next years budget its supposed to be at 3.4 trillion. Keep in mind that the whole economy had to be rescued. It was bush and hes republican congress that increased the debt and left the country with a 1.4 trillion deficit in 2009.

Also take into account this: the National Debt as of 09/28/2001 = $5,807,463,412,200.06 ... as of his last budget year 09/30/2009 = $11,909,829,003,511.75 ... thats a little better than doubling it, or increasing by $6.1 Trillion
How come you guys never mention this or the huge deficit Bush left?

It took Clinton all of hes 8 years in office to erase a 400 billion deficit and you want Obama to erase a 1.4 trillion deficit in 3 years with no republican help?

Romney says no to Obama's 'big, bad things'

And, THANKFULLY, America says NO to Romney,

so there mittens!

Now, in Romney speak he would think you aren't being nice and civil - for telling the TRUTH!!!! LOL

Is America your daughter?

Shoot Stupid - it appears that like Iowa, NH is about to say Yes.

What is your point Stupid?

I believe about 75% of Iowa actually said "No, thanks - could I see another menu?" Oh, wait, I'm wrong - it wasn't 75% of Iowa, it was 75% of Iowa Republicans....

Oh I see JoAnne - that's how elections work.

We don't look at who has the most votes in their favor, but rather all the votes cast for others.

Right JoAnne.

BUt it's ok, you fun argument will take a different turn after NH, and apparently SC.

But it's cool Joanne - given the numbers you cite, Obama is a total lock to win come November, right?

Sure he is.

"No, thanks - could I see another menu?"

LOL JoAnne!

It was so bad, they refused a 'doggy bag'!

girls, girls, girls -- 4 years ago 68% of Iowa democrats voting in the caucus wanted someone other than Obama. were you all bent out of shape over that result like you seem to be this year? or is it ok because Iowa democrats had not been told that to vote for someone other than Obama would be racist?

Hey Romney. If you show respect to the President and only offer IDEAS, not criticism, maybe the guys at OWS will show YOU respect. But then again, I think that is too much to ask for from a right-wing Tea Bagging Republicant.

will somebody please nueter this spanky person. send him to gitmo please. you are so out of where most of america is. you are either rich or ignorant or both.

dji -- with 70% of Americans saying the country is headed in the wrong direction Spanky may in fact have it right and heaven forbid, you could be wrong.

dji - so you favor suppression of speech? Are you against the 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution? Who are you to make comments against someone else's speech? Were you the kid in school that constantly told your teacher to shut up? Fascist!

What is your point Stupid?

Poor, obtuse spanky.....

Allow me to draw you a picture so you can understand my "point"

Election 2012

Everybody Hates Mitt -- And Other Lessons From Iowa

Many Republicans still dislike Mitt Romney, even if his marginal (eight-vote) Iowa win gives him a boost as he travels to friendlier territory in New Hampshire next week.

http:/ /www.nationalmemo.com/article/mitt-romney-republicans-rick-santorum

Tell me spank... are you REALLY too delusional to get it??? Just wonderin'...

P.S. James & Brian: nice attempt at deflection of the topic, but NOT germane; everyone sees what you try to do, and so do your mothers. Shame!

Brianb, the right to free speech is in the 1st amendment. The 2nd amendment covers the right to bear arms. Back to school for you!

Not as stupid... Do you know why republicans don't like Mitt? I'd like to see if you understand the reasoning.

james <lotsofnumber>, just because 70% (or is it 75%? Can you guys please agree on a number?) think this country is going in the wrong direction, it doesn't mean they want to go in the direction the Republican/TP Inc. party wants to take us.

I am one of those 70 - 75%. I think we are going in the wrong direction because of over 30 years of Republican/TP Inc. party pushing us to the extreme right. For over 30 years of 'trickle down our legs', supply-side economics philosophy, and policies. For over 3 years of the Republican/TP Inc. Senate minority blocking everything they could that would get this economy moving again, just to ensure that President Obama i a one term president. They are even blocking things that they gave full-throated support for, when it was a Republican/TP Inc. party president proposing it (i.e. infrastructure spending).

Spouting statistics, like you do, without understanding them, shows a distinct lack of intellectual curiosity (oh, sorry, you probably didn't understand what that meant, it meant that you are being stupid).

Historical perspective appears not to be your strong suit, eh Stupid?

See I can recall all the way back to '07 and '08. See back then there was a tad of resistance to Obama. You do remember all the Hillary supporters that would never, under any circumstances support Obama?

Why, I just bet you do. TBut low and behold, after all was said and done, they got in line behind the eventual nominee, Obama.

But I'm sure that will totally not happen with Mitt, right Stupid?

it's all about the ABO sentiment now Stupid. Catch the wave. :)

[Brianb, the right to free speech is in the 1st amendment. The 2nd amendment covers the right to bear arms. Back to school for you!]

Touche`...btw Cyn, how's the rereg hunting coming? You'll have to invite me along sometime.

brainb...

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Way to go, you constitutionalist, you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

Read it...know it...live it...

Matthew -- history is critical to understanding where we are headed. you seem to be suggesting that republicans have made all of the decisions in government for the last 30 years which is clearly not correct. the democrats have held the majority in the House for 18 of those 30 years and yet everything is the fault of the republicans??

you say the republicans are blocking things. i agree. but not for the reason you cite but rather because they believe that what is being proposed could be different or better. do you believe that the republicans should not stand up for their beliefs but that it is ok for the democrats?

i would suggest taking you left-wing bias and setting it aside and investigate things for yourself with an open mind. you might just find that republicans and democrats, and yes, even President Obama have all contributed to the state of the nation today.

You know marv - sometimes you liberals really look like idiots. Saying programs that failed didn't fail enough. Saying spending huge chunks of money wasn't enough. Saying that republicans were responsible for things they weren't.

Do you ever stop these lies? You may believe them because you've been told to believe them by your liberal sources, but when you dig into the truth of the matter, democrats are just as guilty for screwing things up in this country. Democrats hold just as much responsibility for our failing economy, the debt and making bad decisions that have brought this nation down.

When will you people tell the truth?

Its't funny that Dodd-Frank did provide specific language regarding the appointment of the director of the COnsumer Protection Agency?

Yep, the big brains of Dodd and Frank drafted the law to say the the Director must be confirmed by the Senate.

Whoops.

Spanky - didn't you know that Obama is above the law?

74% of the personal bankrupcies filed in 2010 were medical bill related.

5 years ago I went into the hospital on a Tuesday had a triple bypass and was sent home friday the total bill was $210,000, what do you do if you do not have excellent health insurance, thank God for my union health and welfare plan. A couple of months ago I had some real scary symptoms and called my doctor who said go to emergency, I was there an hour and a half, they took some blood, and a cat scan, the bill was over $5,000, I subsequently had surgery to remove a tumor the size of a small lemon, I was in the hospital overnight, I don't have all the bills yet but it is $35,000 and counting. I have had some of the best health care available but only because I have excellent insurance. I swear if I did not have insurance I would just let the chips fall where they may before I spent everything I have ever made, and left my wife bankrupt and quite possibly homeless. I'm sure many fiscally conservative republicans would agree with me that dying would be the responsible choice, before you became a burden on society by going bankrupt and leaving your family to depend on social services, and food stamps to survive. The question is less doctor will I survive?, than it is doctor can I afford to survive?

Brianb - he sure is.

But the funny part here is it was his law.

I can't wait until Cordray takes his first action. Whoever it is against files the first lawsuit and will likely request and get a TRO.

It will be very entertaining.

That woman from Arizona had the right idea about bartering for health care, you can trade your home for that heart operation.

Forrest,

My husband sees that everyday in the hospital he works for. If today's politicians really want to help the economy, listen to Dr. Jeffrey Sachs - lower the cost of health care. Or go with the GOP plan - make sure only the wealthy can afford care and let the rest die.

I find it strange that the party that wears their Christianity on their sleeve is dead set against an attempt to make health care and health care insurance availible to more people in need of it. We put "In God We Trust" on our cash, we should put "In Cash we Trust" on our churches.

phancy - if you really believe that, I feel sorry for you. Why is it you have hitched on to the same set of beliefs that liberals only use to bolster their stand? Liberals accuse anyone of a different ideology for not supporting the environment, people's welfare and the betterment of mankind? Do you think liberals have a lock on those things? It's just not true. Do you really think conservatives want to drink dirty water, breath polluted air or kill people? Is that what you really think?

Forrest - that's a stretch. I am not against people obtaining affordable healthcare. I am not against equal access to hospitals, doctors and medicine. What I am against is the government taking control of it, or forcing me to pay for someone else's care. This has been the argument all along. Somehow your side has twisted the mantra to saying we on the right don't want these things.

What I believe is there's a better way to achieve these things. Obamacare, as it's written simply sucks!

I do Brianb that is what they campaign on, less regulation, less medicare, less health care and health insurance regulation, less benefits for workers, less regulation for pollutants of all kinds from greehouse gasses to fracking. This is a huge campaign plank for them, so damn straight I believe it, I take them at their word. Do you think they are lying when they call for these things?

So like I said it is about your cash, that is the main thing, we would like to be charitable Christians, but not if I have to personally open my wallet.

I was at a function with the president of the hospital my husband works for. Now, trust me, this guy is so far from being a liberal it isn't even funny. But, this is a man who has to look at the bottom line - and he is adamant on the subject of controlling healthcare costs. He says if you find a hospital making a profit today, they are either cooking the books or breaking the law. His complaint about "Obamacare" - it didn't do enough or go far enough.

Ah, but, what does he know, a conservative, president of a hospital?

Forrest, I do believe they are lying. They are pandering to a base of people, just like the democrats do. The republicans are just as bad as the democrats when it comes to campaign speeches and promises. All of them, and I do mean all of them are going for the biggest dollars.

Now to clarify what I said... we on the right generally want the same things as you on the left. There are two unfortunate things. Conservatives are rare in public office. Just because they call themselves conservative doesn't make it so. This is why there is so much discontent with congress and politics in general. The second unfortunate thing is... the right wants to achieve many of the same goals, but want to do them in a different way.

As you and I have said in the past, we agree on a great many things. Our methodology is what differentiates us.

Forrest said: So like I said it is about your cash, that is the main thing, we would like to be charitable Christians, but not if I have to personally open my wallet.

You aren't speaking for me Forrest. I have opened my wallet so many times, the fold in the middle has cracked. I don't know what Christians you are speaking about, but it's not me. I know many generous Christians that help a great many people.

phancy - take it in context. I agree with the president of your husband's Hospital. The Obamacare law didn't do enough, or go far enough... It was misdirected legislation. If you ever get the chance to ask him, I'll bet he'll say the same thing.

Well there is no other method to provide for those who don't have, other than those who do have sharing, none, there never has been. The problem with republicans conservatives whatever you want to call them is they don't want the sharing to be across the board through a system of taxation, they would like to pick and choose when and to whom they are charitable, god forbid we actually represent our Christianity through legislation unless it is abortion or gay marriage. They contradict themselves, and it is not pandering to a base or small group it comes from their highest leaders and is constant in their legislative agenda whether it is an election year or not. It is their stated goal to reduce regulation on all the things I mentioned in an earlier post, and let the market solve the problem which necessarily means only those with money have access, as the free market is about profit, not charity or the well being of your fellow man. The market can not solve this, it can only be solved by sharing, somebody willing to have less cash at the corporate or individual level or both. The only difference in method is some want to require sharing to make sure it happens, and some don't want those requirements because they have no intention of sharing. Republicans want to do it without any costs to them which is simply impossible, they talk a good game about being a good Christian nation but never willingly put their money where their mouth is.

Well I wasn't speaking for you, you spoke for you and said you did not want to be forced to pay for someone eleses healthcare. So I did, and I apologize for neglecting the word forced. A system of health care for poor people based on random and voluntary acts of charity and kindness has never worked yet. Has it?

Its't funny that Dodd-Frank did provide specific language regarding the appointment of the director of the COnsumer Protection Agency?

Yep, the big brains of Dodd and Frank drafted the law to say the the Director must be confirmed by the Senate.

Whoops.

But, doesn't the President's constitutional authority to make recess apointments supercede the law?

BB

The president of the hospital would prefer to see a universal/medicare type program. Why? Go to an ER on a Saturday and see the poor lined up to see a doc. And the hospital will never recoup a penny from these folks - who truly are sick.

Off topic, I am trapped in a house with 3 men watching the building of the Ferrari 599. Help.

Oh my Noid, really?

Wow.

Hey Brianb - looks like Noid likes him some imperial presidency.

I know he's going to be all good when President Romney goes 'Above the Law.'

Forrest said: Well there is no other method to provide for those who don't have, other than those who do have sharing, none, there never has been.

LOL... you don't strike me as a glass half empty kind of guy Forrest.

When all the huhbub about Obamacare was still fresh... I was screaming at the top of my lungs for reform, not a new law! Reform would do it, if the reform was equal. Maybe you are correct in saying that it can't be done... not with the POS's that keep getting re-elected to office. You'd think that people would wake up and realize that sitting in congress for over 36 years would be long enough... like a lot of politicians have done. We have had squatters in the halls of congress and the senate for too fuggin long.

Back to my point - it can be done... with the right group of people that can formulate the reform. Unfortunately we will probably never see that group of people in our lifetime.

Noid - The president can make lawful recess appointments... when both houses are actually in recess. They aren't in recess, technically.

Noid - The president can make lawful recess appointments... when both houses are actually in recess. They aren't in recess, technically.

Please go to the Constitution and tell me where a recess is clearly defined.

Brian to reform our system and provide health care to the poor will require individuals or corporations to reduce their profit, to share as a manner of description, that is the whole sticking point where will the money come from, because the health insurance industry and health care providers do not operate on charity nor do their stockholders. So somebody has to kick in the cash to pay for those who don't have it, there is no other way, it is not a matter of half empty or half full, it is simply a matter of fact somebody has to absorb the costs of providing the medical care for those who cannot afford it. Right now the people with insurance absorb what medicare does not, that is why health insurance costs have been increasing every year since the early 80's and increasing a bunch, if gasoline increased at the rate health insurance has it would be above 15 dollars a gallon. The health and welfare portion of my wage and fringe package is just over 10 bucks per hour, the median income in Texas is $10.80 an hour, I pay damn near as much for insurance as they are expected to live on. So who is going to kick in the money, are the corporations and their stockholders going to settle for less profit, or will employers be responsible to provide health benefits, or are more people going to have to be forced to buy insurance, or will medicare taxes be increased, the money has to come from somewhere. Somebody will have to share a little more of what they have, there is no other way, and I will stand by that statement.

I guess the SC will have to rule on the definitions of the words recess and vacation.

Noid - It's there.... I have read it. Right now the Senate isn't in technical recess. They keep holding meetings every third day for more than 2 minutes in chambers. The president has said that he wants to prove they are in recess and what's written in the law is wrong. Why do you think he keeps on pushing for it. He'll do it and then the lawsuits will fly as soon as the person he places does something that negatively effects someone. Watch for it, it's coming. This will go all the way to the supreme court in due time.

Brianb-999431

"so you favor suppression of speech? Are you against the 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution?"

...and you call OTHER people idiots...

Forrest said: Brian to reform our system and provide health care to the poor will require individuals or corporations to reduce their profit, to share as a manner of description, that is the whole sticking point where will the money come from, because the health insurance industry and health care providers do not operate on charity nor do their stockholders

Your post makes salient sense Forrest based on a system without reform. There is one reform, if made, would drive the costs of insurance down. You gotta watch it though... it's a capitalist idea. (smile). Remove the interstate barriers for selling health insurance. Currently you can only buy health insurance that is generated in your state. By doing so, it will increase competition by 50 fold and as you know, the more competition there is, the lower the costs. We will never know how it will effect the costs because for some crazy reason, the insurance lobby does not want health insurace to cross state lines.

Its't funny that Dodd-Frank did provide specific language regarding the appointment of the director of the COnsumer Protection Agency?

Yep, the big brains of Dodd and Frank drafted the law to say the the Director must be confirmed by the Senate.

Whoops.

That assumes that the Senate would actually confirm anyone Obama nominated. That doesn't appear to be the case, thus forcing the President into a workaround.

Re: the discussion on Health Care. Why not have everyone pay in a certain percentage and everyone gets whatever care they need. Isn't that how other countries do it? Why do we have such resistance to taking what works from other countries that are successfully doing things we need done?

Noid - It's there.... I have read it. Right now the Senate isn't in technical recess. They keep holding meetings every third day for more than 2 minutes in chambers.

Ah, you must be talking about Article I, Section 5...

"Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."

However, the term "recess" is never defined within the Constitution. Not even the passage above defines the term. So, the question is, do the pro forma sessions of the Senate count as still being in session?

Steven G. Bradbury and John P. Elwood, both officials in the Justice Department under President Bush said in an Op-Ed for the Washington Post in 2010 that pro forma sessions are a threat "to become a permanent roadblock in the already dysfunctional appointments process."

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/14/AR2010101405441.html

Bradbury and Elwood cite a 1905 report by the Senate Judiciary Committee which defined a "Recess of the Senate" as follows:I'll be honest with you...I don't know the answer. Do the pro forma sessions count as the Senate being in session?

"It means, in our judgment, in this connection the period of time when the Senate is not sitting in regular or extraordinary session as a branch of the Congress or in extraordinary session for the discharge of executive functions; when its members owe no duty of attendance; when its chamber is empty; when, because of its absence, it can not receive comunications from the President or participate as a body in making appointments."

So, do the pro forma sessions of the Senate count as still being in session? I suppose we'll let a court decide.

FYI - There is no requirement for how long a pro forma session must last. Yesterday's session was 29 seconds.

Forrest @ 3.4

Unfortunately in Obamacare (aka AHCA) There is nothing that is going to change that. (in my opinion it will get worse)

We need either single payer (complete government takeover) Or get the insurance companies out of routine care.

Single payer, costs won't go down they will just be mandated to a certain cost by the Government (price controls) this is just a band-aid over the real problem.

Catastrophic coverage only, get insurance back to what it does best, insure against massive risks. Allow the free market to drive the price of everyday care, you think costs would stay as high as they are? You think that every sore throat would require an emergency room visit? Takes the Government out of medical care.

I prefer option two take the Government out of it completely, take the massive insurance companies out of everyday care.

Only commonsense way to do it, the only way we have real reform, freedom to make your own medical decisions is the only way to go.

phine @3.7

We could always go with Dr Paul's plan, he knows a bit about the subject.

In my post above (#3.32) to Forrest I outlined it. People in Forrest's situation My Mother-in law's situation, My and my wife's situation all benefit from some form of catastrophic insurance. There is just such a situation in most families in America I'm afraid. Get the massive profit motive and corruption drive out of medicine.

Egilman,

To be perfectly honest, I do not know Dr. Paul's plan. I will say that as the top administrator at a hospital, he explained why he felt a universal health care plan was preferable - and I agreed (and not just because he signs the pay checks!). The bottom line on any plan, though, is to get the cost of health care down. If we can do that, we can really make a dent in the deficit.

Egilman - a topic I can say we agree on. Get government out of the equation. Costs can be driven down by some common sense reforms.

Noid - I heard the time limitations were supposed to be 2 minutes. Of course I could be wrong, it's what I remember reading.

Remove the interstate barriers for selling health insurance. Currently you can only buy health insurance that is generated in your state.

Do you know why there are "interstate barriers"?

First of all, understand that these "interstate barriers" simply do not exist...they are a myth created by the Republicans to try and argue some evil federal regulation is in place in the hopes of furthering their argument for "smaller government".

No, the "barriers" are created by the states themselves. The regulations for a healthcare plan in, say, New York are not the same as those for a healthcare plan in Vermont. Vermont may require that I cover procedures that New York does not and vice versa. Vermont may set caps on copays and deductibles that differ from New York. New York may require that I cover pre-existing conditions while Vermont does not.

What it means is, if I'm a CEO for a plan in New York and I wish to do business in Vermont I must familiarize myself with all of Vermont's regulations and comply with them...while, of course, still maintaining compliance with all of the regulations in New York.

The business model you suggest would require setting a national standard for healthcare coverage. Who sets the standard? Who determines compliance with the standards? Wouldn't this require a new government agency since we're talking about interstate commerce?

Da Noid,

You are hitting on what the president of the hospital was talking about. One of their major headaches is getting ins. co. to pay out of state costs. Now, I live in an area with a lot of snowbirds and tourists, and sometimes bad things happen to them. A lot of the time the hospital is holding the bag because the insurance company won't pay. Universal coverage is one good answer to that problem.

Brian it may lower the cost of insurance slighty and temporalily, but not the cost of healthcare, the health insurance companies are in the business of making a profit on the insurance and not seeing to it that people have quality and reasonably priced healthcare, they simply pass on the healthcare cost plus tack on their profit margin, in the longrun it does little to reduce costs. Unless it is a nonprofit provider of insurance that people anywhere can buy into. A national healthcare non profit trustfund would reduce insurance costs, but still would not hold the healthcare providers charges in check. I was billed 8 dollars for a Q-Tip, it did have a long wooden handle, as I recall, I guess that is some rare and exotic wood they use because you can get about a thousand Q-tips with the cardboard handle, and with cotton at both ends, for that price.

At the department head meetings my husband goes to, the first topic, rather than patient care or maintenance of the hospital, is cost and how to cut cost before cutting the work force needed to run a hospital.

And now it is time for the Bengals/Texans. In honor of the senior gang, I must pull for the Bengals.

Da Noid & phine,

I personally could go for universal coverage, it would be a law enacted by Congress and cover the entire country. no commissions, no panels, no agencies to administer it.

Creation would be by Doctors and Patients, no insurance companies or lobbyists involved, Conference between the creators and the healthcare committee in the house and senate to work out the legalities. vote on it and sign it. Problem solved! (except the lobbyists, insurance corporations and their willing accomplices in the Congress would never let this happen)

phine, @ 3.34

I would post his plan here but it is too busy right now for it to go up as one page and I wouldn't want it spread out all over the place to confuse people.

Egilman,

You just put your finger on the problem - all the "money" people in politics. And I understand the problem in posting his plan. We can discuss it in a quieter venue later.

I will post it, but basically it is simple,

Get Big Corporate Insurance out of everyday care, the as the Dr would say it "First Dollar Coverage" Let the insurance Companies cover Major Medical issues, the routine visit let the Patient and Doctor deal with those issues. this would allow Insurance to operate the way insurance is supposed to and remove government altogether.

It was this way for over 100 years and made American medicine the envy of the world. I've seen nothing that would change this in today's world except the greed of corporations and the desire of government to meddle in things best left alone.

I am a life-long atheist, but I have heard that Christians believe thou shall not steal. If you libs think everyone should get free healthcare by taking my earnings, then you are robbing me and my family. So in that sense, being against government healthcare is consistent with Christian teaching. Will you Christians correct me if I am wrong?

If you libs say everyone "deserves" affordable healthcare, the only way that can be done is to lower the quality and access to care. You can't have high-quality care for everyone. Again, you are advocating robbing my family of what I have earned.

Road Warrior-252445

for well over 100 years the only government involvement in medicine was standards and licensing, not who pays and how much.

The stealing started when government started getting involved at the call of the medical insurers because of "High Costs" this was back in the '70's. How many today would like to go back to the costs of the '70's....(probably everyone)

Noid

Article 1 Section 5 Clause 4

Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Now Harry Reid did the EXACT same thing in 2007 and 2008 and had pro forma sessions to BLOCK Bush appointments. Now it is Illegal for Republicans to do this?? Seems to me that you can't have it both ways. "What is good for the Goose......"

@Road Warrior

How many times do we have to explain this to you guys. YOU'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR THEM IN THE FORM OF HIGHER PREMIUMS. Scheese, why is this so hard for you to understand. Hospitals just pass the cost of giving free services in the ER on to the the insurance companies and paying public. This is not tough to understand. They are in this to make money and they just pass the costs on to the rest of us. Please, stop repeating the lie. That's all it is. If you happen to believe it, I feel very sorry for you.

Now Harry Reid did the EXACT same thing in 2007 and 2008 and had pro forma sessions to BLOCK Bush appointments. Now it is Illegal for Republicans to do this?? Seems to me that you can't have it both ways. "What is good for the Goose......"

Please refer back to the Op-Ed from Mr. Bradbury and Mr. Elwood. It seems to me the Bush Administration could have challenged the pro forma sessions but did not.

Affordable health care? Prove that Obamacare is going to be affordable. Prove that people with low income will be given top notch healthcare. Prove that the system will work. Come on!!! Prove it!

You liberals keep on saying that Obamacare is the greatest thing since sliced bread but you are talking out of your bottom mouths. You can't prove that it is all the things you are saying it will be. In otherwords you don't know, do you? All you can do is say it is going to be because you have been told it's going to be by a bunch of politicians... the same politicians that kiss your babies and then steal their suckers.

If I remember right when Obama and the democrats were touting the passing of a health care plan it was to take care of the 30 or 40 million people not insured, that is who Obama wanted covered. Lo and Behold, behind closed doors in the dead of night we get a health care bill that effects 300 million people, and guess what there are still 30 or 40 million people not covered by the health care bill. The blame was put on the health insurance companies and not any mention of the actual medical cost of the treatments.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will find the law unconstitutional, then congress can hopefully get to work on a bi-partisan bill that people can understand and help those who currently can not get coverage.

Everybody wants access to healthcare.

Most just don't want to pay for others' access.

Hey Brian, Spanky and sfcret. Were you always against Obamacare or did you support it back when it was the republican alternative to Hillarycare in the 90's? Just curious.

Chucky,

I looked up Rocky Anderson. Cool dude!

Yeehaa! Thanks Phine. Look, I'm pragmatic enough to know the guy's got no chance, but he is a political malcontents dream candidate. He is what I would hope Obama would strive to be.

Chucky,

I'm against any socialist based program that gives the government more control. I am perfectly happy with the healthcare system being in the hands of private citizens.

There are many other methods for the government to get involved with helping the poor obtain healthcare... it's called reform. It's called assistance. It will be much more inexpensive and it creates the solution to where it's needed.

If you are insinuating I'd be more supportive of a republican program that is just as bad, you don't know me at all.

Hmmmm, let's see - was I ever for a gianormous government program, that will cost trillions and because it is implemented by the government will always suck?

Really?

Chucky,

The world needs more Rocky Anderson's!

The problem Brian is that healthcare is not in the hands of private citizens, it is in the hands of the insurance industry that seeks to grab as much $ as it can while providing the least amount of service. It is a corrupt middleman that serves no purpose other than to generate wealth for an industry that is not needed. That is why I personally oppose Obamacare, it strengthens this corrupt industry and further entrenches it into our lives. It is the complete opposite of socialized medicine. That's why I don't understand why you conservatypes are so against it.

AH HA Chucky, we partially agree. The healthcare industry is in it to make a profit. Obamacare will increase those profits. Health insurance should be treated like a utility instead of like a commodity. I don't mind if it's regulated. There are dozens of things that can lower the costs to the consumer, but the government looks at it as a goose that laid the golden egg for control.

Everybody wants access to healthcare.

Most just don't want to pay for others' access.

Never mind that they already did before Health Care Reform was passed, though, right?

Everybody wants access to healthcare.

Most just don't want to pay for others' access.

Very honest statement Spanky, and it indicates the one of the direct contradictions of this we are a great Christian nation with Christians values crap our politicians like to spew. If that was true they would tell us as Christians we have a moral responsibility to personally contribute some of our cash to support those who cannot afford something as basic and necessary to humans as health-care. BTW Happy New Year to you and yours.

I'm against any socialist based program that gives the government more control. I am perfectly happy with the healthcare system being in the hands of private citizens.

So BrianB - you hate medicare, that extremely popular non-partisan health program used by almost all senior citizens? The program that is more efficient and whose administrative costs are half of those in the private sector?

Believe it or not: We in Missouri have a GOP Rep.(in our state government) pushing for our state to set up the State exchange, the healthcare law set up. He admits it will help people find an affordable policy that will met their needs.

Said policy may even be cheaper than employee coverage for them.

RedDev - Does it have to always be to the extreme ends with you? Hate is a strong adjective. I don't like any socialist government program, and medicare is one of them. I don't like Social Security. Both these programs have tapped into my paycheck for over 38 years. If I had the money I put into these programs it would have been invested totally different. Everytime I get my yearly social security statement I stand in wonderment as to how much that money would have grown if it were invested in a self controlled IRA, 401K or even gold.

You are making things up Redev... You don't know the true costs of medicare, none of us do. You also don't realize that with medicare, the government controls what procedures are done and what aren't. Ask my mother-in-law. There are also additional costs with medicare when a procedure is done unless you have supplimental insurance. Supplimental insurance isn't cheap. Your faith in government programs may cost you your life one day.

Sandy, if you scour the internet for health insurance, you will find a lot of different programs that are pretty affordable. When I owned my business a couple of years ago, I paid $98.00 per month for personal coverage that was just as good as any employee based insurance plan. With my current employer, I pay $76 a month for the same coverage. All things were equal. I might be paying a little more for the personal insurance now because rates have gone up, but for individual insurance without company backing, the rates can fit into your budget.

You are right Brian, I do have more faith in the the governmental version of medical care vs. privatized care. No one I know has died under the government version. However, under private care, metaphorically speaking, the dead line side of the road, caused by private insurance dropping coverage, refusing procedures, delaying procedures and claiming pre-existing conditions. The count of those dead are around 15-20. This doesn't count the financial ruin by those who survived.

I will admit, that through the telescope of my personal view, the successes of healed people outnumbers those that litter the side of road, but one death and/or bankruptcy caused by the failure of privatized insurance is one too many.

@ BB My point was some lawmakers from both parties,

are smart enough to see the good in the Healthcare law.

Thanks Forrest.

But to be clear - I am not a Christian.

Nobody has a right to health insurance, just like I don't think anyone has a right to retire at 65 years old.

But then I already lost that argument, at least for now.

Spanky, the Christian thing was not meant to be directed at you personally, I guess I was not clear enough about that, it was directed at the republican party in general, Christianity is a big campaign plank of theirs, that we are a Christian nation and our leaders and laws should reflect that. I have no problem with you Spanky even though we often disagree, because you are always upfront and brutally honest about your views, and you never change your tune. I realize I have never seen a religious reference in any of your posts, you are not bashful about saying it is your money, you made it, and you intend to keep as much as possible. If you read my posts you will know I detest the mixing of religion and politics, I am Christian but not a very good one probably, I very well may go to hell, the only good news is that if I do I will know lots of people there, and will still be able to argue with republicans. My point is that republicans can't insist we are capitalists, that is the most important thing, and at the same time say we are great Christians, and that is the most important thing at the same time. The fact is as a nation we are much better at the Capitalism than we are the Christianity. I believe you would agree with that, and be fine with that. I just wish more politicians and people would be as honest as you about the fact that Christianity and capitalism as a matter of policy are polar opposites. The free market is just not into charity, and to provide people with something they cannot afford on their own requires charity. We can do both, and I believe we should, but we should be honest about which is which, and what problems capitalism can solve, and what problems will simply need a charitable approach.

I hear you Forrest - that's why I was no great fan of Bush and his 'compasionate conservatism' crap.

But putting aside politics and religion - people are compassionate and charitable. Even, gasp, money grubbing conservatives like me.

THis does bear out in the free market. Many business enterprises spend millions on charities. Are they sometime marketing related, sure. But that's just smart money.

But at least it's their money. When the government get involved it's all our money, and that's bad, because we never seem to get a say.

And knock it off Forrest- if you are a good person you will be fine. And you Forrest are a good person.

Forrest - We all are guilty of doing questionable things... Just remember the tenants of your faith and realize that a good Christian and a bad Christian have one thing in common... I'll let you figure that one out.

Religion and politics don't mix well, so I'll hand you the fact that you don't like it when it appears from over zealous politicians. Anytime a politician mentions their faith, they are pandering. All this talk about a theocracy or if this politician wins, or that politician wins, we will be thrust into the stone age is pretty silly... no matter what that politician's faith is, I find the slurs against them to be just as offensive as them using their faith as an issue. In the end, the slurs and their faith even out. I'm not saying you have said these things, but many on these boards have.

BTW, I hope you are feeling better as is Ms. Forrest.

Well thank you Spanky, that is kind of you to say.

Well thank you Brian, the only answer i can come up with to your riddle is that we all commit sins to some degree or another. I have lately been pointing out Romney's religion but not because I take issue with it, but because of the political aspect of how many republicans play to the evangelical Christian faith and how they may take issue with it. My business has brought me into contact with just about every faith color and creed there is, and I try to treat all with fairness and honesty. I came to the understanding many years ago that religion and morality are two different things and one never insures or precludes the other. I am doing fine and Mrs. Grump is dealing with her grief a little better each day. I'm back to work part time, doing my consulting and training thing. I am even considering taking a position with a gigantic beverage company as a production plant supervisor. I will have to make up my mind pretty soon, as they won't wait to long before they fill the position, they made me an offer that is hard to refuse in this economy. If I take it for the first time in my life I will not be working under or representing people under a collective bargaining unit (except for my tiny consulting business), I will be on the opposite side of that coin. The plant is organized by a different union than mine, but it is going to feel strange after all these years, If I take the position and I think I might, I will just have to try and do what I have always tried to do with labor and management and that is to be fair and honest with people, describe any problems as I honestly see them and try to make to make sure each side is holding up their end of the bargain. Ha I just hope I don't get the urge to punch myself in my new corporate nose every once in awhile.

Hey Chucky,

This is for you....

Rocky Anderson a great American, (from wikipedia)

Anderson has emphasized the discrepancy between Obama’s position as a candidate for the 2008 presidency, and the actions he has actually undertaken as President, stating that “President Obama has betrayed us in almost every single way from being a candidate to being the President of the United States.” Anderson has pointed to Obama’s failure to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, refusing to prosecute what Anderson deems to be the “war criminals” of the Bush administration, continuing renditions, violating the War Power Clause of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution by committing military troops to Libya without congressional authorization, and continuing, and even expanding, the occupation in Afghanistan. Anderson has stated that Obama is “the least deserving recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in the history of the Nobel Peace Prize.” Concerning Obama's betrayal of the rule of law, Anderson has commented as follows:

"The complacency that has allowed wars of aggression, wars of choice, we weren't forced into them, they were totally illegal wars under international law, the kinds of war crimes that took place, with people just saying, even our current president, 'Oh, let's put that behind us. Let's not call people to account. Let's not enforce our laws… “If these people had robbed the gold buillon out of a government safe, would we just say, ‘Let bygones be bygones; forget the rule of law?"

Anderson has pointedly criticized Obama for violating the Convention Against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, since every signatory to the convention is required to prosecute or extradite for prosecution those responsible for torture, something Obama refuses to do. Anderson has pointed out that, when the U.S. Senate ratified the Convention Against Torture, President Ronald Reagan stressed that the Convention requires prosecution or extradition of anyone responsible for torture.

Anderson has stated that despite his earlier belief that the Bush Administration would be merely an “aberration” in the history of the US, “President Obama has institutionalized some of the worst abuses of the Bush Administration.”

While I don't agree with a lot of what he stands for, I agree with even more, he should have a much larger voice in America, unfortunately, just like Dr Paul, his voice gets buried by the MSM....

A great Democrat, a Great Liberal, A man who UNDERSTANDS...

Forrest @ 4.21

In a nutshell, there is no room for greed in being a christian, there is no room for religion in greedy government.

The two are inopposite of each other.

(and government is all about greed)

Forrest,

I for one think you will do well, a voice of reason in a usually unreasonable environment.

I don't think this below will be an issue ;-)

Ha I just hope I don't get the urge to punch myself in my new corporate nose every once in awhile.

Peace my friend, and trust that you are there for a reason.

I'm more concerned about that devilish smile at seeing the police advance on people who don't agree with him than his flip-flop on healthcare. The GOP still echos Bush's "with us or against us" mentality to a frightening degree.

Note to Republicans: your policies help the rich, and nobody else. Unless you are rich, you are nothing but USEFUL IDIOTS for the rich.

More blame Bush garbage...how many greedy foolish Americans , borrowed more than they could pay back , sucked the equity and more of their homes..and walked away....keep blaming one guy genius...

BigBen,

Do you really believe the financial crisis was the fault of Joe the Plumber buying a house he could not afford?
Really?

If so, it is YOU that is the foolish American.

When the shoe fits where it. We blame Bush because Bush is to blame. When he came in office he was handed a budget surplus and in 8 short years he squandered it to a massive debt. We all knew he would at the time because that is what he did to every business he ran prior to becoming President. When he left office the economy had been routed so badly that the banks, auto industry, housing market, construction industry, the stock market and all retail markets were not only suffering but in such a bad way that the federal government had to bail them out to keep the Nation afloat. Also, under the failed reign of King George, II the US Dollar was the weakest it ever has been relative to gold or any other currencies in the history of the Nation. When Bush was in office the entire economy collapsed for those of you who don't remember. President Obama has been in office for 36 months and the Nation has had 30 consecutive months of National GDP growth. 10 consecutive months of employment growth and the dollar is stronger today then it ever was under Bush. Under President Obama the US Dollar has become the investment that all the World wants to make. Check out those ten and two year bond rates not to mention the thirty year! Thank you Mr. President for keeping your nose to the grindstone even in the face of unrelenting pressure from the obstructionist GOP.

The GOP also managed to squander the Clinton surpluses and longest period of economic growth in history and turn it into the Bush Depression

1945,

Wow...you also believe the lie that it was Joe the Plumbers fault because he bought a mortgage he could not afford that caused the 2008 Great DEPRESSION??

That lie has been told so many times people still actualy believe it...amazing.

You talk about facts and truth...try learning some facts before regurgitating the conservative puke that is spewing from your keyboard.

1945
The housing bubble is effect, not cause.

The real villian here is the too big to fail financial corporations who bundled highly dubious investments, leveraged to the hilt, and gambled our childrens future (and our retirments) away.

The problem is that this has not been addressed.
We still have the too big to fail corps.
We still have no regulation to stop the leveraging and bundling of shady investments.
And the financial institutiouns are somehow still allowed to buy the congressman or senator so that the status quo is maintaned.

Vote with pride...America is too good for this sh*t.

That fact is, people not paying their house payment is what caused the 2008 crash...

You have to to be very careful around the conservative mind. They can't grasp complexity, things like unregulated non-bank or shadow bank activities promoting the availability of easy credit and keeping those mortgage securities off the balance sheets, and the fraudulent activities by regulated banks of cooking mortgage applications in order to compete with the shadow banks.

To the simplistic conservative mind, the whole thing started when people could't make house payments.

Well said Red!

Nobody is responsible for writing bad loans except the bankers that wrote them. My kid was 22 years old just got his first job making 50k and the bank offered him a $345,000 "interest only loan" have you ever heard of such a thing you pay and pay and never have equity. Hell even my kid knew the mafia would give you a better loan. The bankers and mortgage companies worked hand in hand with the reality companies, sometimes they were virtually one in the same. They floated bogus appraisals, and bogus loans all in the same day at the same location, the story was always "we can get you in that house" which was music to a lot of young naive peoples ears. They felt they could never lose, homes were going up 10-12% per year and they knew they would be foreclosing on many of the loans they wrote but what the heck let them make payments for 8 or 10 months we will get the house back and it will be worth more when we do. Bankers wrote those loans not Barney Frank, Fannie, or Freddie, now they won't lend people who can afford it reasonable amounts because they are scared to death the home will be worth less next year. They never told anybody you can not afford this loan or house, the story was always we have a way we can get you in that home. They enticed a lot of young people to sign some ridiculous loans, all kinds of crazy loans based on inflated appraisals made by the same people making the loans. Adjustable rate loans, loans for 125% of the appraised value of the property, home equity lines of credit for 125% of the value of the house for people that already had a home, interest only loans, loans that allowed no down payment and closing costs to be built into the loan, they even charged higher fees to write a bad loan. People trusted the nice man at the bank, the nice man at the bank wrote up the bad loans, and they are responsible for their own dishonesty not Barney Frank, Fannie, Freddie and not Obama. To make matters worse they then sold the bad loans as high return securities and investments creating even more losses on the same bad loans. The housing crisis was created by dishonest greedy bankers and nothing more, Barney Frank did not write up a single bad loan. As long as housing prices were rising it worked for the banks, mortgage companies, and realities, then as soon as prices started dropping the wheels came off.

Actually what caused the financial crash was that deregulation allowed financial institutions to repackage high risk mortgages into incomprehensible credit default swaps to hide the risk so they could sell them on the open market and they had their yes men the GOP put in all the regulatory agencies rubber stamp them with AAA ratings. In terms of the fraudulent high risk loans these institutions made, there is not a single law that made a single bank loan a single dime to anyone. The GOP, who champions deregulation for decades, claimed this would all be risk free because the free market would be self-regulating. Do I really need to post quote after quote of one right wing politician after another singing the praises of subprime and deregulation. That would take me all day.

Keating,

You have to love the credit ratings agencies...

Just before Enron imploded...credit rating AAA+
Just before Lehman bankrupted...credit rating AAA+
Just before AIG collapsed...credit rating AAA+

And these guys have the cahones to reduce Americas credit rating?
Priceless!

Conservatives...find the lie that most fits your agenda and repeat, repeat over and over until it is the truth.

If recent history is any guide, it is the Conservatives who have made all the bad choices that have so negatively affected our great country.

And then blame Joe the Plumber. Priceless.

If a conservative had been captain of the Titanic, the reason the ship sank was the lazy American worker who was employed by the "Job Creators" that built the ship.

And of course every single foreclosure proceeding has been against liberals, no conservatives or republicans ever lost their home. Well I got news for you I feel real bad for a republican conservative businessman friend of mine that lost his 1.7 million dollar home and has moved his wife and himself into a pole barn they he owns on an adjacent piece of property, its all he has left. 5 years ago he was a multi-millionaire home builder and real estate developer and now he is living in a barn, he made some bad choices, right. He should have closed his business, stiffed his creditors, and skipped the country or taken a job at Yaallmart.

Oh Forrest - you know full well it was all us liberal lazies who because of our laziness, had mortgage brokers fill out bad loan applications on April 30, 2007, then through some form of osmosis or collective conscious response, every last one of us got to lazy to write out our mortgage checks on November 1, 2007, causing an immediate economic collapse. Bush heroically, and gallantly used TARP to stem the crash, but to no avail. In fact, so horrible was our laziness, that as soon as Obama was elected, the economy started shedding 750,000 a month.

That is why we liberal lazies have no one to blame but ourselves. We caused the economic collapse, the job crash, then tried to get regulations favoring the lazy (not to mention we convinced the president to give us free health care during the collapse) and victimized those hard working conservatives by bringing them down in the process. Forrest, it is YOUR/OUR fault that your upstanding conservative neighbor lives in a pole barn.

RedDev,

Shame on us libs!!! I didn't realize how heartless we really were!! LOL

Oh Phine .. the evil our ways go even further. Did you know that not all of us want to commit to careers that earn us less than $5m per year? Some of us want to work as teachers, nurses, firefighters, bookkeepers, policemen, staff assistants - all jobs that will not make us millionaires, yet we stoop so low as to expect things like a decent retirement, employer provided health care, annual raises when economic conditions warrant, and most vile of all, the ability to join Unions that help us negotiate for those unwarranted benefits.

That we have the gall to want the same societal benefits that the Great Generation fought so valiantly for is now, somehow, communist, fascist, marxist, and (gotta be careful with this mudslinger term), Nazis-tic. We are truly shameless.

Hey, 1945, the Great Depression began in 1929, caused by Republican policies in the GOP controlled Congress and the President Herbert Hoover. Hoover was a very good engineer and Secretary of Commerce, but he was completely out of his depth as President. He knew nothing about economics and just kept doing the things that had already failed. By the way, his policies were almost the same as GW Bush's economics; small government, big business, no regulation, no safety nets anywhere.

@1945 - Please explain how the GOP did not cause the depression, which most economists (those crazy experts you don't agree with) agree started in 1929, and then through failings of Hoover, escalated to a full blown depression in 1933. Most economists also agree that the Federal Reserve's inability (due to gold standard regulations) to properly control the money supply (shrinking vs. expanding) turned what could have been a severe recession to a depression. This is also a policy reversal implemented by FDR, not Hoover.

While I don't care to blame either the GOP or Democrats, I am more concerned as to what policies were implemented to stop the causes and to steer the economy out of the depression. Since FDR resided over several policy changes that led to the end of the depression and to the regulation of the monetary markets to avoid future depressions, it seems clear he gets credit for ending the depression. What we do know is that WWII cleared the pathway to ending the depression by reducing unemployment to almost 0%, and increasing government spending and debt to unprecedented high levels.

Fire is also hot and can burn you.

Sorry to disappoint you, but Obama will clean Flipper's clock

Mittens is full of it. He has no credibility

Let's see, loss of 30 million policies at around 5k a year per policy. Nope, regardless of what any of the repubs say, they will never be allowed to take $150 billion a year away from the insurance industry.

great points

Exactly Anita,

And all the while, giving HUGE tax breaks to Big Oil and other wealthy 'donors' so that we cannot even pay for these dubious foreign engagements.

Then they turn and cry DEFICIT REDUCTION when it was the Conservative policies that got us into this mess.

And who do they want to pay for these deficit reductions? The wealthy? God no.
You and me baby, you and me.

If the GOP cared so much about taxpayers, perhaps they should not have squandered the Clinton surpluses on obscene tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% and Operation Iraqi Blunder leaving Obama an economy in free fall with a mountain of trickle down debt. Mittens had to go hat in hand to get a fed gov bailout of Bain Capital to the tune of tens of millions because he ran his company into the ground and was on the verge of bankruptcy. I guess fed bailouts are how republicans "lift themselves up by their bootstraps"

So...

You do not believe that the middle class of America works hard...

Fascinating.

There are no big unions anymore. That's why Gingrich can propose repealing child labor laws. You will have to find a new boogie man to blame.

Obama has not lied... he just got stuck with a bunch of REPUBNUTS AND TEAHEADS that want to make him look bad. If he says its raining... they say it's not. All he has to do is the opposite of what he wants and the idiots will be against it! That will work! These idiots have one thing on their mind... they hate Obama, the rest they make up as they go along. Too funny.

Romney's true beliefs are harder to pin down than a greased pig on crack.

#3 is really important to you [i do that all the time], but big failure is the laws' failure to allow the fed to fund a federal exchange. Most states have refused to create the exchanges, and the specific provision in the bill for federal exchanges [a different section than the one for state exchanges] does not allow fed. funding.

Whoops.

Since that is the black letter of the statute it cannot be simply amended/re-drafted. It will require a whole new vote.

Nelson and some many will be gone. Don't see that going so well.

It will require a whole new vote.

Nelson and some many will be gone. Don't see that going so well.

Possibly, but highly unlikely...

but, hey - keep hoping (or dreaming, or praying, or all of the above) or whatever you are doing spanky. Law of averages says you will be correct sometime. Just keep throwing the garbage out there and eventually something you say is bound to be correct....

troll.

"He is out to prove the American people are stupid." As if we needed MORE proof!

I guess he and Santorum think America in general is just plain stupid. I would love for Obama to take them on. He is now being criticized for wanting kids to go to college and before it was terrible that Obama wanted people to be more responsible and accountable. They complain constantly about people not paying their way and being on food stamps yet don't think they are very smart or them to be educated. I am sick and tired of these elitests republicans thinking America is stupid. Let us show them how smart we are by voting and keeping them out of office. We don't want their kind in office I guess.

I can't wait to see one of these Repubnuts debate one on one with Obama. They talk a lot of nonsense and sound so phony. They do not come across to me as being genuinely compassionate about this country. Obama will blow them out of the water in a debate... I will be front and center to watch him shred them to bits!

DAMN YOU ROMNEY!!!!!!!! YOU ARE A BOLD HYPOCRITE!!!!!!!! Sure, while Americans can't point out how you profited (sometimes justified, other times NOT) from the outsourcing of US jobs, you get to slander all of your opponents. Sure, you expect your fellow Americans to be respectful while you bash our president. Well let me tell you this: you aren't gonna win. You are gonna lose. You show NO respect to Obama, and yet you expect America to do so for you. How selfish can thou be????

Oh, and how art thou going to balance thy budget without raising taxes???? You idiot. Why can't you admit that your party has it wrong? The wealthy don't create jobs due to tax cuts. They do so because of DEMAND. The ONLY way that tax cuts can create jobs is if you aim them at the REAL job creators- the middle class. How you and your party claim to know more about creating jobs but it takes "socialist" liberals like me to tell you how our damn economy works??? My God. I like your rhetoric. But how can you do it??? Cut taxes and regulations?? Regulations did NOTHING for us to lose jobs. And cutting taxes will INCREASE our deficits, making it virtually impossible to cut them.

I hope you lose, Romney. And you too, Spanky. And Brian. And all you right-wing nutshells!!!! I've seen the GOP ruin this country before my very eyes. And I WON'T take it anymore. I've heard enough of the GOP's crap. I know Obama is not perfect. Nobody is. He hasn't done a lot of things that I wished he would have. But he is still smart and resourceful. He DOES have good ideas, and he is a god compared to the GOP candidates. And I know that I'm ranting. I don't care. I'm speaking my mind before the GOP destroys this nation and I will have to move to some new economic powerhouse like China so I can make a living.

OBAMA BIDEN 2012

AMERICA 2012

GOP/TP EXTINCT 2012

ROMNEY, OTHERS SHOCKED AND ANGRY 2012