“The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses………….behind the lines, in the gym and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights.”

Mohammed Ali

Happy 70^th birthday Champ.

These are not good poll numbers for Barry. The economy stinks, unemployment is still very high, the right-track, wrong-track numbers are terrible at around 70% of Americans believing the country is on the wrong track, and Barry’s super-PAC is having fundraising difficulties.

I realize that Barry has only been in stealth-campaign mode since January 21, 2009, but, you really have to wonder how Barry being in full campaign mode will be received. Since this election will be decided by the independents in the middle, their reactions are the only ones that matter. It could range from lefty liberal orgasmic ecstasy of “Happy (Delusional?) Days are Here Again, to yeah, yeah, we’re in a state of “wonderful speech weariness”, when are you going to actually do something?

If the economy still stinks, unemployment is still very high, and the percentage of American’s thinking the country is on the wrong track is in the 60’s in November, I just don’t think endless wonderful speeches are going to cut it.

BTW, if I’m right, I wonder how many of the FR lefty liberals who have criticized me for using “Barry” will be referring to the next President as “Mittens” or “Willard”? LMAO!!!!

From Politico:

Survey: Sharp divide on Obama
By: MJ Lee
January 18, 2012 06:10 AM EST

Three years into his presidency, President Barack Obama is drawing mixed reviews from Americans, who continue worry about the state of the economy and feel pessimistic about the direction of the country, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll suggests.

Americans are perfectly split on how Obama is handling his job — 48 percent say they approve, while 48 percent say they disapprove. There is also a division in opinion on the president’s accomplishments — 47 percent say the president has accomplished a great deal or a good amount during his first three years in office, compared with 52 percent who said he has accomplished not much or nothing.

On the economic front, 41 percent approve of the way the president has handled the economy, while 57 percent disapprove. Obama fared slightly better on the issue of job creation, with 45 percent approving of his performance — the best rating he’s received since last February — compared with 51 percent who disapprove.

The majority of Americans, 68 percent, think the country is on the wrong track — slightly better compared with the last quarter of 2011, when more than 70 percent said the country was headed in a bad direction, but significantly worse than in mid-2009, when only around half of the electorate expressed similar pessimism about the nation.

Run Gov Scott Walker; Run Away and never come back

Gov Scott Walker can run over to FOX NOISE to lie all he wants and beg the Koch brothers for money. It just make him look more pathetic. Boo hoo

Congratulations Wisconsin

Newt- mentum?

Pleaaase, that is worse than a Satan Sandwich.

Palin supports Gingrich. The kiss of death.

Obama in 2012.

For an objective treatment of the role of private equity in the economy -- a more objective treatment than anyone will get from the likes of E.J. Dionnne or those who cite his stories -- folks can go here.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/is-private-equity-bad-for-the-economy/251245/

Gov Scott Walker can run over to FOX NOISE to lie all he wants and beg the Koch brothers for money. It just make him look more pathetic. Boo hoo

Actually, the Governor was in New York City attending a fundraiser for him being hosted by disgraced former-AIG chariman Maurice "Hank" Greenberg.

Memo to Governor Walker...you might want to count the money yourself rather than trust Greenberg...wink-wink!

Excellent post, IR. And I would love to see such a debate on the various forms of capitalism, and which are good and which are bad for society, and what government's role should be in helping the good ones prosper. But I'm not holding my breath. The Republicans will beat it all down to "get rid of the regulations". They don't want to have a debate on it at all. I don't know how we get from "here" to "there" when they're going to make every effort to change the conversation.

Good Morning Friends, IR excellent thoughts, and to that, with your indulgence, I will add:

Mitt Romney’s take on the world:

“I’m paying around 15%”....tax rate

“Some income from speaking engagements, not much.” ($374+k)

“I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”

“Don’t try to stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom.”

“Corporations are people, my friend”.

“I’m not looking to put money in people’s pockets.”

“There were a couple of times I wondered whether I was going to get a pink slip.”

‘Hey I’m unemployed too’

“I’ll tell you what: ten thousand bucks? Ten-thousand-dollar bet?”

Independent Redneck Va.

Two great posts from you with such much truth and clarity. Mitt is betting on the wrong strategy. Willard just cannot settle the problems in American in a back room.

Yes, Happy Birthday to the greatest, Mohammed Ali

Wikipedia and other sites go dark today. So, do something radical, pick up a reference book - maybe even in your local library!

IR, thanks to you and E.J. Dionne, well said, terrific food for thought.

It is time this country had an honest discussion about capitalism--free-market, private equity or venture capitalists, vulture capitalists, and why government should and must have a role in preventing the latter from destroying the economic well-being of a business, a community and the impact on the people. I am not a fan of Newt Gingrich but appreciate his bringing the discussion of capitalism, its good and bad aspects to the table whatever his reasons were in doing so.

Hey Marilyn!

That's downright subversive!...

dangerfield,

Just a little old rabble rouser, that's me!!!!

I always rooted for Joe Frazier.

i think we can all agree that posts should be shorter than the actual article

and why government should and must have a role in preventing the latter from destroying the economic well-being of a business, a community and the impact on the people.

The problem here is that is assumes the folks in government are competent enough to make these kinds of decisions. They aren't.

Well said, IR. Vulture capitalists, should they be debeaked, declawed or put on the endangered species list? Kudos to Newt for pursuing the subject.

I thought Damage just hated President Obama, the last couple of days he's shown he doesn't like anyone black. Ranting about how he hates Martin Luther King and Muhammed Ali shows just how racist he is. It's time for everyone on the left and right to ignore Damage.

Wikipedia and other sites go dark today.

Today is the supreme day of the conservative. The earth is flat, was created in 6 days, people have only been around 6000+ years, and lived with dinosaurs. Creationism is king and the country was founded on capitalism. Stem cell research equates to abortions and fetuses are babies. Mankind exists to serve God. Blahs and liberals are lazy and exist only to suck up the wealth of the hard working conservative. Today is a lost day of facts and figures that tell another story. Today is a celebration of what the dark ages mean. Today belongs to the conservative.

Damage -

Change your name to DERANGED. Your constant rants of hate and racism are disgusting.

Please, just go away.

Red,

Just an off the wall thought, maybe a few folks can pick up a book and look up information they want. Or, a newspaper. Go to the library. I agree it is a serious issue, but people, this little machine we are now all on is not the whole world and not the only way to find out something. Put a little effort into it. Never know, might like it!

Good morning Independent Redneck Va.,

Welcome back and a Great opener.

Phine .. I couldn't agree more, however, all the reference books in the world cannot educate and portion of the populace who refuse to be educated. One would think that this little machine which revolutionized the world, would wake people up and by its nature, educate folks. Sadly, this hasn't happened. Look at what the republican candidates value as American ideals. Dis-information, mis-information still reign. Some never look further than what Faux News tells them to feel.

Come on Damage, lighten up. Why are you so mean?

Ditto what Job1 said IR . . . you hit it out of the park and hit the nail on the head . . . what type of capitalists are we going to be?

Thanks for blessing us with your wise words today . . . they have been missed!

Red,

I am just trying to stir up hornet's nests today. Seems not too many care about the subject - and they should!!!

@Phine good post.

Wow ! Once again, the PAID trolls are out early..... talking about anything and everything except the subject of the story !! This site is becoming a little liberal coffee klatsch with all the usual morning greetings !! Hell they could just shake hands with each other and cut out the pretense.

The true aspect of this article is the personal attacks on Gingrich have grown old and his knowledge of the past has come shining through. Liberals cannot stand this at all. When it comes to real issues and practical, common sense, Mr. Gingrich has the ability to outshine all other candidates.

It is quite interesting, however, since each candidate has shown the strengths and their weaknesses. Thus far, Obama 's only strength seems to be the ability to give great speeches while his weaknesses are massive debt increase, high unemployment, numerous self-contradictions and failed leadership. Anyone but Obama in 2012.

Dear Damage:

The reason you do not like Muhammad Ali is because he is a grown a#@ man who stood for something and you are a whiny baby boy nipping at people's heels on the interwebs with your dimwitted "insights".

Holler at me when you come up with anything to say that hasn't been pre-chewed and fed to you, you brave internet warrior you.

We both know that you do not have the backbone to spout your bile to real people in the real world, so instead you show up here to try to piss people off and distract from the actual issues.

The issue is crony capitalism son . . . speak on that.

P.S. I am sorry that a black man stole your girlfriend Damage . . . get over it. Geez.

I keep hearing about the heavy burden on the nation's wealthiest, but it's not so. Romney refuses to release his tax returns but says he pays 15%. He says he will "lower taxes" and "increase military spending." That trickle down has long passed the tipping point.

Tax increase time on the top earners.

jim,

Proof please of folks getting paid. If they are, please let me know so I can get paid too. Show me the site I go to so I may sign up.

Was I racist by pointing out the !!!FACT!!! that 75% of all Black babies are born to single mothers?

Thank goodness - can you imagine those babies being raised by the damaged type of fathers who think this is a relevant fact?

Ahhh. Thanks for reminding me, Nashville. Ali also routinely called his opponents like George Foreman and Joe Frazier, "Uncle Toms" and "House Negroes". What a guy, huh?

What a guy indeed Damage . . . can't wait to hear what folks say about you when you turn 70 . . . if all the hate you carry around lets you make it that long.

P.S. Did I miss your brilliant insights on crony capitalism, or are race based distractions your specialty?

Since the usual suspects are all rooting for Rednecks post, I'll step out of the fray and say good post Joe in Albany. The liberals all turn a deaf ear on Obama's negatives and focus in on any of the shortcomings of the republican candidates. I'd think the liberals would be more concerned with Obama's actions and how the independents view him. It's obvious liberals will support him, but they aren't going to decide the election. All their support won't mean a hill of beans in November if the independents want him gone. That's the simple truth of the matter.

phancy - I stand by Wikapedia's decision to go black. Here we have the government meddling in the internet, for what? More control. ::best Morpheus imitation:: "Welcome to the real world." I do have to admit phancy - you do stir up the hornets nest... ::ducking::

People often have a misunderstanding of what Capitalism is.

What we have now is not truly 'Capitalism', but more 'Crony Capitalism', similar to what Obama did with SOLYNDRA. Having the government use taxpayer funds of over $500 Million to reward his campaign cash 'bundler' is an example of 'Crony Capitalism', as are the 'bailouts' of Wall Street banks.

What has made America great, and prosperous, is the form of Capitalism called "FREE ENTERPRISE", where the government encourages people to start businesses and hire people and, yes - make profits.

What we have now is an administration that seems intent on placing barriers to starting small businesses, using taxpayer money to support big businesses that 'buy influence' through lobbyists, and penalizing success while rewarding dependence on handouts.

It may be 'smart politics' to engender 'Class Warfare' and envy, but it's a lousy economic policy, whose only purpose is to distract voters from the real issue - Obama's failed economic policies.

Roy,

So in your world, buying a company, pulling all the money out of that company to pay yourself huge dividends, and then leaving the company to die, not just once, but over and over again is the way to go?

Trying to provide government seed money to create a NEW INDUSTRY to make NEW JOBS is bad, but having a handful of greedy "businessmenn" make more money than they can count while entire towns are destroyed is A-OK?

Epic fail Roy. Epic fail.

Go Regressives!! Back to the stone age!!

Why sure the BillyBobs of SC endorse nasty Newt along with lynching Juan Williams, letting sick people die, blowing up gay military people, and upping the rate of executions a notch or two or three or four....YeeHaw!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BB,

Best part. I stir it up at home, not just on FR!

RedDev--- It's probably relevant because children born to single mothers are FAR, FAR, FAR more likely to grow up to be criminals, convicts, drug addicts, drunks, or all of the above. That is another statistical fact. It would only apparently become relevant to you when one of them shoots you for the $25 you have in your wallet or rapes your sister. Even then, you would probably blame it on cuts in some beloved social program.

It's very telling that a liberal like you would think that THAT MANY CHILDREN being born and "raised" with NO fathers is IRRELEVANT. It says a lot about the liberal mind...or lack thereof.

Sandrich - question for you... What would you consider a fair tax rate for the rich? Let's say the government imposes such a tax on them, would that make you feel better? What would you say if the government does increase taxes on those at the top tier and at the end of the day, they still produce a deficit of over a trillion dollars? Considering that many on the left believe increasing taxes on the rich will solve our deficit problem, how does that solve the spending problem that the government has?

Brian, many of us are disappointed with Obama and the way the economy continues to flounder. However, This current crop of GOP candidates are worse. I don't want a president that panders to the lowest common denominator, the far-right GOP base. Furthermore, I haven't heard one viable solution to fix our economic malaise from any of them. In the end, most thoughtful people, will stick with Obama. Bet on it.

Ah - Solyndra, the rights godsend to Obamabash. Solyndra is a good example of a concept of how government involvement can support free enterprise. Unfortunately, it failed. That being said, this government shouldn't shy away from that failure, but should do more to support ANY effort to reduce this countries reliance upon foreign energy sources.

Class warfare is not the Obama administrations doing, nor is it what the majority of what the 1% have waged against the 99%. Class warfare is what politicians and corporations have waged against all the non-wealthy classes via preferential treatment such as crony and vulture capitalism.

@Sandtrich

Tax increase time on top earners

Straight out of the Communist playbook.

"[Implement] a heavy progressive or graduated income tax." -The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx

That was #2 on his list of 10 things to subvert Democracy, Industry and Free Trade.

Taxes should be equal for all and not biased based on income.

Nashville Fan - your comment about the government providing seed money... How did that work out for the taxpayers when Obama funded Solyantra? Not so good from what I hear. Weren't there several other companies that went belly up after the government provided our hard earned tax dollars? I'm not so sure I agree with your statement. At least when private citizens invest, they risk their money, not the governments. I realize you are sniping at Romney and I do support your sniping because I can't stand the guy and want to see him gone... but... the premise behind your philosophy doesn't stand the test of time.

Red,

The GOP would prefer to be more politically correct. It is envy. Gov. Romney says we have no classes in America, just those who have nothing are envious of those that do. Now we know. :)

Taxes should be equal for all and not biased based on income.

You know who disagrees with you? Adam Smith, the father of capitalism. Have you ever read, "The Wealth of Nations"?

“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess …. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

It's amazing to me that today's conservatives have moved so far to the right that they now consider the father of capitalism a communist. Really, grow up.

Roy Wilson: What we have now is not truly 'Capitalism', but more 'Crony Capitalism', similar to what Obama did with SOLYNDRA.

There have been numerous failures with government taking a role in playing venture capitalist with places like Solyndra. The problem is the government doesn't do its due diligence in vetting the company. Politics affects the selection of what company gets the money vs. what company has a reasonable expectation of being successful. That's where the government gets into trouble, and we see that to be true with Solyndra.

Bain on the other hand has a successful track record at re-inventing companies that were failing, that needed to refocus on their core competencies, that need to retool their business. Bain wouldn't be in business if it were not successful, that it is privately funded, and no taxpayer money was involved. If Bain was successful, it and its investors were successful. If Bain failed, the company and investors lost out. Bain had to do its due diligence in order to survive.

NF: Trying to provide government seed money to create a NEW INDUSTRY to make NEW JOBS is bad, but having a handful of greedy "businessmen" make more money than they can count while entire towns are destroyed is A-OK?

So which is better, the incompetence of the government that led to firings at Solyndra and the $50 billion dollar taxpayer loss to GM, or the so called "greed" of successful businessmen that build new and better businesses with private investment dollars? Do you think the layoffs of 3000 Solynda employees affected the community where it operated? That problem would be on the government, correct? Or do you somehow dismiss the failures of Solydra and governments role in it?

It's a great country where an insignificant, anonymous troll can vent the spleen of his unhappy life against one of the most significant Americans of the 20th century. Happy Birthday to Muhammad Ali! He was my childhood hero, and his courage, independence, and example have been an inspiration in my life...

Hey Redneck and others: Let me explain the role of private equity. Bain and others bought companies that were in trouble for a variety of reasons. Bad management, bad planning, bad luck, unions, tough competition, etc. Without outside help, the companies purchased by private equity would go out of business. Private Equity firms put THEIR OWN MONEY into the companies. Private Equity Firms also put their own management team in place to make the tough decisions that the previous owners could not or would not make. In many cases, but not all, that involves layoffs and plant closings. Some of the time, things work out great, the company is resold, remaining employees keep their jobs and the Private Equity company makes a profit. Sometimes the problems are too great, the company fails, and the Private Equity firm loses its investment. This is raw market capitalism at work. There will be winners and losers.

I worked for two companies that were involved with Private Equity. One was owned by KKR. They bought our company, made some improvements, mostly left us alone and sold us to another corporation a few years later. They made some money, but it was not one of their home runs. Another company was in much more trouble. We were sold by our corporate parent to a private equity group. They installed their management, laid off about 15% of the staff right away to stop the bleeding. Soon, we were the strongest company in our industry and we bought a competitor and ADDED JOBS.

The point is there is a need for Private Equity. Without it, many companies would just close their doors and be sold at auction. ( Just like bank owned houses). It is a difficult risky business.

If you are jealous of Mitt Romney, get a few hundred million together, go higher a dozen turn around experts and do it yourself. It is a free country and there is no law against anyone on this board from starting their own private equity firm.

Jim,

I have been accused many times of being paid by either the dems or msnbc, I am yet to see a check from either. Can you forward me an application. Newt has been a blight on the American political landscape. He is both personally and politically despicable. He is now attempting for the second time to divide and destroy America and along with it to put forward an American history which never occurred. His recent Food stamp commentaries and make urban children clean toilets harken back to Reagans welfare mothers and cadillac myths and are both racist and deliberate class warfare. The only real point of argument I would have with Mr. Dionne is that lumping private equity firms and venture capitalists together is an accute misunderstanding of the two which are not remotely the same thing. Gingrich rhetoric sells well to the true believers but his attacks on the person asking the question while never answering the question itself does not sell at all to moderates and independents who will be needed in the general election.

jkh

Since the usual suspects are all rooting for Rednecks post,

Poor BrianB, born in the wrong decade. Must be pining for the 50's when Red-ies were good old communists, lurking in the basements of every American home, waiting for the BrianB McCarthiests to root them out.

Hey Nashville your quote "Trying to provide government seed money to create a NEW INDUSTRY to make NEW JOBS is bad, but having a handful of greedy "businessmenn" make more money than they can count while entire towns are destroyed is A-OK?"

What's not OK is the government taking my money and picking winners and losers. Companies are not relevant unless they can pay their OWN bills, not pay them with tax money. You need to read your history. Governments don't make an industry, they destroy them. You sound like a socialist, get on over to Europe to see how that is working out, I just returned from Spain. And nobody is shutting down entire towns, they fell on their own. People like you think everything works, well your wrong some businesses fail, get used to it, it's called life and it never was fair. Fair is for bumper cars.

Brianb:

Well if the standard you want to work with is 100% success rate, I guess that takes capitalism itself down as well, no? I mean, did you miss the Savings and Loan debacle, Enron, the bank bail out, the housing market implosion, Bernie Madoff, the leaking oil rigs and exploding coal mines? Did you miss the ponsy schemes, tax shelters, and folks killed and maimed by uninspected food and untested drugs?

The private sector has a whole hell of a lot of failures too Brian. The test is what does the MOST good for the MOST people, and crony capitalism ain't it.

R. Bell - I disagree. I don't think Obama stands a chance, no matter who is chosen as the republican nominee. Obama has gone unchallenged so far... a few snipes from Romney here and there... and some of the other candidates are using talking points so they win support, but... the general election will be a whole different matter. The hubbub I'm hearing from Independents, through polling data is that a great many that supported Obama the first time, won't support his re-election bid. There are many liberals that don't think he's liberal enough... they will vote for him, but I believe those that feel that way will turn out in far less numbers this election.

It is my opinion that the liberals are running scared. I've viewed so many comments on this board, and others, that indicate a fear factor. This fear factor wasn't even evident in 2008. Liberals, like anyone will act like they aren't scared, but deep down inside of them, they know Obama hasn't produced anything positive enough to carry him through to the next election. While they ignore the negatives, they can't produce enough positives about him to provide a winning scenerio.

JCB:

Well, if that is the case, why do we subsidize oil companies? Why all the industry tax breaks? Why do teams move to different cities based on how many tax breaks they can extort? Why is Amazon holding states hostage because they don't want their products taxed? Do you live on planet Earth, because what I see is a whole lot of special breaks for corporate people who are "too big to fail". So don't tell me the government isn't picking winners and losers . . . the problem is they are picking corporate winners because they have been bought and our representative democracy is all but dead, thank you very much.

Nice try though.

RedDev: Unfortunately, it failed. That being said, this government shouldn't shy away from that failure, but should do more to support ANY effort to reduce this countries reliance upon foreign energy sources.

Keystone get approved? We're drilling in the Gulf again? Couple of hundred nuclear plants are now being built?

NF: The private sector has a whole hell of a lot of failures too Brian

They sure do. But no taxpayer dollars were at risk. They succeeded or failed on their merits. Winners and losers were picked by their investors and by their customers, based on the quality of their products/services, and not by the government.

JoAnnaSmith, right on. Thanks for a truthful post on how the real world works.

Well, if that is the case, why do we subsidize oil companies? Why all the industry tax breaks?

Because Obama needs the campaign contributions he can get by buying their votes with subsidies and tax breaks. Like the farmers he has with his ethanol subsidies. Take a look at who's giving money to Obama, Wallstreet, the big banks, all the unions, all the farmers that get special deals, the man is bought and paid for. Look at who's is at his side daily, yeah that's right his Goldman Saks buddies. I, and I am far from alone, want ALL subsidies by our government ended, all loopholes closed for all companies, but you know who will stand in the way? Democrats that's who.

dangerfield,

Well said sir!

JoAnnaSmith:

The private sector does not risk task payer dollars? The hell you say! Where the #$@# do you think that bail out money comes from? Do you think any "taxpayers" had their savings wiped out in the private sector stock market? WTF are you talking about? Who pays for all these wars that private sector contractors get rich off of? Who is paying for all these private sector medicare fraudsters? Who is paying for unemployment for all the Americans that Mitt Romney and company put out of work so they can just be a tad bit richer? Could private sector for-profit colleges make it without government backed student loans? Could for-profit prisons make it with out the government handing them prisoners?

Get out of here with that crap girl . . . play time is over.

Since only about 2% of these posts have anything to do with the article and are just the same random people spewing the same talking points I wasn't going to comment, but then I read this...

"Was I racist by pointing out the !!!FACT!!! that 75% of all Black babies are born to single mothers?"

Thank goodness - can you imagine those babies being raised by the damaged type of fathers who think this is a relevant fact?

You find the fact 75% of black children are born into a single parent home irrelevant? You see no advantage to a child having two parents at home, having a mother and a father? Wow! Is it that you think fathers don't matter in a childs life, or that two parents have no advantage over a single parent? Black or white doesn't matter, it is sad so many children are in a single parent home.

Do private equity buyouts hurt workers?
Yes, then no. More workers get fired in the aftermath. Then more get hired.

Do private equity firms drive companies into bankruptcy?
The data isn't complete, but some indicators say no.

Does private equity make the whole economy more efficient?
Possibly. Industries with lots of private equity activity actually see faster growth.

Do investors make money?
Not as much as you might think. They might be better off putting their money in stocks.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/is-private-equity-bad-for-the-economy/251245/

Solyndra is but the tip of the iceberg .... there are many more. Our country has NO BUSINESS in trying to pick "winners and losers" in our economy. The really nasty thing about Solyndra, however, is twofold:

1). Solyndra had received a "going-concern" opinion letter from their independent CPA's. Any CPA worth his salt knows that is a virtual "kiss of death" and not a company you would want to invest in. Apparently, with strong White House connections, the loan was pushed through anyway ..... in a rather callous and disturbing "FLUSH" of over $530 million in taxpayer money, and

2). Just like the Fast and Furious program, Eric Holder and the DOJ tried to "cover it up".

Nashville, why all the anger? The only bailout not paid back is that of GM. $50 billion dollars worth of taxpayer money is gone.

NF:Do you think any "taxpayers" had their savings wiped out in the private sector stock market?

Which they freely and voluntarily invested in.

NF: Who is paying for unemployment for all the Americans that Mitt Romney and company put out of work so they can just be a tad bit richer?

Apparently no one, as Bain has a net increase in jobs created. You do realize these companies Bain invested in had little chance to survive unless Bain bailed them out? That would have been 100% layoffs NF. You like that better? It doesn't sound like you can comprehend the concept of Bain.

Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/is-private-equity-bad-for-the-economy/251245/

You are really off topic Nash. Diversions and such.

NF: Get out of here with that crap girl . . . play time is over.

Ah, the proper sendoff for the unskilled and moronic left wingers.

You have a nice day Nash, although with all your hate, you probably can't.

Good morning, everyone. Late to the party as usual.

Not here to gloat, but just to say hello, and thank you to everyone who lent support and strength to those in Wisconsin who are fighting the good fight.

A million signatures? Easy button for Wisconsinites.

Now comes the REALLY hard part -- defeating all the dirty outside money.

Cross your fingers, toes, and eyes if you have to. Thanks again to all. <3

@Nisl

Adam Smith's logic is completely flawed and biased. An equal tax rate has the rich paying more already.

If two "poor" men earn $1000 and one "rich" man earns $10,000 and all pay a %10 tax, the rich man has paid 4/5ths of the burden of taxes.

Our taxes should never be based on biases.

P.S. You mention Adam Smith first not me...but, if comparisons to certain Communist ideals are present due to Adam Smith own views...then so be it.

Not really, descending to the level of personal insult is never one's best moment...

Way back when Ali was still Cassius Clay, he made a record (they were black vinyl discs, with a hole in the center; NO WiKi today, right?) extolling his virtues, built around his eponymously titled epic poem.

This is the story of Cassius Clay

The most BEAUTIFUL fighter in the world today...enjoy...;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpfzdupLHaE

Fun times. Two thoughts:

1. Fair taxation - that'd be where I, as a citizen of this great republic, pay the same tax rate as every other member of the republic. ANd FYI gang, Mitt may have paid ONLY 15%, but the aggregate amount is still more than most everyone here put together;

2. We need a leader who had had to deal with the realities of running a business. Or to put it another way: career politicians - never sullied with issues of profit, efficiency or success, only 'helping people.'

Uh, no thanks, that dog don't hunt. PSST Obam a needs another $1.2 Trillion - you all better got to passing around a cup.

@ Jim -- Do you possibly not know that Mitt Romney and his firm Bain Capital took government loans and grants when he worked there, including Staples, which he brags about as one of his success stories?

http://nationalmemo.com/article/bain-subsidies-romney

Nobody yet knows how many Bain deals benefited from government largesse in one form or another, but the invaluable researcher Phil Mattera has begun to excavate the truth from under the scrim of Romney’s phony rhetoric. Two examples involving famous American enterprises may suffice for now:

In 1998, one year after Bain bought Sealy Posturepedic with a group of other private equity firms, the mattress company sought and received a $600,000 grant from North Carolina authorities to relocate its corporate headquarters, research and manufacturing facilities there from Ohio (where Romney will no doubt be telling voters this year about his marvelous record of “job creation”).

And then there’s Staples, the office supply giant that Bain helped to create and that is often touted as its greatest success. Mattera writes that Staples has long depended on government subsidies, citing a Baltimore Sun story about a $4.2 million aid package the company received from Maryland authorities in 1996 to build a distribution center in Hagerstown.

Just thought you ought to know before you go on calling the kettle black.

Here's a little more from the same article about Mitt's "successes" and the role that government played in them ....

Certainly that is how things seemed to end at the Kansas City steel mill ultimately known as GS Technologies, although the early intentions of the Bain financiers may have been more benign. By the time GS shut down in 2001 after seven years of Bain mismanagement and laid off 750 workers, it had accumulated hundreds of millions in unpaid debt and unfunded pension and health liabilities, as Reuters found in a recent investigation. The workers, many of them suffering from occupational illness, were denied promised severance and health benefits. The pension plan, which cut benefits drastically, would have gone under altogether without an infusion of $44 million from the federal government, despite many earlier warnings to the Bain managers that they were not providing sufficient funding for it.

Where did the money go? Under Bain’s oversight, the renamed GS Technologies had accumulated debt of $378 million on annual revenues less than one-tenth that amount. If that sounds familiar, so does the penalty paid by the executives responsible: They walked away with a very handsome profit on their investment. Having put up about $8 million of their own money, they quickly issued $125 million in bonds and walked away with more than $36 million in “dividends.” According to Reuters, the Bain suits had no notion whatsoever of how to run a steel operation, let alone improve it – but they were constantly seeking federal and state tax handouts and grants, including a loan guarantee from Washington (just like the auto bailout Romney opposed). The company went belly up two years after Romney left Bain while continuing to receive payouts from its investments and extolling the benefits of rugged individualism.

Nashville Fan - Of course the private sector has lost. I never denied that. The government on the other hand is NOT an equity firm, a bank, a lending institution or any other sort of business. Hell, they have enough problems just running the military. When the government gets involved in private business, it should be very obvious that problems of a different magnitude will arise. The private sector risks only their capital and investment... the government risks the entire nation. Do you see the difference?

RedDevil... I have no doubt who the socialists and communists are in this decade. I don't need to long for the olden days... You and many others proclaim your allegiances very loudly. It's as clear as the sky on a sunny day.

I will admit that, I really do not care that much for Newt Gingrich, but I definitely could support him over Romney.

One thing that seems to elude people on here was exactly what Bain Capital did in its takeovers of companies. What Bain did is called "arbitrage" -- the buying of assets in one market and the selling of them in another. A fancy term for something that is very simple.

Bain looked for distressed companies with significant amounts of cash or sellable assets. Mostly they looked on "old line" companies that started out as family-owned and had been successful, but were in a current slump. An example would be a "specialty steel" manufacturer whose main products had been recently slammed by cheaper Chinese imports. Old line companies had seen this type of thing before and knew exactly what to do: they built up cash reserves when times were good, hung onto their skilled labor force when orders went down, and started looking around to see what new products to move into that used their expertise, facilities and labor to be the next "good times." This was when Bain would strike.

It is interesting that Bain and Romney always saw any company that had put aside reserves for a "rainy day" and companies that had recently invested in new, more modern facilities and equipment as not better prepared for the future, but as "underperforming." They saw cash reserves as a bad business decision and investment in new equipment as "senseless in terms of this quarter's profits."

They would carefully calculate their little spreadsheet and would buy up control of the company. Then they would strip out all the cash to pay for the buy out the company in the first place. Then they would lay off as many people as possible, especially the most skilled and longest employed to cut back on short term expenses. They would stop paying creditors while selling off everything of value that wasn't nailed down. When they reached the point that the company was pretty much a worthless shell, they would eithe merge it with another company (for another whole set of shady ways to make money) or take it into bankruptcy. In either case, Bain would charge the company it was devastating millions in "consulting fees" to sheperd them through the merger or bankruptcy while making sure that their investment partners were paid ahead of legitimate creditors. The companys being taken over watched their shareholders get screwed as their stock became useless. Bain's business model is little more than "rich people figuring out clever legal
ways to loot a company," says Newt Gingrich, whose previous insights into free enterprise include years of defending the taxpayer-fed business of corn ethanol and lobbying on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Romney always pretends that Bain's first unsuccessful attempts at venture capital for startups was all that they ever did and that it created over 120,000 jobs. The truth was that Bain's venture capital and grownth fund operations have been far less successful that similar operations in other companies and created less than 8,000 jobs if you define a created job as lasting at least a year.

According to the WSJ, a study commissioned by the Census Bureau that found that companies bought by private-equity firms suffer more job losses soon after a buy-out than similar firms that didn't experience buy-outs. They found out that companies taken over saw employment decline by 3% over two years and 6% after five years. Even when they factored in any new outlets, manufacturing or facilities, there was still a net loss in jobs. Moody’s reported, looking at 40 big deals from the buyout boom, which they count as lasting from 1980 to early 2008. A few had performed well, the report said, but overall Moody’s found that the companies have had “weak revenue growth and high default rates” since the deals had been closed.

There is so much idiotic garbage spewed by the right wing that it is difficult to even have the time to point out that they are lies. Romney's contention that his form of predatory capitalism created jobs is just sheer nonsense that every bit of factual data belies. Likewise, while it is true that 47% of people did did not pay any income tax in 2008, the fact is that it is because my infant grandson pays no federal income tax because he has no income, not because he is a lazy black slacker on welfare. In fact, the reason that the lowest half of Americans in income pay over 70% of ALL taxes taken together while the top 5% in income pay just 4% of all taxes. Because the federal income tax system takes regressive state and local taxes into consideration, the second greatest reason that so many people pay no federal income tax is that they are so heavily taxed by extremely regressive state and local taxes.

And despite round after round of tax cuts for the wealthy, why has there never been a shred of proof that such tax cuts have ever "created" a job. In fact, if you look at the K-factor of such tax cuts it is a paltry .64 (meaning that for every dollar spent by the government, it only takes back in $.64 in taxes and fees. A dollar spent on unemployment compensation, by contrast, has a K-factor of $1.80. Meaning that if you pay out a dollar in unemployment compensation, almost twice that amount returns to federal, state, and local companies in the form of taxes and fees. And this is from Moody's web site, hardly a bastion of liberal thought.

It still astounds me that Reagan gets credit as a tax-cutter when in fact, he gave the American taxpayer the largest tax increase in American history. His administration did cut taxes some, mostly for the very wealthy and corporations, but at the same time eliminated Revenue Sharing. Reagan eliminated general revenue sharing to cities, slashed funding for public service jobs and job training, almost dismantled federally funded legal services for the poor, cut the anti-poverty Community Development Block Grant program and reduced funds for public transit. The only “urban” program that survived the cuts was federal aid for highways – which primarily benefited suburbs, not cities. These cutbacks had a disastrous effect on cities with high levels of poverty and limited property tax bases, many of which depended on federal aid. In 1980 federal dollars accounted for 22 percent of big city budgets. By the end of Reagan’s second term, federal aid was only 6 percent. This caused huge increases in regressive property taxes, sales taxes, and fees. If you had enough sense to add it all up, the Reagan Tax cut was an astounding 14% tax increase. But the GOP nut cases seem to have flunked third grade math.

Another issue that eludes right wingers is that not all expenditures are the same. If the government spends a dollar on building a bridge, when the project is completed that dollar still exists --- it has just changed from cash to a hard tangible asset. Military spending, for example, is just the opposite --- you constantly spend money on salaries and bombs and the few capital assets are only a tiny part of the Pentagon budget. If you want to calculate the country's net debt, you would have to subtract assets from debts and obligations. All of a sudden the debt doesn't look so bad because the government owns so much more than it owes. The problem is that the GOP does not want tax money to be spent on infrastructure, they want it spent on the military. But as a taxpayer, I would rather it be spent on infrastruture because not only does it benefit me directly, but it is tangible and I can point to it and feel like my tax dollars are helping someone.

BTW --- I pay a significantly higher tax rate than Romney.

Brianb:

When the government gets involved in private business, it should be very obvious that problems of a different magnitude will arise. The private sector risks only their capital and investment... the government risks the entire nation. Do you see the difference?

Maybe, but apparently Mitt Romney completely missed it, as denoted in my article above. If you haven't watched the Bain video, I think you should.

And then I think you need to read a little bit about how Rick Perry has managed to involve government in business in Texas, with about the same level of success that the Obama administration has.

http://swampland.time.com/2011/06/27/the-cracks-in-rick-perrys-job-growth-record/

And one more thing, Brian. If you don't know by now that Walmart -- just as one example -- never goes into any location without getting massive government handouts in the form of tax breaks and infrastructure assistance, then you don't know much.

But maybe it's time that you did --

http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/

So JoAnnaSmith, in your world, anything goes as long as the money is "freely invested".

Sounds like the crooks manifesto to me.

And Brianb - when private companies are the ones running the government, then not only do they risk the entire nation, but they do so with no input from actual human voters.

You can continue to make distinctions where there aren't any if you like, be you and I both know that the "corporate people" have usurped the authority of the government, and are using the government to enrich themselves. Only when their schemes blow up do we then hear everything being blamed on the "guvment" . . . talk about having your cake and eating it too.

@Anna Molly - congratulations on the Walker recall. That is a great example of democracy at its finest.

Now comes the REALLY hard part -- defeating all the dirty outside money.

Good luck with that - and watch out for the Mormons. They love to get rile up their members and involve them in out-of-state politics, slanted to the conservative of course.

"Socialism"

: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

(Anybody here advocating for this?)

2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

(Anybody here advocating THIS?)

3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

(That would be the situation from the beginning of human civilization and the crux of BOTH sides in the TP/OWS dichotomy/argument, but no one here is advocating for inequality, are they?)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

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

So based on the ACTUAL definition of SOCIALISM, it's pretty silly to accuse anyone in our SOCIAL DEMOCRACY (really, that's US) especially an administration whose players were drawn from WALL STREET, Chicago DEMOCRATIC (read down and dirty!) politics, and the BUDGET BALANCING Clinton administration, of being Socialists.

But when you don't have to be "limited" to the actual MEANING of words, it frees you to do things like call those who resisted raising the debt ceiling "TERRORISTS" (See "Froma Harrop") and their opponents "SOCIALISTS"

dangerfield,

Believe it or not, my dad and his brother (uncle) had that same old fashioned black recording!! Wonder whatever happened to it????

Chris: BTW --- I pay a significantly higher tax rate than Romney.

You pay a higher rate on your L/T Capital Gains tax than Romney? Why is that?

NF: So JoAnnaSmith, in your world, anything goes as long as the money is "freely invested"

Nice to see you've calmed down a bit Nash. Are you ready now to have an adult conversation? At least you're down to putting words into peoples mouths. That is an improvement, for you.

You still didn't answer the questions though Nash. Was it better that the companies going bankrupt to lay off all their people and go out of business, or was it better for companies like Bain to come in to restructure them to be successful? Bain had a decent track record at doing so, and for you that seems to be a problem. What exactly are your problems with Bains success Nash? Other than trying to smear Romney that is.

NF: be you and I both know that the "corporate people" have usurped the authority of the government,

How so? Do they not obey tax laws? Have they performed illegal transactions? Well some have, like Jon Corzine's MF Global. But AG Holder will soon charge Jon, correct? Haven't heard anything about Bain doing illegal activities though. Please enlighten us on how the Bain "corporate people" have "usurped the authority of the government".

Brian,

I'll answer your question I think the tax rate on the rich should be adjusted high enough until this debt is paid off. Who do you expect to pay for this poor people? If so, what planet do you live on? If that means the rich have to pay 40% then pay 40%. If it's 50% then pay 50%. I don't feel sorry for them. They can start with increasing the capital gains tax because that is the main source of the 1% income. The rich are the ones with the means to pay in this economy and they have been getting a tax holiday for the last 10 years. Now let me ask you a question do you feel that middle class people should be paying a higher rate than Mitt Romney? How low do you feel taxes should be on rich people and how high do you feel taxes should be on the middle class and poor to pay off our debt? This money isn't going to magically appear through tax breaks on "job creators." Trickle down economics is a complete failure as well as capitalism in it's purest form. This is what brought us to the brink of self destruction in 2008.

Here's one reason why I think Obama will win the election barring unemployment goes down to 8%. His approval rating is 48% it's very hard to knock off an incumbent president with an approval rate of 50% and you sure as hell aren't going to do it with a weak candidate like Mitt Romney. I'm hoping SC elects him instead of Gingrich. He gets so rattled when he veers off his talking points and he almost acts like a whiny teenager when it doesn't go his way. I'm going to enjoy watching Obama smack this guy around like a punching bag. The main reason why Obama will win is because his tax plan versus Romney is a winner with independents. It's going to be fun watching Romney defend his 15% tax rate while fighting for more tax breaks for the rich while he throws the middle class a few pennies under his tax plan. God knows how much more will come out when he releases his taxes by then it will be too late for Republican's to have buyers remorse. He is the face of corporate greed and Bain capital will be his undoing. Republican's are making the same mistake democrats did in 2004. They are nominating a guy they think is electable only after the nomination they discover he's an unelectable fruitcake.

Damage, I am a black male born of a single parent, I am not a criminal I am an accountatnt. For me the MLK jr speech did come true and I am thankful for what he has done to aid me. Your comments whether you want to realize it or not are offensive, I can say first hand. You can play the whole facts game but at the end you must atleast admit you had malicious intent. Hearing you all speak of how I am/was at risk is truly simply annoying, I don't care what the facts are people are people black or white and have the capability of overcoming circumstances so please spare me your statisitics.

As far as the election. I have seen many conservatives/republicans on this site constantly speak of the faults of the president and his shortcomings. They then further go on a rant of how us blind lefties fail to see them.

No, I understand President Obama's shortcomings and I do not agree with everything he does. You can write down your list of his failures everyday, I will read it (filter through the Fox Noise) and my mind will not be changed. It is not that Predient Obama is perfect or some messiah to change the world. It is simple, he is just simply better than your candidate. If you list his faults next to and of the Republicans at the end of the day though he may not be the ideal candidate his is the best in the field. What any of these Republicans would do to the country truly scares me. There widespread indifference to the poor and middleclass in a time where they need the government the most is honestly unbelievale.

JoAnnaSmith:

Thanks for reminding me why you are on ignore. Peace.

P.S. Way to rock that "Roll Tide" Chris! :o)

You find the fact 75% of black children are born into a single parent home irrelevant? You see no advantage to a child having two parents at home, having a mother and a father? Wow! Is it that you think fathers don't matter in a childs life, or that two parents have no advantage over a single parent?

Why is it that posters using logic in their pseudo name leap to the most irrational conclusions?

Yep, here we are again, story about Newt and everyone is talking about everything else. Libbers did it to us again! Keep on track, they don't want Newt to take on Obama in a debate! This is Obamas biggest fear, Newt is extremely dangerous when it come to pointing out Obamas failures, and backing it up with facts. And when Newt gives a opinion, he states that it is a opinion, not a fact. Obama can not keep either one straight and his party knows it, all Newt has to do is ask, during a debate, where did Obama get his facts from, when Obama gets them mixed up, the president will stumble all over his teleprompter, and it over for him! I'm Not a big Newt fan, but I do like the way he handles liberals with there own facts. Down right funny, and they don't like it! I also like how he handles the Media, they don't like it when he calls there one sided question stupid, and points out that it is a loaded question that is intended to give mixed opinions! Its even more funny when he calls them out on it and ask them if their intentions is to help Obama win! Good stuff, I hope the rest of the republicans learn from him, and get this failed president out of office.

JoAnna --

You still didn't answer the questions though Nash. Was it better that the companies going bankruptto lay off all their people and go out of business, or was it better for companies like Bain to come in to restructure them to be successful? Bain had a decent track record at doing so, and for you that seems to be a problem. What exactly are your problems with Bains success Nash? Other than trying to smear Romney that is.

You really don't have a clue, do you? And it's obvious that you've done NO research whatsoever into what you're spouting about.

As for Bain's "successes," read above how many of them depended on, and still depend on, government handouts -- you know the winners and losers thing that you conservatives claim to despise -- unless it's working for YOU.

On the flip side, there are at least a ZILLION examples of how Romney and Bain took companies that had existed for many years and were fundamentally sound, raped them, and then allowed them to run into the ground. Just the GS Steel Company from my post above ought to do it. REALLY research it -- I mean the whole story -- and then come back and try to float your garbage here. It's interesting that Bain claims GS failed because of the recession, and yet GS had survived many recessions before Bain, including the Great Depression, and when at least someone came along to buy it out of bankruptcy who actually knew something about the steel business, it rose like Phoenix from the ashes, and now employs about 600 people.

Why would that be, JoAnna?

And if that doesn't do it for you, then research the plant in Marion Indiana, that Bain destroyed. And the one where Bain got Lehman Bros. to collude with them in order to defraud investors so THEY could walk away richer.

By the way, I pay a higher rate than Mitt Romney, too, because I WORK for a living, and don't just push money -- many times other peoples' money -- around.

What's YOUR excuse?

NF: Thanks for reminding me why you are on ignore. Peace.

As we reach the last stage of the lost cause for the Lost Liberal. Runaway and hide.

Well I guess this conversation never happened then, me being on your ignore list. And we were becoming such good friends. Pity.

I won't put you on Ignore Nash, ever. You're just too much fun.

Brianb-999431

Sandrich - question for you... What would you consider a fair tax rate for the rich? Let's say the government imposes such a tax on them, would that make you feel better? What would you say if the government does increase taxes on those at the top tier and at the end of the day, they still produce a deficit of over a trillion dollars? Considering that many on the left believe increasing taxes on the rich will solve our deficit problem, how does that solve the spending problem that the government has?

35% flat tax on the top earners would be a start. If they failed to bring the jobs that they moved out of the country, I'd put the Eisenhower 91% on their a$$es. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton taxed at a far higher rate that the current rate--and the economy was in better shape than now. You cannot have an expansive military with this low of a tax rate.

Questions--Are you a payed shill alone with that Sabot nut? Do you have a problem with the way this country was run pre-NAFTA?

Me? Hide?

Real people know where to find me. ;o)

Also nis, whatever that was above about 2 poor men making 1000 and rich man making 10,000 and the big trouble of the rich man paying 4/5ths of the tax burden.

Are you kidding me? do you understand what you are saying at all? That is the point! Because he has 80 percent of the welath he pays 80 percent of the taxes. Lets expand your dumb scenario farther. Lets say the cost of living is 800 dollars in yoru scenario. The two poor men are left with 100 dollars each after taxes where as the rich man has 8,200. Can you honestly say that the poor men should give up that 100 dollars to decrease the large burden of the wealthy man?

@Joanna,

I did not say, as you allude, that I "pay a higher rate on your L/T Capital Gains tax than Romney?" You said that. It is called a straw dog argument --- you make up a position for your debate opponent and then argue with that statement of your own invention. I reiterate for benefit: I pay a significantly higher tax rate than Romney. I am not interested in what tax loopholes for the wealthy come into play. I still pay a higher rate. When you mis-state someone else's position, it is a form of lie. And we call people who tell lies in any form liars. There is an old saying that it is better to keep quite and be thought simple than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

@Olddog,

Thanks. I was at the first game where Bama beat the socks off LSU in every statistic except the one that counted --- points on the board. This time we played even better and fixed the points on the board thing. Lots of cheering at my house. The SEC rules --- best college football in the country and getting better.

Chris 479391, well written and informative post. Thank you. I have read several articles about Bain and how it destroyed profitable companies with excellent credit ratings but your explanation is easily understandable.

We recently read that Hostess declared bankruptcy. The St. Louis Post Dispatch provided some details. Hostess's predecessor was Interstate Bakeries of Kansas which grew by buying up smaller firms (mom and pops) and big competitors like Continental Baking. "Overextended, Interstate operated in bankruptsy between 2004 and 2009, emerging only after Ripplewood Holdings, a private equity firm (hello venture vs vulture capitalist controversy) took over and renamed it Hostess. The reorganization wasn't enough. Hostess now says it is weighed down by rising commodity and transportation costs (hello worldwide demand and rising fuel costs) and legacy pension and health care benefits owed to its union retirees (goodbye vanishing middle class)."

In this case, it would be unsubstantiated to blame the latest venture capitalist group owners (and the ever-present conservatives who speak the same language) for anything beyond their always insistent stand that it's the union workers pensions and benefits that are the problem. No, it was the greedy spending of millions by Interstate Bakeries to buy and gobble up the competition in an effort to be #1; the fact that more and more Americans are trying to buy healthier foods which reduces demand and profits; increased competition from abroad; increased transportation costs; and the 2008 economic collapse that took Twinkies off the grocery lists. It is always easier to blame union workers for the troubles when in reality, the business had been over leveraged to buy more competitor businesses thus sucking the profits and pension allocated dollars out of the firm--it was poor management.

Nashville Fan said: And Brianb - when private companies are the ones running the government, then not only do they risk the entire nation, but they do so with no input from actual human voters

Let's step back a little Nashville. Who allowed this to happen? Before you go and start blaming corporations, someone had to allow it to happen. If the corporations are so far in bed with the government, someone is to blame? Corporations can't just force their way inside, they were either invited, or some sort of payoffs were made. Maybe corporations are guilty of payoffs, but aren't politicians even more guilty for accepting the payoffs?

I don't deny that corporations control politicians, but there is never any mention of politicians attempting to stop them. Which side is the most guilty? There's two sides to every story...

Anna Molly, when you say "outside money" influencing Wisconsin, surely you mean union money coming in from around the country to attempt to steal the vote?

Public Workers have no business belonging to unions. Period. Your buddy FDR was strongly against unionizing public workers. Federal public workers are not unionized.

Unions have a place in steel mills, packing houses, coal mines, etc. Unions have no place in schools, and county offices. The "employer" they are fighting against is their neighbor, not the big bad corporation.

I wish we had Scott Walker in Illinois.

Akeem, NJ, well said and thanks for saying it!

Brianb --

I don't deny that corporations control politicians, but there is never any mention of politicians attempting to stop them. Which side is the most guilty? There's two sides to every story...

Let's start with REAL campaign finance reform. And then we'll get rid of ALL the lobbyists and pay-for-play partying. Pay Congress minimum wage with a bonus only if they balance the budget. Amend the Constitution to undo Citizens United, and we should be on our way.

I know which side MY story's on. You with us or against us, Brianb?

Gary --

I wish we had Scott Walker in Illinois.

That's a coincidence. So do AT least a million voters in Wisconsin.

And if we have our way, you'll get your chance. He'll have to go somewhere because he sure as shooting won't be able to get a job in this state again.

If there WERE any jobs to be had, thanks to him and his wrecking crew.

By the way, having been a member of one of those public employee unions at one time in my life, I am here to tell you you have NO idea what you are talking about. Don't you dare try to tell me.

Chris: I did not say, as you allude, that I "pay a higher rate on your L/T Capital Gains tax than Romney?" You said that. It is called a straw dog argument.

Chris, do you pay a higher rate than Romney regarding your federal income tax or on your L/T capital gains tax? If you don't specify, than it looks like you may be comparing apples to oranges. You're being slightly vague about this, so it would be much appreciated if you provide the details.

Many thanks.

sandrich said: Questions--Are you a payed shill alone with that Sabot nut? Do you have a problem with the way this country was run pre-NAFTA?

Why so hostile sandrich? Did I ask you if you were a paid shill? My question was void of any hostility. It was asked because I was interested in seeing what you had to say. If you don't want me to engage you on things you say, just let me know. I even gave you some extra food to chew on that you completely ignored.

With you hitting the rich so hard, are you also willing to allow them the same tax write offs and incentives that were available to them in the past? Or do you just want to take their money and give them nothing in return as the tax code allowed when the rate was at 91%

JoAnnaSmith1

Chris: I did not say, as you allude, that I "pay a higher rate on your L/T Capital Gains tax than Romney?" You said that. It is called a straw dog argument.

Chris, do you pay a higher rate than Romney regarding your federal income tax or on your L/T capital gains tax? If you don't specify, than it looks like you may be comparing apples to oranges. You're being slightly vague about this, so it would be much appreciated if you provide the details.

Many thanks.

I pay 26% on my capital gains and earned income combined. Why won't the guy release his income tax returns? President Obama releases his and most of his wealth is in US Treasury Bills--proving that he believes in this country.

Anna Molly said:

Let's start with REAL campaign finance reform. And then we'll get rid of ALL the lobbyists and pay-for-play partying. Pay Congress minimum wage with a bonus only if they balance the budget. Amend the Constitution to undo Citizens United, and we should be on our way.

Tipping my hat to you Anna! I am all in with reforming congress. I like the idea of forcing them to balance the budget... only problem is... if they don't get big pay-offs who's going to want to do the job? Not unless the bonus is substantial, but they gotta earn it. I personally believe that when a congressman gets a seat, they believe it turns into party time. Something strikes me that they sing "we're in the money, we're in the money..."

It really is too bad that we don't have any one coming forward to run for president than our current candidates. I do not feel any candidate, including our current president, is worthy of the title. We need someone in office that is going to fight to save this country from its self. I am so sick of seeing our country suffer because the people elected to office are too busy spending our money on things they shouldn't. I am tired of seeing my hard earned money spent on countries that hate us. Why are we supporting these people? Why are we giving money to help other countries when ours is hurting so badly? Eventually all of these poor decisions are going to catch up with us. People need to wake up and realize that it is going to be our fault. Those elected to office are only done so using our votes. I haven't seen Obama or any of these candidates do something that is going to help. Stop putting party against party and think about everything as a whole. No one side is perfect. It is an even balance of Republican and Democrat that is going to be the best. I have always been told that too much of anything is a bad thing. This is why our forefathers established the system of checks and balances so that one party or person could not get out of control. Unfortunately they did not take into consideration that there would be so much corruption along the way and that the elected officials would find loop holes in the system. We need a candidate to stand up and unite this country. We are so worried about what someone else thinks of us that we do not do what is right. I am sick of the racism, on ALL counts. That includes racism towards, black people, Indians, and white people, yes WHITE people. This country is so obsessed with making sure all races are treated equally that it forgets every race including whites can be affected. I was once called a cracker by a black person at work. Do you know what happened? Nothing. Everyone including white people around me laughed and thought it was very funny. It was offensive not because of the word but because if I had made a derogatory comment towards him I would have been fired and nothing was done for me. Not only that but I am not just white I am half Spanish. I don't care if I am called derogatory names because it does not bother me, what bothers me is that our country is so one sided. Recently we celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. Day. It reminds me of how far this country has not come since his time. MLK was not just fighting for equality amongst the black community but he was also fighting for equality for everyone. Unfortunately people did not understand his message and it died with him. Let's finish what he started and unite this great country once again. Stop the fighting and bickering over every little thing and the victimization. The only person that can make you a victim is you. Let's all become Americans again, not African Americans, Native Americans, Mexican Americans and Americans, but let's all just stand as one.... as Americans. Stop encouraging racism by distinguishing yourself as something different, be an American and be proud of your country. I know right now it is hard but we the people have to start somewhere. Unfortunately no candidate is going to do it for us

Kudos Akeem - on both your single parent illustration and the tax example. Unfortunately, your tax example will never fly with the conservative base. They think that the cost of government should be equally distributed vs. paying what one can afford. They also have the fundamental flaw that the more you make, the less you owe as a percentage. It is beyond their grasp that they should pay more because they have more to protect. If auto insurance companies were run through the conservative view of taxation, they would pay $1 a year for their Bentley, and those of us with Civics would pay $50 a year. Hardly a "fair" system.

Newtmentum? A Newt-Surge? The Newt Strikes Back? Geeeeez I hope so. The longer this takes the more gaffs Romney and his pals will make and the noose will just get tighter.

So, yesterday I learned that Romney pays half the tax percentage I do and that he considers four times my combined household income as "not much" with regards to HIS income of nearly $400K in speaking fees last year.

Yeah, he's in tune with the middle class.

Oh, don't worry, Romney is going to be the nominee. But thanks to the recent revelations regarding his wealth AND the fact that he's a Mormon and a Moderate, he'll be DOA on election day. Which is why I like him so much as the GOP Nominee.

But, the longer the GOP drags this out, the more crap Nasty Newt will dig up and use to damage the Republican party's eventual and inevitable nominee. God love him!

It must suck to be Mitt Romney. Well, at least he'll have his investment income to fall back on. Oh, and those speaker's fees, although they aren't much at nearly $400K a year. Just a pittance, walkin' around money, spare change, chump change. How does he get by?

Obama/Biden 2012

Skip --

How does he get by?

Have you seen his haircuts? John Edwards, he ain't.

And he could also use a couple of better suits if he hopes to make what Mitt makes on the rubber chicken circuit.

@ Brianb --

I take it you're all in. Me, too.

As for who will do the job, how hard can it be to balance a checkbook?

I will. Will you?

Sometimes we tend to forget we're all in this together.

Anna - I wouldn't at minimum wage. Not when you consider what I would ax. I'd have everybody and their brother hating me. The military would probably want to drop a nuke on my head. Those in government that would lose their jobs would have me running down dark alleyways under the cover of night. Considering that the government needs to slash $1.5 trillion, the entire plan would have to change. I believe it can be done, but it would take some stout people to handle the pressure. You that stout Anna?

Definitely, Brian. Bring it on. I'm not afraid of the big bad wolf.

And controlling the purse strings for a change would certainly be a power trip.

It might feel pretty good to tie those idiots up in knots, you think?

Anna,

Yeah, and that plastic smile. You'd think if you had that much money he could buy himself a genuine smile and maybe a personality. I guess if you're worth over 200 million with 15 houses you don't have to have a personality.

But he's the guy, he's gonna be the nominee. I've been saying it for months despite folks telling me it was going to be Bachman or Cain or Perry or Mickey Mouse. It was always going to be Mitt because it's his turn AND Rove and Company don't think they can beat Obama in a fair fight so they'll let Romney have his turn and then bring out big Chris Christie in 2016. 2012 is a write-off for the GOP powers that be, they just havn't told their crazed ditto-head followers. They are still raking in the money and pretending they have a chance to defeat the President. Silly wabbits.

Obama/Biden 2012

@Sandtrich

Taxing without bias would seem nuts to a Socialist like yourself.

Hey Gingerbread Mama -

Way,WAY up above where you posted numerous Romney quotes (#1.10), but you forgot one of the better ones:

"There're a lot of reasons not to elect me".

Ain't that the truth.

What is the acceptable number of companies destroyed for profit only. Is it OK if only 300 people lose their jobs. Is there a dollar figure the American public finds acceptable to pay for pension funds raided by "Capitalist". Stealing from the American public is theft, the people who do it thieves. Of course Florida has a thief for Governor, why shouldn't we all have one for President?

What I don't understand is why ANY individual in So. Carolina would even THINK to vote for Romney. His big thing is that he wants to cut back Federal spending; however, So. Carolina and its residents benefit from government spending, more so than many other states. For every dollar the state pays in Federal taxes, it receives $1.35 in Federal government benefits. By contrast, California receives only 78 cents for every dollar it pays in taxes.

"We get more back from the Federal government than we send in terms of revenue," said Doug Woodward, an economics professor at the Univ. of So. Carolina. "But I'm not sure that a lot of voters would even care if they heard that. When they say they want to see less spending in the state, they're referring to entitlement programs." But, much of the money spent in So. Carolina goes to programs that make up a big chunk of the Federal budget -- defense, Social Security, and Medicaid. The state has 7 military bases and received $7 billion in Defense Dept. spending in 2010. One in 5 residents in So. Carolina receives Social Security benefits -- compared with just 13% in California. As an aging state, So. Carolina will be more dependent on Federal programs, such as Social Security, in the coming decade, according to AARP.

"People want to see lower government spending, especially on the Republican side," said Karen Kedrowski, a politics professor at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, S.C. "But when they are asked specifically about high-dollar items, including Social Security and defense, they are not willing to accept significant cuts."

There's some evidence that So. Carolina's opposition to government spending might further strangle the state's already weak economy -- if it leads to cuts in Social Security, Roberto Gallardo of the Southern Rural Development Center says that economies in many small towns in So. Carolina are increasingly dependent on Social Security payments.

With that said, again, I find it interesting that any voter in South Carolina would even CONSIDER voting for a candidate that wants to literally strangle them and cut off all the monies coming into the state from the Federal government. Talk about people who are grossly misinformed!!

SabotAndHeat

@Sandtrich

Tax increase time on top earners

Straight out of the Communist playbook.

"[Implement] a heavy progressive or graduated income tax." -The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx

You need to read Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. Smith said the same thing, the wealthy should pay more, because they benefit most from infrastructure.

Your post seems to imply you spend far too much time reading communist stuff, and don't have much of a grasp on what Capitalism is.

Of course Florida has a thief for Governor, why shouldn't we all have one for President?

Why not? We've already had one or two, at least, for Vice President.

I'll let you guess which.

I know Anna, but electing Mitt would give a whole new meaning to public financing of campaigns.

I never thought I would long for the days of Spiro Agnew, when the public still cared about such things.

@We Can Do It

It only implies I read the Communist Manifesto.

I hardly think that my post would lead anyone to believe I agree with it.

As far as Adams is concerned...that is his opinion. Also note he said according to the above excerpt "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

Humorous that, in his own words, it may not be very unreasonable, but its still unreasonable. I digress.

Point is, lets just go with our Socialist friend Sandtrichs idea and raise taxes on the rich to cope for spending and our problems level off. What then...Spending increases as it has in the past...then more taxation on bias? When does it stop? It's absurd to think this attitude won't propagate.

Equal taxation and cut Government spending to match yield.

Sab, it is only necessary to raise taxes to the level of services you desire. Read, If you want to start a war, you need to pay for it. Need roads to get your product to market, someone has to pay for them. Too simple.

SabotAndHeat

Are you for real, or are you really a Progressive, pretending to be a Conservative (for kicks), that thinks Adam Smith is too far to the left?

Now, I have heard everything.

Anna Molly, you are a lazy union thug posting on this liberal website when you should be working! You make my point perfectly about how awful and bloated public service union workers are. You are not bright enough to grasp that your neighbors are paying your bloated salary. While you sit and post, they are working.

Lazy biateches like you are why Scott Walker will defeat the communist, thug union recall effort.

Die Unions Die!

Joe in Albany, That's President Obama to you. Your disrespect for the office of president is quite obvious.

@We Can Do It and IR12

Look, first off I'd like to say I appreciate the rational conversation. There are many that will resort to name calling the first time you disagree with them.

IR12, that is my point exactly. What exactly becomes the standard to stop spending when you can just continue to take more and more and more and more from a group of people that you do not belong. It's another form of bias. Especially when you consider that this is not just for roads and other infrastructure. This is to cover indebtness for entitlement programs who's cost is just a hair under half of our Government spending total. It's a conflict of interest. Of course people who want free services don't want to pay for it...they want the rich guy to pay for it. Without equal taxation it's sanctioned stealing (or will become).

What's more....continually raising taxes has a negative effect on the economy. People want things to be stable before they take spending leaps of faith. Business is less likely to expand during threatening tax periods.

Let me also clarify that I have never said not to raise taxes. I just said it should be a proportional tax. Equal for all. Cherry picking from any specific group people is biased and counter productive. That's very simple too.

Agree, to disagree. Take care and great conversation.

Got to agree with you, LouisJ. Gingrich is just disgusting!

Good job Louis. You got Damaged123 to do the Hussein thing. Next up - birth certificate long form.

You're the one who is stupid, Damage. Go back and watch the clip again. Gingrich spoke in a way that was so obviously condescending that no one (except you) could have missed it. It's all about intonation. He might just as well have said "Boy". It was purposely done in front of an almost all-white audience in one of this nation's most racist states.

Louis, J. Too bad what you wrote is true. Gingrich does a good deed by bringing the good and bad sides of capitalism to the table for discussion then blows his Jim Crow dog whistle.

Damage

Your last statement is completely offensive. Putting an end, even figuratively, to people who disagree with you is not the America I grew up in. Better rethink that, fella.

Sorry, Im not a Newt supporter by any means. But I do think he took it too Juan hard and fast. Im beginning to think you all hate and I personally dont use the word hate in my vocabulary, states below the Mason Dixon line or outside the big city limits. Which is where most of the non democratic votes come from. Get rid of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and I could care less if Mr Obama gets elected.

jolly,

My granddaughters get into big trouble by their parents (and doting grandparents) for using the word hate. As we teach them not to hate, maybe we should look in the mirror (as adults).

I have no idea what was in Newt's head, but I did notice while watching the debate that the audience chuckled rather nastily when he called him Juan. Why did they think it was amusing if it's just his name? I guess Newt thinks he can become President without any help from black people, Hispanics, or any of his non-white Christian followers. Best of luck with that.

Port In Jacksmouth....

What, are you stalking me now? How many times do I have to tell you...if you say you're gonna put me on "ignore", then do it. You got a crush on me? As for Tingle Leg and Juan Williams...You gotta be friggin' kidding me. I watched the clip. He called him "Juan." The audience was still booing Juan Williams' idiotic question. Newt had to pause. What the HELL are you talking about?

I keep telling you people. If we've got to the point where white liberals are now conjuring up fake racism out of thin air, more common sense white people are going turn their backs on Obama. Don't say I didn't warn you. But keep it up.

PhinePhancy. Didn't you see where I wrote "figuratively?" I mean that America needs to get back to the ideals and values that made her great. Since the last 4 decades of liberal values and ideals are what has been tearing her down, the more we can destroy the liberal way of thinking, the better.

You know what is offensive, phine?

Louis j popping up here on a regular basis with nothing to say but the GOP is racist.

Anyone with that kind of tunnel vision that beats and beats and beats that tired old drum is pathetic.

Then the Libs R Us gang line up in order to agree with him! Again, pathetic.

Must suck to see the world through a prism of nothing but racism.

Dude is a one trick pony with nothing of any value to add. Pretty damn sad.

WCA,

I don't hear him wanting to put an "end" to conservatives, even figuratively. We can disagree. Heck, that's what this site is all about. But wanting to "end" different opinions is wrong - for both sides. The exchange of ideas is a great way to move forward. Every conservative idea isn't bad, just as every liberal idea isn't bad. And, neither is every idea from both sides good. I just think wanting to "end" a different point of view, even figuratively is offensive.

Even if I disagree with you, many times, I don't want your point of view ended. Do you want mine ended?

Damage,

Two things come across very clearly in your posts.

One, subtlety is lost on you.

Two, you are filled with such venomous hatred that you are unable to reason or think clearly.

WCA,

You would do well to listen to what LouisJ has to say instead of employing your usual knee-jerk reaction to points of view you presume ("presume" being the key word here) you will not agree with.

Louis j popping up here on a regular basis with nothing to say but the GOP is racist.

Hasn't the GOP admitted to being racist when they admitted to, and apologized for, the Southern Strategy? They are still using it, as Newt demonstrated during that last debate.

Here is Lee Atwater in a 1981 interview explaining the evolution of the G.O.P.’s Southern strategy:

‘’You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘N***er, n***er, n***er.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘n***er’—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

‘’And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, ‘We want to cut this,’ is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘N***er, n***er.’‘’

Those are Lee Atwater's words, this is what the GOP has been doing for decades. When Newt Gingrich starts talking about "Food Stamp Presidents" he is using the Southern Strategy. Anybody who can't see that is being willfully ignorant.

nisl,

It is the divide and conquer plan. Lee Atwater would be very proud of today's GOP (wonder if he would feel bad for the country, though?)

Damage123

So which is it, Screwy Louie? Are we Klansmaen or Nazis? You need to figure that out. I figured that when the mentally disabled poster who called himself "Old Retired Navy" or whatever, quit showing up, the "Repubs are nazis" foolishness would stop. I was wrong.

HA! And here I always thought that backhouse or Louis J=navy they "sound" exactly alike to me.

Damage123 & White Collar Auto.......

Which candidate(s) are you two supporting? (HINT: "anyone but Obama" is not a candidate)

Newt vs. Obama would be an excellent campaign. It would be Mr. Tiffany vs. Mr. Hope. Mr. Tiffany would insist that Mr. Hope is pie in the sky, hopeful opium for an underclass that needs extra tough love. He would inveigh against government waste as if it were leprosy. Mr. Tiffany would tell the poor that they could shop at Tiffany's too if they would just get off their lazy arses and seek a paycheck rather than a handout. (Of course, it's been said before - but not with Churchillian eloquence.) Mr. Hope will counter that some people still need help - that self-reliance isn't the answer for everything. Mr. Tiffany will tell seniors that he is the man that can be trusted to save medicare and social security. He will proudly declare that Obamacare is evil (in thought and deed). Mr. Hope will counter that our current health system is both cruel and expensive and that moderate conservatives such as Nixon supported the ideas behind "Obamacare". The debates should be both instructive as well interlaced with fireworks. Make it possible Republicans! Give us a true choice, not a warmed over Poppy Bush who will double-talk on the stump and who doesn't know the price of bread. Be bold!

In 2008, if you voted for Obama to prove you're not racist, then in 2012, you have to vote against him to prove you're not stupid.

Ahhh a discussion about racism, started off by someone claiming that the GOP has their robes drying and sitting around the table in all grand wizard style. Let's never mention how many wizards there are or were in the democrat party. Of course the democrat party is snow white without any flaws when it comes to racism... of course we won't mention how the left demonizes people like Clarence Thomas, Allen West, or even Herman Cain. How many mentions of Uncle Toms have been written on this board alone? Of course that's not even close to racism... from the liberal point of view.

Louis - wash your own hands before you start claiming others have dirty feet. Liberals that supported his opinion - shame on you.

Seriously...enough of this "everyone who disagrees with the President is a racist" argument. Have you met me or my family? Do you know for a fact that we are all racists and Nazis and KKK members because we disagree with some of the President's policies? If this is what we can expect for the next 10 months or so, count me out.

Good post BeyondDEMOCRAT.....

But, Newt could be harder (than Romney) to beat. Wishes can be fickle.

Romney may well be the true incarnation of today's GOP. They are now much more about protecting the wealthy (e.g. Romney) than they are about social issues or even neo-con imperialism. So, the double-talking, flip-flopper weaned to a silver spoon may well be the "true choice" while Newt is an anachronism.

Dennis, appreciate the information. Polls are so fluid but always interesting to see. Considering the nonstop attacks on any and all things President Obama for months by a sizable group of GOP candidates, Mr. President is doing fine.

Morning Dennis,

Great information. Thanks

Mr Obama has not felt the full frontal attack that he will. We in Michigan are already seeing about 5 blistering PAC attacks on Mr. Obama every evening here. full 30 second and 1 minute ad's. The Same can be said about Mr. Obama, but he doesnt really know who he is fighting yet. I expect the Democratic attacks to commence as soon as its clearer who they need to attack. Both myself and my wife are going to enjoy this year, regardless of the end results. It does look to be big city against middle of the country and north vs south.

America has judged a man's progress in most cases when he had a level playing field. It is not hard to find fault with President Obama's progress when for two of the last three years he has been in a boxing ring with one hand tied behind his back. Unless you cannot read, many on the Republican side of the aisle has openly stated that they will vote for none of his proposals however altruistic they may be. Some businessmen have openly stated that they will not hire one person so long as he is in office. Committee chairman, Republicans and some Democrats, refuse to bring legislation up for a vote if it means creating jobs. This type thinking can only be viewed as that old southern joke. A black man was buried up to his neck and the dogs were sicced on him, when he tried to bite back, he was hit with a stick and admonished to fight fair. How can any news outlet or polling organization not be cognizant of the President's inability to get the aid of Congress and some businesses when he is buried up to his neck with his hands tied behind his back and being admonished to fight fair. I would like to see what they would say about a losing Super Bowl team if all of the referees called only the fouls they made and none against the winners. America would be up and in arms against such an unfair game. Think about this when you read the polls about President Obama's lack of progress. Sysyphis never got the rock to the top of the hill either, the mythological roller was faced with the Gods always adding height to the mountain.

I do not like negative politics and political ads.

Why talk about what your opponent is not? Talk about what you ARE. If a candidate has a position. let him speak about that.

I try not to watch the ads. I try to listen to the candidate speak about themself.

Excellent post fielden. More should listen to you.

N.C. Thornton, fielden, nice posts.

They discuss bombing Iran as if it were a trip to the store for ice cream.

Exactly, Jody.

Great Post Jody, and as Romney has picked as advisors, almost every neo-con, including that numbskull, John Bolton,from the Bush administration, it isn't hard to see where they will go if given the chance. Wonder where they'd get the funds for those ventures?

They will get them by stopping any type of recovery we are seeing and driving us into another great depression. The kind where a small handful of "vulture capitalist" will profit from the depressed values of US companies.

I am as I say an independent so I am open minded to an alternative to Obama, but any candidate that points us to war with Iran and says he will build the biggest military in history is not getting my vote. I don't care what party he's from.

I guess it's better to murder, individually, their nuclear scientists- as has been done to two of them in recent days.

Now, I'm no Paulite, nor am I sad that ObL is dead, but there remains an interesting question-

Jimmy Carter got enacted a law precluding this government from assassinating foreign leaders, whoever they might be. It was a naive law, one that saw the world through rose colored glasses- but the does, still, exist.

Perhaps one of the cult members can inform the board as to why, exactly, Obama is exempt from this law. See, my understanding is that, no matter how bad a law might be, breaking it because it is inconvenient is not the acceptable thing to do- one must actively seek to change said law.

Obama has never done that- so, what gives?

They'd do as Cheney/Bush did. They'd, as the tea people GOP republicans like to say put it on Americas credit card and keep it out of the budget so they could say they didn't increase the deficit. Then every tea people GOP republican congressman would go out on the talk show circuit Fox (aka tea people GOP republican Propaganda machine) in-particular and rail about how the Democrats spent all that money on the Iran war. Of course Romney and the neo-cons would be hiding in their bunkers like Cheney/Bush.

It has been frustrating listening to this year's particularly clueless group of GOP wannabees; as Chris Matthews said, they're like the bar scene in Star Wars. In 2008, we heard tough talk but the candidates seemed mindful of what they said and how they said it. McCain made a stupid joke, realized it and backed off. Candidates from both sides discussed Iran, the middle east in terms of diplomacy, how best to use diplomacy.

The fact that Romney's foreign policy advisor team consists entirely of Bush/Cheney failures and neo-conservatives who were discredited and basically black balled from Washington DC should be reason enough not to vote for him. They only place we have seen these characters until Romney brought them back was FOX.

No Joe, do you have proof to support your statement about the Iranian scientist or is it just an assumption because Iran blamed Israel and the US? I stopped believing what Iran claimed years ago. There are a number of Middle Eastern countries that also do not want to see Iran obtain nuclear weapons. I would not rule those countries out of the equation.

As for your second comment, Osama bin Ladin was which foreign country's leader? Thought he was a terrorist that Bush sat in the Oval Office and said he wanted "dead or alive". Your hatred of President Obama clearly clouds any ability for rational thinking.

Moving on...

Great post, Jody. I was imagining yesterday the phone call that Hillary Clinton had to make to her counterpart in Turkey-----trying to explain what an idiot Rick Perry. Then I thought it was probably a very easy call--she just said to ignore him, he's from Texas---you know, the same state as George Bush. 'Nuff said.

NoJo ... do you have any proof that the Obama administration ordered the murder of the Iranian nuclear scientists?

Bye the bye, nuclear scientists are not national leaders and neither was Bin Laden.

I guess it's better to murder, individually, their nuclear scientists- as has been done to two of them in recent days.

Now, I'm no Paulite, nor am I sad that ObL is dead, but there remains an interesting question-

Jimmy Carter got enacted a law precluding this government from assassinating foreign leaders, whoever they might be. It was a naive law, one that saw the world through rose colored glasses- but the does, still, exist.

Perhaps one of the cult members can inform the board as to why, exactly, Obama is exempt from this law. See, my understanding is that, no matter how bad a law might be, breaking it because it is inconvenient is not the acceptable thing to do- one must actively seek to change said law.

Obama has never done that- so, what gives?

Are you the same "no joe" who last night advocated the President making the unilateral decision to send food to a place like Syria?

...you know, because they love us so much in Syria.

...and now you're going to take your talking points from Iran when they claim their nuclear scientists were murdered?

Really?

...and, yes, please answer Jody's question...I'm dying to know what foreign nation was lead by Osama bin Laden!

I am sorry, NoJo cannot come to the phone right now. She is very busy being fitted with a straight jacket.

Ideology,

Good morning. Keeping those legs warm?

I am wearing nay but a bathrobe and boots as I need to put out the recycle bin fast.

The other thing I wonder about is how the Republicans plan to pay for the war they want to have against Iran. They aren't willing to raise taxes and they've already agreed to military cuts by virtue of the failure of the Super Committee so where is the money to come from?

Ideology,

It is 61, overcast - with a few sprinkles. I am in my sweats with the heat on. I am such a wimp.

"so where is the money to come from?"

A future generation? I am sure however, that Haliburton & Co. are licking their chops ... anyone know how much income tax they paid lately?

We have listened to debates and campaign stump speeches in which republican candidates consistently make irresponsible, war-hawk, threatening comments. This is simply reckless; it is uninformed and misguided tough talk. Anyone with a reasonable thought process understands that talk about invading Iran, bombing Iran merely adds to the mistrust and high anxiety. UN and USA sanctions have Iran between a rock and a hard place; they express themselves by threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz. Tensions are high in the middle east yet the candidates continue pushing nonsense and discussing situations about which they have zero information. It is the equivalent of throwing gasoline on a fire and then stepping back and wondering why the house burned down or why Iran is behaving even crazier than they already were.

So exactly correct Jody! And to think Dr. Paul got booed for saying the same thing!

I felt physically ill when I was watching the debates and the war-mongering got cheers and non-interventionism got booed. *shakes head sadly* yet I guarantee not one of the war-mongers on that stage would send any of THEIR sons or daughters.

Dick Cheney says deficits do not matter.

No Joe,

Carter issued an executive order which is not the same as a law. His order was a reaffirmation of an executive order issued by Ford following a rash of exposes' of CIA assasination attempts on Castro. Reagan reaffirmed the order while still attempting to kill Quadafi and Somoza. The assasination of opposition leaders has almost always been a practice prohibited by almost all nations and been solely the province of terrorists and internal opposition. It is a strategy doomed to failure and unending warfare such as the assasination of Franz Joseph touching off WW I. Only an idiot like Gingrich would publically call for the murder of civilian scientists and researchers. The acceptance and recognition of such tactics as an acceptable exercise in governance would lead to retribution on an unimagineable scale.

jkh

Steeler Fan-380417

Then I thought it was probably a very easy call--she just said to ignore him, he's from Texas---you know, the same state as George Bush. 'Nuff said.

Yes he's an idiot but it has nothing to do with being from Texas, that was rude.

SF, had to smile on the Hillary phone call. Wouldn't surprise me if she really did say something close to that and Turkey would say, ahh, yes, we see.

1SGFitzs, yes Dr. Paul did get booed for criticizing the rest on their tough talk. As for Steeler Fan's comment, it was a joke. Not all Texans are like Bush and Perry but they were both Texas governors and both clueless.

Jim Hayes, thanks for adding the details.

Now I'm watching Newt rise in the SC polls behind Romney, with as many military posts as there are in SC you'd think they'd be tired of war too.

Didn't mean to snap about the Texas comment, I'm just sick of seeing it.

As far as SC, I'm for Newt, Perry or Paul, because Willard needs to be taken down a notch. Hopefully, their actions will make him spend money and have to earn the nomination. For every dollar spent against these guys, means less spent against President Obama.

I took the statement as an endorsement of........Palin.....in a fantasy to have no candidate by the time of the convention and for them all to turn to ...... Sarah Palin.

Steeler Fan 380417, I had to laugh when she said they needed a candidate to be vetted.

I only want Paul, Job1, the rest of them mean more wars, more dead soldiers, and bankruptcy no thanks.

I'm sorry, 1SGFitzsWife4ID, but Ron Paul means "more wars, more dead soldiers...." on our own soil!! He has no understanding of "why" we do what we do abroad. I hate it too---that we seem to "police" the planet---but, now it's just a matter of "keeping them over there". No successful terrorist attacks over here (since 9-11), is not just luck....we keep them confused and running in their own "backyards" so we don't have to deal with them in ours. My point is that "isolationism" is just not feasible anymore.....I hate it, just like you, but that's the world we live in anymore.

lisa---we can only hope the vetting isn't done by the same folks who vetted Sarah Palin for John McCain!!

Steeler fan, That's what I was laughing at.

Texson, there's a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism, until you learn that difference we'll have to agree to disagree.

Meant FOUR homeless men.

I was wondering where the homeless were getting the money to hire an assassin!

I read the story. It is extremely sad, both for the killer and those he killed. And, a reflection on all of us - especially those in power who are supposed to help our returning heros and those with no hope.

phinephancy, sad story.

Jody,

Just broke my heart. And yet all everyone cares about is if Sarah is endorsing Newt or just voting for him or if it is her latest bid for attention (for the record, I think it is the latter).

phine--there are plenty of places to comment on other stories that interest us or touch us. This is a political blog. Just because the folks who post here care about politics doesn't mean they don't care about other issues.

Steeler,

I am well aware of that. I was trying to prove the point that there are more things going on in the world. And it is FT's. Those were mine. I have seen many others post thoughts in this thread that nothing to do what was written. I guess that does not apply to me.

phine- you know what irritated me most about the vet killing the homeless vet story?

The very fact that people had a candle light vigil for him, where the heck were they BEFORE he died? He's only worth now that he's dead? I don't know for some reason that just chapped my buttocks.

Excellent point. We need to look hard at ourselves and the way we treat our veterans. We ask these folks to go out and fight, then ignore their needs when they get home. And, to me, it is not a partisan political fight, it is an American fight to do what is right for those who answer the call of duty.

1SGFitzsWife4ID, the media sells "sensationalism"...."a homeless vet" doesn't sell until "a tragic death" is added to the story. I agree with you, but that's how the media works.

1SGFitzsWife4ID, the media sells "sensationalism"...."a homeless vet" doesn't sell until "a tragic death" is added to the story. I agree with you, but that's how the media works.

That's probably less than the interest paid on the money he made chopping up the companies he 'invested' in and sold off. So, yeah, that is chump change for Mittens.

When you're making four or five times what a skilled tradesman makes annually, it's only part of your income and you describe it as "not much", you've basically painted a self-portrait depicting yourself as out of touch!

It is compared to what Mr Clinton makes per speech. Af do you despise rich democrats or just republicans?

Please tell us where Obama's wealth comes from. I mean, we know he had a crooked land deal with his buddy Tony Rezko, but how do you get "rich" from being a community organizer ??

Selling books. Just like those running for office in the GOP. BTW, jim, I am still waiting to hear about that website to go to so I can get paid.

I suppose if Gingrich and Perry had better community organizing skills they might be on the ballot in Virginia, eh? ;-)

Willard really has difficulty speaking with that silver spoon stuck in his mouth.

Jody,

Your comment reminded me of the Ann Richards' speech about "poor George" and his "silver foot" :)

phine if you go to your account on newsvine there's a spot in there (click on earnings) that they pay for posting I wouldn't try to get rich if I were you though, I've been posting since APR 2008 and I've got a whopping $1.16 lol

but if you want a website for getting paid to do surveys (you won't get rich doing it either but it makes a little spending money) I can give you a good site.

And Obama's voice is always so muffled from his head being up his ass.

Silly me .. all this time I thought chump-change were the coins I found in the washer. I've been jilted by the GOP/TP again .. now chump-change is the few hundred thousand that tickles down into my checking account.

Jim,

You seem to have the inability to use the internet for even the most basic of research.When Obama entered the Senate the Obamas were worth between $200K and $300k ranking 50th in the Senate. Wealth increased greatly with the publishing of Dreams of My Father and The Audacity of Hope. Much of their earnings have been reinvested in TBills, an investment in America. Open Secrets is a good start for you opinion without knowledge leads inevitably to self delusion. Still waiting for that job application.

jkh

1SG,

I was just coming back at jim for saying folks are being PAID trolls who come out early and post. It is a charge the right likes to throw at the left. I just wanted him to prove what he was saying.

I don't want to be paid. It is fun to come out here and do a little rabble rousing - and voice my opinion!

phine,

Did Obama write those books or did someone write them for him ? I understand that there are some inconsistencies in writing styles. Did Bill Ayres write books and Obama's name wind up on it somehow ?

Also, I wouldn't get too big on quoting Ann Richards ! Yes, she made a cute little smack-down comments that all libtards seem to love, but the woman had a serious problem with alcohol and had admitted to that

Jim Hayes----good post. This information is also available on the Obama's tax returns (which are posted every year) where it shows that he receives royalty income from the publication of his books as well as his salary as President. The President is the first one to admit that he and his family are well off and that he believes they should pay a higher tax rate.

jim,

Yes he wrote the books. However, you are so steeped in ODS and your distaste for anyone who has a point of view different from you it is sad.

A lot of people have had problems with alcohol. Ask former President Bush about that.

FYI, I am a progressive, not a "libtard" Name calling does nothing but embarrass yourself.

Where's my paycheck?

phine,

Apparently. reading comprehension is not one of your stronger suits. I said "all libtards seem to love" without naming you. Then, of course, you claim you are a "progressive" which should further the notion that I did not call you any name.

Now, please tell me where did I specifically refer to YOU as a paid troll ! If you cannot or will not do that, then your "gnat-like" regurgitation of where you go to get paid is totally meaningless.

I made a statement which you have taken as personally directed at you, which was not the case, and you've been crying in your Cheerrios ever since. I made no direct reference to Jim Hayes either.

You're right, Allen. The word "liberal" gets me all tingly and excited. In fact, I get more excited than Bawney Fwank when he hears the words "Dick Armey."

All aboard the Cain Train for Stephen Colbert! As Mr. Colbert said, "Cain Train" rhymes better than "Get in the shower stall with Ron Paul!"

Since she moved to Arizona, do you think she's delusional enough to run for some form of office? wink-wink. ;-)

Like it or not, Sarah Palin is still relevant to many except left-wing liberals who believe in the ongoing expansion of federal government to control every aspect of our daily lives.

Incorporate your uterus! After all, "corporations are people, my friend" ;-)

Women have balls their just higher up! (*)(*)

jim,

Where do I go to get paid?

PhinePhancy- I doubt if Mr. Limbaugh would pay you as much as he pays me, or even at all. For one thing, you are a liberal. Haven't you heard? It's only evil Repubs that get paid to be on here. Also, you are not a totally unhinged liberal poster like some of the others here who Mr. Limbaugh pays to come here and make idiotic, satirical (yet sadly true-to-life) versions of what liberal posts should look like. Like "Pat , Boston" for example.

phinephancy,

Please show me where I named you SPECIFICALLY as a paid troll !

Just look at the "frenzy" caused when someone mentions the name "Palin".......apparently she's far from "irrelevant" so far as the media's concerned.....her name still sells Headlines!

Oh, I don't know about that. If the debate audience is any indication, racism might just carry the day for ole Newt.

Oh...like this story?

technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/18/10177219-wikipedia-goes-dark-on-piracy-bill-protest-day

Seems like Ms. Laura has a walking...chewing gum kinda thing going.

How about the story that the House is going to make a "statement" vote against the debt ceiling? How about that story Laura?

Because the media is dead set on painting him as evil for being successful.

A successful tax dodger, you mean. It's not his income, it's the fact that the 15% of his income that Romney admits he pays in taxes is a lower percentage than most other Americans above the median income pay that's causing him problems.

or, apparently, its because his chief rival, newt, is dead set on painting him as evil for being successful.

Obama Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner would be a successful tax dodger. A person who intelligently invests his money to lower his tax liability is smart. The fact that you made these comments justifies his reluctance to want to release it.

it all has to do with what KIND of income it is. In a few years when I retire, I wont have an working income tax either. Since my income will all come from investments. Sometimes the volume of the Din your in clouds the future you will be in.

vermontguy,

Romney found ways to attack Gingrich and Gingrich has now found ways to fight back. It's primary politics big 'un...... nothing new.

Houston!

"A successful tax dodger, you mean...."

You obviously don't know a whole lot about how economics work.....and to your point (other than just Romney-bashing), Romney has never dodge paying taxes. You must have him confused with guys like "Geitner" and "Wrangle".......and, oh yeah, something about Kerry moving his yacht away from Mass. so he didn't have to pay taxes on it. Are you sure that's a "fight" that the Left really wants??

Newt has an excellent record: balancing the budget, welfare reform, lots of new jobs.

Now, as opposed to attacking Gingrich, how about you telling us all about Obama's accomplishments?

And, please...spare us the "Obama killed Osama". To use that only demonstrates how weak Obama really is as POTUS.

Now, as opposed to attacking Gingrich, how about you telling us all about Obama's accomplishments?

• Saved the country from a second Great Depression.
• Saved the auto industry.
• Signed the Lilly Ledbetter law giving women the right to sue for discrimination based on gender.
• Abolished "Don't Ask Don't Tell"
• Helped overthrow the Libyan dictator without a single US casualty and without having to lie us into a war like Bush did.
• Signed financial reform into law to help avert another economic catastrophe and keep consumers from being screwed by loan sharks and credit card companies.

And, please...spare us the "Obama killed Osama". To use that only demonstrates how weak Obama really is as POTUS.

Getting the terrorist that George Bush couldn't get shows weakness? You apparently are in the terminal stages of Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Steven...you hit on something. Do you have a listing of what regulatory and/or tax laws that exist today and/or have been created by the Obama Administration that if in affect during Newt's tenure as Speaker would have not made those lots of new jobs?

And moreso a question to the GOP, if you Newt's excellent record was as you claim, how worse was Newt's ethics violations to the tune that he was removed from the Speakership by his own Party and as a Rep from his District compared to such an excellent record?

Look them up. President Obama's Great accomplishments are all public records.

You guys are showing signs of short term memory. I myself remember how bad the economy and unemployment were under President Bush and getting worst up to his last days in office.

So actually the truth is, President Obama inherited this incredible brink of depression mess from President Bush and President Obama has done a good job of turning the country around.

I honestly have to say anyone that doesn’t recognize this fact is pretty out of touch with reality.

Houston...... before you annoit Mr Obama for saving the auto industry you may want to ask all the people (retirees mostly) whos portfolio contained old Auto Manf stock. They are still a bit pissed off, in fact around my home in Florida that are a lot of pissed off retired autoworkers.

Is anyone not po'd at anyone anymore?

Obama has spent countless trillions to bring our country out of a recession, and it has pretty much failed. The Stimulus was a bust, it simply did not work. Ford Motor Company was not bailed out and the bail-out of GM only protected the unfunded union pensions while screwing GM bondholders by ignoring liquidation priorities in the process. The GM stock our government currently owns is worth substantially less now than what our government paid for it. Chrysler has been taken over and is now controlled by a foreign company. Then there is the wasted millions on Solyndra and other companies Obama supported .... totally against any common sense.

The worst "accomplishment" is the imposition of Obamacare..... yet another government takeover of 1/6 of our economy, another entitlement program our country cannot afford.

Meanwhile, our country's debt has risen above $15 trillion and Obama wants MORE ! Our President does not understand financial matters. He is and always will be A SALESMAN.

Ask, and it shall be given.

With the "Republicans blocking everything that Obama and the Democrats try to do",how did they get anything done?

Jim - good post but the folks with O-blinders won't likely be able to accept this

I agree with you, Jim....except "salesman" doesn't quite fit for Obama....I was thinking more like "Con-Artist", ja think?

slodon, wipe yer mouth---ya got a "Kool-Aid" mustache showin! lol

@ JollyOld Soul,

Tell me Jolly, how much would their retirement accounts mean if theauto industry went bankrupt? Would we the taxpayer step in and honor those commitments?

so would the LIZARD - sadly, he (the LIZARD) would be at a sever disadvantage. Newtie can't hold up to the President

Newt doesn't wipe floors. He pays poor inner city school children less than minimum wage to do it instead of studying.

Newt doesn't wipe floors. He pays poor inner city school children less than minimum wage to do it instead of studying.

Ouchie! Well played!

i'm sure you would love it, but its unlikely. Obama does fine on debates, and its just as likely that newt would get angry and blow up.

of course, no matter what happened, people like you would declare that newt "wiped the floor". lol.

and vice versa!

A debate with Newt is simple.

One question....."Newt how many ethics violations did you have before you were booted from politics?"

Game over for Newt!!!

Newt has no where the IQ and education Obama has, somehow the repulican party never gets that DUMB people are mostly republican and they convince OTHER DUMB people they are smart.

Case in point when someone thinks Newt is well education and actually an academic.

That would be enjoyable, except Newt (who's books I enjoy) has got way too much "baggage" to stand in a Obama debate. Everytime Newt would (legitimately) bring up Obama's record and past, Obama would do the same to Newt. It would just be a p!$$ing contest, I'm afraid....ROMNEY IN 2012!

I was just thinking.....with the Supreme Court now ready to take a serious look at the Obama-birth record scandal (which I really don't care about, except "falsifying federal documents for fraudulent purposes" carries a stiff penalty), and the strong talk about kickin "O-Biden" out for incompetence (maybe to be replaced by Hillary), shouldn't the Dems be thinkin more about an "Emergency Primary" of their own, other than wasting so much time trying to discredit the Republican Primary candidates??

You're right, he's no resume-less community organizer....

,'-D

I was just thinking.....with the Supreme Court now ready to take a serious look at the Obama-birth record scandal (which I really don't care about, except "falsifying federal documents for fraudulent purposes" carries a stiff penalty), and the strong talk about kickin "O-Biden" out for incompetence (maybe to be replaced by Hillary), shouldn't the Dems be thinkin more about an "Emergency Primary" of their own, other than wasting so much time trying to discredit the Republican Primary candidates??

I was just thinking.....with the Supreme Court now ready to take a serious look at the Obama-birth record scandal...

Uh, no...if you believe the Supreme Court is about to take a serious look at the non-issue of the President's birth certificate then, no, sadly, you were not thinking.

Yes, there have been attempts to have the Supreme Court review the President's birth certificate but all have been rejected and there is currently nothing on the docket about the "nontroversy".

Sorry...try again.

I don't think anyone, including msnbc, is afraid of ron paul. Romney or newt would be more likely to appeal to moderates and independents, and that is the key to winning. Ron appeals to his fervent fans, but that ain't doing it.

Every poll shows that Paul has zero chance against Obama. I really hope his inflated ego causes him to run as a third party candidate. He's never really been a Republican anyway.

they're not ignoring him today ranman, Dr. Paul is in DC doing his JOB right now (voting against raising the debt ceiling)

They are not voting on raising the debt ceiling. That "deal" was already agreed on. You remember, the great deal that resulted in an S&P downgrade the GOP/TP are responsible for? Amnesia must be a virus. "we got 98% of what we wanted".John Boehner.

guess I'm the only one who read the last paragraph Cynthia?

Meanwhile, Paul is MIA from the campaign trail and returns to DC to vote against raising the nation’s debt ceiling.

1SGFitzsWife4ID , "Kevorkian" was also a "doctor" (with much of the same appearance and ideals as Paul). So I guess that's not really a "selling point" for Ron Paul..... Even so, I'd much rather give Paul a shot as Obama, though our national condition might remain the same.

I don't know what your comment had to do with Dr. Paul being in DC to vote against raising the debt ceiling Texson, but I didn't have anything against Dr. Kevorkian either, I find it interesting that the only "right to choose" we have is abortions, but we can't end our own suffering?

As the crowd stood up and gave Newt a standing oulvation, I looked at my wife and said "did you hear that?" she said..... what? I said that sound? She said........ now I get it..... it was the sound of liberals heads exploding in big cities all over America.

Houston, YOU have a problem !

Your remarks are off-target and inflammatory as usual. You know jack$hit about burning crosses other than what the liberal Hollywood media has spoon fed you. ANYONE who dares to go up against your beloved Obama is now a racist, or klan member or whatever other garbage you can spew. In case you've forgotten, it was Conservatives who came to Juan Williams defense when he was shafted by National Public Radio.

Grow a pair...... talk about real issues and quit playing the race card over and over and over again.... ad nauseam. If that's "all you got", then you will expose the weak-minded liberal mindset for Obama's re-election campaign.

Jim,

Where do I go to get paid for posting here?

You will have to ask Mr.Soros about that. I am still looking for some substance in your posts.

Who said I was referring to you in my original post anyway ? I had several other names in mind but it seems like I have struck a nerve with you. Do I need to get an Internet Restraining Orderr for you (just kidding, of course) but you do seem to now be obsessed and stalking my every post.

Still looking for a substantive post from you ....... you know, not chat, something about the story.

I would suggest you go through some of my posts. Some, I believe are have some substance. You might disagree with them, but you might try reading them with an open mind.

And I kept asking you about the pay simply because I find such charges made by anyone, on any side, insulting and demeaning. Since you have now answered, I will leave you alone about it.

Have a nice Wednesday.

You still did not answer MY question about "Where did I specifically name YOU as a paid troll".

I find your cop-out rather ridiculous. Is this the way you run from an argument you know you cannot defend ?

Am I gonna have to separate you two!! lol

jim-1455434

Houston, YOU have a problem !

Oh, how original of you!

ANYONE who dares to go up against your beloved Obama is now a racist

Your remarks are big fat lies as usual. I never said that ANYONE who dares goes up against Obama is racist. But the racism was so thick at the South Carolina hate rally you could cut it with knife. South Carolina is the state that still flies the flag of slavery and racism over its state capitol, and Newt was pandering to the audience you might expect in such a state.

Ya think?

Yes, I don't see why the FR people are so hesitant to admit the obvious: Romney didn't want to release his tax returns because the low taxes he pays on income gained on investments is less than the tax rates of people who do honest work for a living.

Houston, again you have a problem ! Earning income on investments is not "dishonest" .... it is, in fact, what most intelligent citizens do to prepare for their kids' college educations or an unexpected but expensive foundation repair or for something evil called "retirement". Furthermore, Mr. Romney has not created existing tax law.

It seems like you are more than willing to risk your credibility by making foolish attacks and trying to ascribe negative connotations to something quite normal.

The problem isn't a return on his investments. The problem with his candidacy is he says he knows how to create jobs when he hasn't been working himself for 10 years (other than running for President) and he is living off of those returns and paying a 15% tax rate. The problem is he is extraordinarily wealthy during a time when most middle class Americans are struggling and he is so out of touch with those people! Most people dream about making $375,000 a year and he swatted it away as "not a lot of money." My family is upper middle class and I was horrified that he would discount any amount as being "not a lot" when most families have trouble putting food on the table. He's extremely insensitive. That says a lot about his experience. Born into wealth - handed everything - then making money as a corporate raider. Not a good person to be representing the GOP during a very tough economic time.

jim-1455434

Houston, again you have a problem ! Earning income on investments is not "dishonest" .

It's not work, either. And Romney's 15% rate is lower than the rate at which people making the median income are taxed. Sorry, but it's Romney who has a problem, not me.

Jay, your final effort will be to give Odumbo four more years. No thanks, even if my candidate doesn't get the nod ( Newt ) I will vote for whoever the nominee is because we can't afford four more years of Odumbo and gang.

Who is "Odumbo"?

Da Noid

Who is "Odumbo"?

Maybe it's what settersperch's teachers called him in high school.

"Odumbo" is Barack Hussein Obama.

If you clowns want to call Romney "Mittens" or Gingrinch creative stuff like "Grinch" or "Newtie", then expect equal treatment.

If you clowns want to call Romney "Mittens" or Gingrinch creative stuff like "Grinch" or "Newtie", then expect equal treatment.

Can I still call them "Willard" and "Newton"?

Whatever makes your day !

how about "mitt the sh!t" and "newt the pig faced puke"?

How about "Obama the Inexperienced and Incompetent". Never elect a rookie to the highest office in the land ..... only about 2 years in the Senate before his ambitions overtook what little common sense he ever had.

obama paid a tax rate of 26% and released his taxes unlike romney whos frantically trying to cover up his investments in chinese companies as reported by the BBC or how Bain has sold us companies to foreign owners- hmm it seems mitt is more interested in making money off our enemies and competors then helping the american people- in any other election id say Obama would lose but once Robo romney is picked Obama will most likely win when Mitts "money" is traced!

Obama did not release his personal tax information until APRIL of 2008 .... after he had the nomination in hand. The expectation that Romney must do so now is TOTALLY DISINGENUOUS on your part.

Your attempt to hold him to a higher level of scrutiny is predictable from a liberal.

Until yesterday, Romney had never agreed to release his tax information at all. I'm not sure he has but it sounded like that--unless he changes his mind.

It is his fellow Republicans who are asking for it to be released now---while the decision about their candidate is being made.

I would love for you guys to ask Chris Christie to release his personal tax records ! Oh, to be a fly on the wall..... I can hear it now:

"Hell no ! It's none of your damn business !! It's called a Personal tax return, because it's PERSONAL".

jim,

Christie said this morning on "Morning Joe" that Gov. Romney should release his returns.

Christie supports Romney and now realizes that this has become a sticking point as of last night's debate.

I stand by my prior statement of predicting Christie's response WERE he in the race at this time.

Then Romney is less honest than his father?

At this point, Dr. Paul is a non-factor. The GOP establishment is NEVER going to let him be the party nominee.

...although, it does beg the question...why hasn't there been more discussion about the GOP audience in South Carolina booing The Golden Rule?

Seriously...the GOP now cheers lifting restrictions on child labor and letting an uninsured patient die but boos an American soldier simply because he is gay and boos The Golden Rule. Are you kidding me?

Ahh yes, the old saying of "kill em all and let God sort em out" runs very deep.

We are much too savage a species to be the descendants of any god.

Noid - Lifting of restrictions on child labor? Really?Where did anyone say get a 40 hour a week job? Why give them some responsibility? Because a part time job is better than playing video games when it comes to life lessons. I worked since I was 15. My 11 year old son walks and takes care of neighborhood dogs (for a year now and it started out being one neighbor) and makes his own way for his "wants" and pulls straight A's. Just like Newt said in the debate, only ones against working are the elite.

why hasn't there been more discussion about the GOP audience in South Carolina booing The Golden Rule?

The GOP likes the Golden Rule just fine - "He who has the gold makes the rules." OH, you meant that other Golden Rule...

Talk to the Hand...good reply post, but you're wasting your time with this bunch. Look at how they twist things and promote complete lies...these people are beyond reason, or rational debate...the Obama generation...LOL

"Talk to the Hand"

Please tell me what about the existing laws inhibits a teenager's ability to get a part-time job now?

Now, I totally agree with you...a kid with a part-time job is going to learn more that a kid with an XBox. I think it's great that your son has a dog-walking "business'. That's not what we're taking about here.

Say there's a law that limits the total hours per week that a minor can work part-time. Well, we'll eliminate that law. Now, little Jimmy works at the local McDonalds. In walks his boss to tell him, "Jimmy, you have to be available to work an extra 6 hours each week. If you can't, I'll fire you." So, hmmm, does little Jimmy agree to the extra hours which might take him away from something important like...oh, I dunno...studying or does he lose the job?

Da Niod

First of all there has to be A JOB AT MCDONALDS but 99% are filled by illegals here ......

Noid - I still have to ask who is suggesting repealing the law? Newt says give them a job to teach them the fulfillment and satisfaction of working and reaping the rewards.

And BTW, thanks for the civil response. Knowing your "jersey" and the "main-liners" you usually agree with on the vine, it was quite refreshing.

These teabagger repug states have laws in the works to repeal child labor laws, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, New Hampshire just to name a few. The repugs have been after these laws for over 60 years saying they are 'unconstitutional'

Because there is no substantial dirt...